Hey guys, Just wondering if i could maybe get a little advice. So a few months ago I was charged with race motor vehicle, and given a summons. I was riding with 2 of my friends and we were in a residential area, on adelaide w to be exact. There were speed bumps all down the road, I was riding my friends bike and he was riding mine. My other friend ended up laying his bike down due to a pedestrian popping out at the last second, long story short we stopped and started helping my friend that fell.

5 minutes go by and police show up, and according to a witness he heard loud exhausts from motorcycles, we went by at a high rate of speed and he was scared for his safety. The officer ended up charging us all with racing, saying we were "jockeying for the lead."

Now, on my disclosure they made a few mistakes, as my friend was driving 2 of the motorcycles meanwhile I was riding one of them. On one page it says I was riding my own bike meanwhile I was riding my friends. I was wondering if there's anyway I would be able to fight this myself, any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

I believe you've been charged under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act.

This is one of the more serious charges. You may want to consider finding a paralegal or lawyer, rather than fighting it yourself. Or accept a plea deal to a lesser charge on your summons date.

If convicted, you will face a fine of $2,000 to $10,000 or up to 6 months imprisonment, or both. Your license may also be suspended for up to 2 years, or you will receive 6 demerit points.

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her drivers licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or

(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

The only hope I see for you here is that the police were not there to witness what happened. Police obviously have relied, and will continue to rely, on the witness's statement. Depending on the witness's strength, a good lawyer or paralegal should be able to cross-examine him "successfully." If you're already noticing inconsistencies, a good representative may be able to punch bigger holes in the witness's story. It's worth a consultation.