SET 1 (10 Units): Some of the Units below may contain unknown facts. To see different Units, tap the "?" below.   Unit 101 There are 4 reds at the bottom of this page — they are part of an exercise that involves remembering them in the year 2040. Remembering them will be easy for some, difficult for others, and impossible for the man in this video.     Clip 101 > 15 seconds from 00:08 to 00:23     Unit 102 Due to various factors (including the oddball effect), our perception of time is sometimes different than clock-based time; for example, some viewers feel one of the 10-second clips below seems shorter than the other clips.     Clip 102A > 10 seconds from 01:00 to 01:10     Clip 102B > 10 seconds from 11:12 to 11:22     Clip 102C > 10 seconds from 00:15 to 00:25     Clip 102D > 10 seconds from 01:11 to 01:21     Clip 102E > 10 seconds from 00:46 to 00:56     Clip 102F > 12 seconds from 04:51 to 05:03     Unit 103 Eyewitnesses can provide compelling legal testimony; however, their memories are subject to errors and biases.     Clip 102 > 1 min 5 sec from 0:02 to 1:07     Unit 104 Some police forces use high resolution cameras with low light capabilities and ultra-long range lenses to catch distracted drivers from more than 1 km away. These cameras can be operated by remote control. According to Transport Canada, distracted driving contributed to an estimated 25% of serious injury collisions in 2021. People, organizations, and countries base some of their most important decisions on statistics and organized data; however, there are ways this information can mislead and manipulate.     Clip 104A > 10 seconds from 0:01 to 0:11     Clip 104B > 2 min 44 sec from 0:06 to 2:50     Clip 104C > 1 min 33 sec from 0:06 to 1:39     Unit 105 It's legal to break the law if you use the "Defence of Necessity" which requires you to prove 3 things: 1) There was an imminent peril or danger.  2) There was no reasonable, legal alternative to the illegal course of action you took.  3) The harm (if any) you inflicted was proportional to the harm you avoided. Example: R. v. Morris (1994): A driver charged with speeding was in the left lane when a speeding vehicle approached from behind. She used the "Defense of Necessity" to justify why she exceeded the speed limit to pass the vehicles on her right so she could change lanes and get out of the way of the vehicle behind her.     Unit 106 R. v. Sangha (2020): The driver was seen holding a cell phone in his hand on his thigh after picking it up from the floor after a sudden stop. The driver said he had to pick it up due to safety concerns; however, the "Defence of Necessity" does not apply in this case. R. v. Jahani (2017): Police saw Jahani holding his phone while stopped at a red light. Jahani explained he was plugging in the phone to charge it. The court upheld Jahani’s conviction and said charging a phone is ‘using’ one of its functions because even momentarily engaging with a device’s functions while driving can be considered ‘use’ under Section 214.2(1) of the BC Motor Vehicle Act.     Unit 107 If you are rear-ended while turning left at a place that is not an intersection, you are partially liable for the crash. BC Motor Vehicle Act Section 166: Do not turn left at a place that is not an intersection (a private driveway or a lane that's less than 5 m wide) unless you can turn safely without impeding traffic.     Unit 108 Some cities have bylaws requiring pedestrians to move, whenever practicable, on the right half of crosswalks.     Clip 108 > 25 seconds from 01:13 to 01:38     Unit 109 R. v. Skull (2013): Judge ruled that the crown doesn't need to prove that a hand-held cell phone is capable of transmitting or receiving. Grzelak v. BC (2019): The driver had earbuds in his ears and a dead phone in the dashboard's cubbyhole; therefore, the driver was holding part of an electronic device (the earbuds) in a position (in his ears) in which it could be used and it's irrelevant that the battery was dead.     Unit 110 A fundamental legal principle in most of the world is expressed as follows in Section 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada: "Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence."