Undertail / Integrated Tail Lights | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Undertail / Integrated Tail Lights

kwtoxman said:
You obviously don't know the case law and precedents pertaining to these issues either. At least I'm honest about it. :). Congrats on the appeal to authority logical fallacy too.
Click to expand...

And why would I have to go and say I did to be honest about it? I never referenced case law or precedent; you did. So put up or .....

For the record, you made a comment on how my interpretation worked for me "on the internet", I simply replied with a more accurate representation of my understanding regarding the regulation. No need to get all butt hurt. Have a good one :rolleyes:
 
I never referenced any case law or precedent. I qualified, with an explanation of the other relevant considerations, that this whole discussion (which includes everyone) is only taking into account the HTA and regulations.

No probs here, just trying to keep up with y'all. ;)

Some strange interpretations here of the signal light language for motorcycles in the safety reg. The key word is "operate" as well when considering the word "properly". Rob agreed with me wrt no signal lights (perhaps no more), http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...turn-signals&p=1713081&viewfull=1#post1713081
And a court rep's input on lighting requirements for motorcycles (no signals needed). http://www.ontarioticket.com/motor-vehicle-lighting.php
 
Last edited:
^^^^ and quit editing your post after people respond.. poor etiquette :p haha

kwtoxman said:
I never referenced any case law or precedent. I qualified, with an explanation of other considerations, that this whole discussion (which includes everyone) is only taking into account the HTA and regulations.

No probs here, just trying to keep up with y'all. ;)
Click to expand...

I took it as implied relevance.. like "this is what will happen and this is why", qualifying it at the end didn't nullify the inference for me. My bad.

Anywho.... It just occurred to me that I actually have an upcoming information session to attend at the end of the month regarding the July 1 regulation changes. This thing is being put on by the MTO directly, so if I have the opportunity, I will ask what defines "prescribed' and if there is any precedence to corroborate the answer I receive.
 
Last edited:
Neil_V said:
I took it as implied relevance.. like "this is what will happen and this is why", qualifying it at the end didn't nullify the inference for me. My bad.
Click to expand...

No probs again.

Neil_V said:
Anywho.... It just occurred to me that I actually have an upcoming information session to attend at the end of the month regarding the July 1 regulation changes. This thing is being put on by the MTO directly, so if I have the opportunity, I will ask what defines "prescribed' and if there is any precedence to corroborate the answer I receive.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in hearing what you find. I don't doubt the MTO has a broad way they want it interpreted. For me, I'm more interested in how the courts have interpreted it, if at all.
 
if you want a quality fender eliminator, I'd go with competition werkes. Looks nice, clean and worth the money in my opinion. i went with the kit that has your plate mounted above the rear mud guard and the plate light is bright enough to illuminate the plate. Its still visible when looking from the rear or the bike.
 
Neil_V said:
Anywho.... It just occurred to me that I actually have an upcoming information session to attend at the end of the month regarding the July 1 regulation changes. This thing is being put on by the MTO directly, so if I have the opportunity, I will ask what defines "prescribed' and if there is any precedence to corroborate the answer I receive.
Click to expand...

kwtoxman said:
I'd be interested in hearing what you find. I don't doubt the MTO has a broad way they want it interpreted. For me, I'm more interested in how the courts have interpreted it, if at all.
Click to expand...

Another thread reminded me to update this, so here it is;

In regard to integrated signals: Legal.

(1) Prescribedlamps and reflectors shall be inspected and tested and,
 (a) each circuit shall light the filaments of all lamps on the circuit when the appropriate switch is in the “ON” position, and each indicator lamp shall indicate correctly;
(b) the operation of any lighting circuit shall not interfere with the operation of any other circuit;
(c) each lens and reflex reflector shall be correctly installed and shall not be discoloured or missing in whole or in part;
(d) each lamp and reflector shall be securely mounted on the vehicle and none shall be missing;
(e) the turn signal lamps and the flasher unit shall operate properly;
Reg 611, Schedule 6, s. 6 (1)

Now the key word of contention was/is prescribed, and according to the MTO representative I spoke with that simply means "as prescribed in the HTA" which is defined as;


Lamps required on motorcycles
(2) Subject to subsection (3), when on a highway at any time every motorcycle shall carry two lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on the front of the vehicle which shall display a white light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only.
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (2).

He was less inclined to interrupt a well placed license plate as a "mud guard" lol
 
That's interesting. So in that person's interpretation, as long as you have some sort of headlight and some sort of taillight it is good to go! I think a license plate lamp is prescribed also by another section.

Is the car safety inspection looking as bad as some expect?
 
Brian P said:
That's interesting. So in that person's interpretation, as long as you have some sort of headlight and some sort of taillight it is good to go! I think a license plate lamp is prescribed also by another section.
Click to expand...

Yes, Reg 611, Schedule 6, s.6 (2)
The headlamp, tail lamp and licence plate lamp on a motorcycle manufactured on or after the 1st day of January, 1975 shall be continuously illuminated when the engine is operating and each forward gear is engaged.

Brian P said:
Is the car safety inspection looking as bad as some expect?
Click to expand...

IMO ... No, but opinions vary wildly depending on what you find acceptable as far as modifications go. They have done some things that will limit what you can do in that sense, but for the everyday average driver, buying a car with a decent maintenance history won't present you with many surprises. Just don't buy something with the dash lit up like a Christmas tree, and suspension noises galore, and you'll be alright.

I will say, this is just opinion as of now; I'll need time with the new regs to really know how much more "trouble" it will be, if any.
 
KWtoxman; you are correct the wording is vague, as is the wording of about 98% of the HTA and other legislation including the Criminal Code of Canada. It was written purposely vague, in an attempt to cover as many possible scenarios. If it was written with specifications etc then the CCofC would be well over 2,000 pages and the HTA would be numbered in the volumes.

Just because the wording is vague doesn't mean YOUR interpretation is the correct one, nor does it mean the cop on the street has the correct interpretation either. The ONLY interpretation which counts is that of the JP or judge. period.

Personally I could care less if someone wants to modify their bike and use integrated lights, not my butt on the line when they can be seen, (and will likely come on this forum to complain how some cager pulled out in front of them or rear ended them, while forgetting they bought a $50 piece of Chinese junk to replace the bright stock lights)..lol

BUT if a rider chooses to modify their bike then they NEED to be aware it "can" attract unwanted attention to them and result in an interaction with police, when otherwise none would have been unwarranted. That is what the OP was asking, and the simple answer is yes to both his questions. 1. Can it result in him being pulled over merely for that, and 2. Can it result in a ticket or "another ticket" in the case of a traffic stop for another offence.

Does it really matter what justification the officer uses for the ticket? No it still results in the same consequences...

Time and effort to attend court, (if he returned t to stock and had photos may get tossed by crown)
Possibly a few appearances in the event a trial is scheduled
Potential conviction
Potential insurance ramifications, (depending upon his insurers rating policies and how they deal with "equipment infractions")
 
hedo2002 said:
KWtoxman; you are correct the wording is vague, as is the wording of about 98% of the HTA and other legislation including the Criminal Code of Canada. It was written purposely vague, in an attempt to cover as many possible scenarios. If it was written with specifications etc then the CCofC would be well over 2,000 pages and the HTA would be numbered in the volumes.

Just because the wording is vague doesn't mean YOUR interpretation is the correct one, nor does it mean the cop on the street has the correct interpretation either. The ONLY interpretation which counts is that of the JP or judge. period.

Personally I could care less if someone wants to modify their bike and use integrated lights, not my butt on the line when they can be seen, (and will likely come on this forum to complain how some cager pulled out in front of them or rear ended them, while forgetting they bought a $50 piece of Chinese junk to replace the bright stock lights)..lol

BUT if a rider chooses to modify their bike then they NEED to be aware it "can" attract unwanted attention to them and result in an interaction with police, when otherwise none would have been unwarranted. That is what the OP was asking, and the simple answer is yes to both his questions. 1. Can it result in him being pulled over merely for that, and 2. Can it result in a ticket or "another ticket" in the case of a traffic stop for another offence.

Does it really matter what justification the officer uses for the ticket? No it still results in the same consequences...

Time and effort to attend court, (if he returned t to stock and had photos may get tossed by crown)
Possibly a few appearances in the event a trial is scheduled
Potential conviction
Potential insurance ramifications, (depending upon his insurers rating policies and how they deal with "equipment infractions")
Click to expand...


Maybe one day we'll have some sort of penalization for cops who throw **** at the wall to see what sticks... Maybe they can personally pay for the accused time off work/legal fees to go fight said poop.
 
Or here is a novel idea follow the rules as they were written by the politicians that we elected... Then one doesn't have an interaction with an officer. Naw easier to blame everyone else for one's lack of accountability.

Neil_V said:
Maybe one day we'll have some sort of penalization for cops who throw **** at the wall to see what sticks... Maybe they can personally pay for the accused time off work/legal fees to go fight said poop.
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Or here is a novel idea follow the rules as they were written by the politicians that we elected... Then one doesn't have an interaction with an officer. Naw easier to blame everyone else for one's lack of accountability.
Click to expand...

Read the prescribed lighting portion of the HTA for motorcycles and get back to me
 
Neil_V said:
Read the prescribed lighting portion of the HTA for motorcycles and get back to me
Click to expand...

Something to keep in mind: The listing for lighting which is required is fairly short, however, if you have additional lighting it must also conform to the listings for such permitted and prohibited lighting. The colour of your signals must be as permitted. You cannot have prohibited colours. It has to be visible from the stated distances.

A friend replaced his signal lights with those tiny LED signal lights. It became impossible for me to follow him on rides because they were virtually invisible, in full daylight, so I couldn't even see them when I was looking for them. These could easily have resulted in a legitimate ticket.
 
While we're discussing semantics and legalities, how about poorly illuminated, sideways mounted, hidden licence plates ?
They seem like an invitation for a 'pull over and a chat' ?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Something to keep in mind: The listing for lighting which is required is fairly short, however, if you have additional lighting it must also conform to the listings for such permitted and prohibited lighting. The colour of your signals must be as permitted. You cannot have prohibited colours. It has to be visible from the stated distances.

A friend replaced his signal lights with those tiny LED signal lights. It became impossible for me to follow him on rides because they were virtually invisible, in full daylight, so I couldn't even see them when I was looking for them. These could easily have resulted in a legitimate ticket.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. If installed they best work as intended, in the right colour etc. If one chooses to remove all signals, then obviously hand signals would be required. Being ticketed for not signalling is all good with me; but being pulled over for an integrated light or other, which clearly indicates a lane change, that's another story.
 
I would say so. When I see a sideways mounted plate beside the drive chain/shaft, with no light on it, I interpret that as "Please Officer, let's discuss the Regulations at the roadside, I'm more important than everyone else in the Province and do not feel the need to mount my plate properly".

Maybe I'm interpreting that wrong. Maybe it really means that they're just trying to express their individuality, like everyone else who mounts their plate sideways.
 
can't argue with a plate that's unlit and difficult to read
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom