Actually I lied,I'm sticking with the CT and what I said was if it was proven to be illegal(I still only see an opinion that was backed by a JP that may or may not have been right)that I would go back.I asked Bikecop via PM to outline the sec/subsec. of the HTA and the exact charge for the tire so I could run it by some people I know and guess what?No reply,so I've put out some feelers elsewhere.
As far as fighting it there isn't enough Darksiders in Ontario to make a difference.In the States(and here until now)it's never been an issue with the law that I've read about in my last years worth of research and as reported on other sites the insurance companies only care that it's a hiway tire and in good shape.
Where is this MTO law(didn't know MTO wrote laws)you speak of?
I can't say why the MTO wrote a law intended to stop the use of car tires on bikes(quote)
Ok I assumed there was a level of common sense here perhaps that was my error. When I said the MTO wrote the law what I meant is the process by which a regulation such as this comes into being created. (MPP's don't sit down and write the bills themselves and present it to the legislature). I am involved with trying to get a current MTO regulation amended so I have seen the inner workings first hand.
The MTO will consider all aspects of safety and if there "appears" to be an issue which requires addressing they will contact several parties. In the case of a vehicle they will consult with the manufacturer, (for any safety data the manufacturer has through their development and testing of the vehicle). The tire manufacturer, (again safety data during R&D), any other interested parties, (enforcement agencies, (for example with ATV's they talk to the S.A.V.E team). They also speak to user groups, For atv's they speak with the larger ATV orgs in the province. They will also review any safety data they have, (from safety groups, who do independent testing), they review accident reports on that class of vehicle, (were there any common contributing factors. they may even order safety testing done by independent labs looking at specific concerns. They then compile all this. They then compile report after report after report. They then go to the Minister with the info and say we have recommendations. The political staff then get involved and assist in the drafting of the regulation. So while they don't actually "write" the legislation they have a very active role in it's creation. It is not an MTO law it is a regulation which is part of an ACT, (you may have heard of this Act it is called the Highway Traffic Act, HTA). Hope this helps understand my point.
As for seeing an opinion, No what you have been presented with a Violation of a regulation under the HTA, which was presented in the legal system, The JP followed a LAW not an opinion. You can debate if it is a good law or not, but (and before I type this I will preface it with IMHO, so you don't get upset by it), I doubt someone sitting around one day said "you know what we have NO idea if a car tire is good for a bike, so let's make a law against it. I am pretty sure there are engineers and manufacturers who likely agreed it was an issue. The ticket was issued the rider had two options, fight the ticket, (which meant he would have had to provide evidence, engineering reports etc to prove it wasn't an improper tire), or pay the fine. Now he may have just elected to pay the fine for basically one of two reasons. first no such evidence exists, (not just anecdotal reports), or he didn't have the resources to fight it, (because he was too busy with the other more important tickets to fight)
You keep referring to the law as being an "opinion" that a car tire is an improper tire for a bike, (as if no one has ever tested it to see if there is a reason it is isn't recommended use by tire and bike manufacturers). But then you say this law shouldn't exist based on YOUR opinion that it is a proper use, ( I know you don't have engineering reports), So why is it that your opinion, (backed by nothing more than anecdotal reports, have you seen EVERY bike that the owner is claiming is riding darkside and confirmed they do indeed have a car tire installed?), an opinion that is better informed than the so called opinion of those who drafted the law? Have you contacted the MTO to ask what information they used to determine this law was needed?
Bike Cop won't have the MTO info readily available just like any of us he would have to go thru channels and request the info. Street level officers don't know the research behind the drafting of every law they enforce. They know only that a law exists and they are to enforce the law as written. Hell I have written thousands of tickets that I have no idea why the law was drafted or what info was compiled to draft it. I still to this day have no idea why they choose 30 minutes AFTER sunrise and 30 minutes BEFORE sunset that your vehicle head light system must be activated why not 15 minutes or 10, or 23?? It doesn't matter as a cop that is the law that I am given to work with. I wasn't expected to know how many lumiens the headlight puts out interacts with the environment at exactly 30 minutes prior.
I think your reading too much into Bike Cops motive he stated he wanted people to be aware that a conviction had been registered. IMHO he was merely EDUCATING other riders. Not that I was planning to go darkside, BUT if I were I would appreciate the heads up, as now I have one more piece of info to consider when I make a decision. He also said the bike was stopped as part of an enforcement initiative aimed at bike equipment and safety. So yes the bike would have still likely been stopped, after all Bike Cop didn't know about the insurance issues until AFTER the bike was stopped. Just like today if you drive north on the 400, there WILL be a traffic blitz put on the OPP looking for many things including load safety and trailers etc. If you have a piece of crap trailer overloaded, then your likely to be speaking with one of the many officers that will be out there...lol.
Your now also narrowing the darkside argument to a SINGLE size and model of bike, (the Goldwing 1800), whereas initially, (at least to me), you seemed to be promoting the darkside is safe for mainly larger bikes like the goldwing. So are you proposing that a car tire be listed as a proper tire for only ONE sized model of bike and all others are excluded? You state tire wear and lack of failures, as some of the reasons for this opinion. Then is it not the same for other bikes of similar size and models?
Here is question that despite your contention that a car tire is a proper tire, for a bike and this law is based solely on opinion and against the "evidence" that there have been millions of darkside miles ridden , (without a single failure, Although i doubt every accident has been examined that closely to rule out a failure). There have been millions of miles ridden at well in excess of 100 MPH by sport bikes so should the speeding laws be dropped as well as one could argue the law of speeding is merely based on an opinion that it isn't proper either.
Lastly you have limited experience riding darkside would you say the bikes handling changes, (not saying for better or worst), BUT does the bike handle any differently than it did when you had a bike tire on it?
