Getting a safety with fender eliminator?

[Brian P]

Blowing this out of proportion. Original poster has the original stock parts. It's 5 or 6 bolts and a few electrical connectors to put it back. With the stock parts on the bike it WILL pass no matter what mechanic he takes it to and no matter what interpretation that mechanic uses.

If it's not stock then things become open to interpretation and given that the original poster has the original stock parts, it's completely unnecessary.

 

[kwtoxman]

Blowing this out of proportion. Original poster has the original stock parts. It's 5 or 6 bolts and a few electrical connectors to put it back. With the stock parts on the bike it WILL pass no matter what mechanic he takes it to and no matter what interpretation that mechanic uses.

If it's not stock then things become open to interpretation and given that the original poster has the original stock parts, it's completely unnecessary.

Yes the OP can easily change back to stock for the safety since he has the original parts; however, it is no excuse for posting incorrect information on motorcycle laws and legislation (esp on popular topics). It's information that others can find and misuse.

 

[boyoboy]

Again, a broken record of bad information. There is zero issue with signal lights, even not having them.



no issue getting a safety with NO turn signals? lmao yes, your correct, there is a broken record of bad info.

randomly phone 5 bike shops and ask them if they will safety your bike without any turn signals. how many said "no problem"? what looks good on paper interpretation to you, often isn't reality...

 

[kwtoxman]

Again, a broken record of bad information. There is zero issue with signal lights, even not having them.

no issue getting a safety with NO turn signals? lmao yes, your correct, there is a broken record of bad info.

randomly phone 5 bike shops and ask them if they will safety your bike without any turn signals. how many said "no problem"? what looks good on paper interpretation to you, often isn't reality...

ROFL. Too funny. Do I have to hold one foot in the air and hop on the other while shooting a bulls-eye target and making the calls? This isn't mission impossible, though it may be for you . I know someone who got a safety on an enduro with no signal lights, no problem. Stupid test, meet anecdotal evidence.



Having no signal lights may not be illegal per ON safety inspection laws and the Ontario HTA, but that doesn't mean one won't be hassled or a potential heat score. I didn't think it was necessary to be "captain obvious"...

 

[hedo2002]

Not getting into the discussion, just clarifying the meaning of the word "prescribed" in any legislation. That word when used in a piece of legislation is "generally" interpreted by the courts to mean it is referring to some other section or subsection of that Act, (or piece of legislation). Often it may say as Prescribed by the minister. If that were listed for example in the HTA, it is interpreted to mean the Minister of Transportation, has "declared" that Act, and is charged with it's implementation and subsequent amendments.

Again it is poorly, (as is virtually all legislation), written and at times meant to be left open to interpretation.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900611

Specifically, schedule 6

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900611#BK8

See sections:

1. (1) (a) my interpretation note: If there was a mudguard originally installed, it has to have one per this requirement - but it doesn't necessarily have to be the original one. Fender eliminator kits should fail this.

6. (1) (c) my interpretation note: The problem is the word "prescribed". Prescribed by what? If it's prescribed by HTA then I will grant the point because the HTA doesn't require turn signals on motorcycles and it's silent on requiring reflectors (any of them). If it's prescribed by "as installed by original manufacturer" then everything originally installed has to still be there and work (or be replaced by substitutes that are equally functional). If it's prescribed by CMVSS 108 then same situation.

Having said that, I think you will have a hard time finding a mechanic who would pass a motorcycle built since the 1970s if it doesn't have functional turn signals. It doesn't matter in this particular case, because obviously the original turn signals are still there. The problem is the lack of the mudguard or any equivalent substitute ... It's the very first line item in the inspection requirements ...

 

[LPakkala]

This is a picture of the fender eliminator on the bike now. Wasn't able to upload an actual pic, so grabbed one from google.

OP, that setup is fine, as long as the plate is lit correctly.

There are many threads about whether or not integrated turn signals are legal/pass safety/safe etc. At the end of the day it will be up to the signing technician. I personally don't safety integrated turn signals, other techs do, it's their licence and they have to make that decision for themselves. Either way can be argued quite effectively as we've seen.

 

[GateKeeper]

OP, that setup is fine, as long as the plate is lit correctly.

There are many threads about whether or not integrated turn signals are legal/pass safety/safe etc. At the end of the day it will be up to the signing technician. I personally don't safety integrated turn signals, other techs do, it's their licence and they have to make that decision for themselves. Either way can be argued quite effectively as we've seen.

It's fine as long as LPakkala does not do the safety.....

 

[LPakkala]

It's fine as long as LPakkala does not do the safety.....

The second part of the post was referring to the rest of the discussion that happened after the OP's post. And that bike has separate turn signals, so not an issue. Sorry if my post/wording was confusing. I should have specified and/or been more clear.

 

[Iceman]

It's fine as long as LPakkala does not do the safety.....

By integrated he meant stop/tail/turn lights all in one light housing. The Op has separate turn signals so should be OK.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

 

[mxs]

Blowing this out of proportion.

No ****, but what else would GTAM posters do, right?? I just always feel sorry for the OP's who innocently ask.

 

[Baggsy]

No ****, but what else would GTAM posters do, right?? I just always feel sorry for the OP's who innocently ask.

I think it's good to see the confusion around the issue. Personally, I'd be kind of ****** if I got a clean safety, only to get a ticket.

What does kwtoxman charge for a safety? Might be your best bet if you don't want to change the tail.

Personally, I'd open it up to look at the wiring job anyways. Some people do their own wiring, make a mess, and don't bother fixing it because they're getting rid of the bike.

Everybody, should be checking their brake and other lights to make sure they come on, before heading out.

 

[GateKeeper]

The second part of the post was referring to the rest of the discussion that happened after the OP's post. And that bike has separate turn signals, so not an issue. Sorry if my post/wording was confusing. I should have specified and/or been more clear.

By integrated he meant stop/tail/turn lights all in one light housing. The Op has separate turn signals so should be OK.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

I was not trying to be mean......it was in jest.....emoji's just don't cut it.....

and I misread your post LPakkala.......:sad2:

 

[LPakkala]

I was not trying to be mean......it was in jest.....emoji's just don't cut it.....

and I misread your post LPakkala.......:sad2:

Not to worry, when I re-read my post I could easily see how it could be misread. I didn't take any offense.

And it's Luke, if that's easier.

 

[Brian P]

Good to hear from an actual mechanic who has to deal with that actual legislation on a day to day basis.

I'm used to legislation that is also badly written, which applies to industrial environments. By the black and white words of what's in that legislation, a normal ordinary drill press is an illegal machine. (Nothing to stop someone from trying to drill a hole in their hand, nothing to stop someone from opening the belt cover and sticking their finger between the belt and pulley while it's running, etc)

By the letter of the law, I have an illegal drill press, and an illegal band saw, in my own shop. My welder is probably illegal, too. The law isn't written to help people comply with it. It's written so that if something happens, they can always convict you of something. It ain't right, it makes no sense, but it is what it is.

Same crap different day.

I'm frequently asked what my opinion is of something that is in a grey area of interpretation. My advice is always "don't". Stay out of the grey area if you possibly can, and if you can't, I don't want to know about it.

 

[empty]

By the letter of the law, I have an illegal drill press, and an illegal band saw, in my own shop. My welder is probably illegal, too. The law isn't written to help people comply with it. It's written so that if something happens, they can always convict you of something. It ain't right, it makes no sense....

Safety Talks
Job Hazard Analysis
Competent person
- those are the things protecting me if somebody decides to stick their peeper into the wrong hole. Our skilled trades guys are supposed to know how to use the saw, lathe, etc. safely by virtue of their trade qualifications. Management has to keep talking about safety constantly so we can say "I told you so" if anything should ever happen. And everybody is supposed to be on the lookout for hazardous conditions.

When it comes down to it, showing due diligence and reasonable effort to protect the workplace is all that's required. There's no way to idiot proof every piece of machinery bc you can't keep up with the idiots.

...that reminds me, what ever happened to the Darwin awards?

 

[boyoboy]

Not getting into the discussion, just clarifying the meaning of the word "prescribed" in any legislation. That word when used in a piece of legislation is "generally" interpreted by the courts to mean it is referring to some other section or subsection of that Act, (or piece of legislation). Often it may say as Prescribed by the minister. If that were listed for example in the HTA, it is interpreted to mean the Minister of Transportation, has "declared" that Act, and is charged with it's implementation and subsequent amendments.

Again it is poorly, (as is virtually all legislation), written and at times meant to be left open to interpretation.

I think the HTA law you and others are referring to are actually "summaries" of the hta. Wouldn't the actual law have additional info? ie long and drawn out details?

 

[Brian P]

The thing that I linked to is the actual legislation. It's not a summary.

For the industrial stuff there are guidelines that refer to various standards that they accept as "good practice" even though the letter of the law as written is not fully achievable (and that's where you get into the safety talks, job hazard analysis, competent person, etc mentioned above). But they're not part of the actual laws.

 

[yodude]

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?196377-Undertail-Integrated-Tail-Lights

 

[migggy]

I ended up putting the original fender back on (only took 30 mins). The only chance I have to do the safety is Saturday because of some-what nice weather. I called the only shop in town and I asked if I needed to have the OEM fender on, and was informed yes.
Reason is because bike needs to have at least 5 reflectors on it. The fender eliminator doesn't use the 3 rear reflectors.

After the safety I switch back, no big deal

 

[hedo2002]

No if you go read many sections in the HTA, as I have, when I was a copper, you will see it uses the term "prescribed" quite often especially when referencing "administrative" type stuff, for vehicle permits, drivers permits, vehicle standards, signage, etc etc etc. An example would be when speaking of say stop signs, it will say the sign must be the dimensions, shape and color "as prescribed by the minister" this is written in the event that at some point a bureaucrat decides orange round signs are more effective as stop signs than the current style. They simply write the new shape and color, into the existing regulation, and it is fine, without having to write a whole new piece of legislation.

It just doesn't apply to stop signs on public roads, if you ATV or snowmobile, the "stop" signs on trails used to be about 1/5 the normal size and many had the word "molson" on the bottom, (at one point Molson Breweries, thought it was good marketing to have tens of thousands of these signs made up and then donated them to OFSC to use on sled trails). Now most clubs are replacing them as money and time permits, to "regulation" stop signs so if a sledder blows through one they can actually be charged because it is a "prescribed" sign. If it was a "Molson" sign the sledder could argue the sign did not met regulations and have the charge dismissed..lol

I think the HTA law you and others are referring to are actually "summaries" of the hta. Wouldn't the actual law have additional info? ie long and drawn out details?