Hauling double trailer with Pick up?
- Thread starter oioioi
- Start date
A commercial vehicle is any vehicle requiring the yellow inspection sticker, and that COULD include a normal light-duty pick-up, if it's registered as commercial (I've seen the yellow sticker on a F150). My >8500lb GVWR van is registered personal and doesn't have that yellow inspection sticker. There's a certain bigger GVWR beyond which it has to be registered commercial.
It's complicated. (Too complicated.)
That quote is an excerpt from the handbook, and it doesn't include all the nuances.
It's complicated. (Too complicated.)
That quote is an excerpt from the handbook, and it doesn't include all the nuances.
He's wrong about the license plate colours, though. My registered-for-personal-use, >8500lb GVWR van has a license plate with black letters, because it is not a "passenger" vehicle". Whether a vehicle is a "passenger" vehicle or not, is different from whether it is a "commercial" vehicle or not. I'm pretty sure the "commercial" classification cannot coexist with the "passenger" classification on the same vehicle, but a non-passenger vehicle need not be commercial.
Commercial registration = yellow sticker (and annual inspections).
edit: Apparently black numbers means "commercial vehicle as defined in HTA" but not necessarily registered for commercial use (yellow sticker), and according to that interpretation, if you have a vehicle with a black-numbers license plate (pickups, vans, Ford Maverick ...) you are good to go for towing two trailers as long as you of course meet all the other regulations - combination less than 23 metres / 75 ft long, lights, license plates, etc.
Transport trucks with two 53-foot trailers in tow. Longer than 75 feet, no?
edit 2: You can not legally tow two trailers with a Chrysler minivan registered as passenger, but you can legally tow two trailers with a Bell-Tel Chrysler minivan registered as commercial ... Same unibody, same powertrain, same brakes ...
Commercial registration = yellow sticker (and annual inspections).
edit: Apparently black numbers means "commercial vehicle as defined in HTA" but not necessarily registered for commercial use (yellow sticker), and according to that interpretation, if you have a vehicle with a black-numbers license plate (pickups, vans, Ford Maverick ...) you are good to go for towing two trailers as long as you of course meet all the other regulations - combination less than 23 metres / 75 ft long, lights, license plates, etc.
Transport trucks with two 53-foot trailers in tow. Longer than 75 feet, no?
edit 2: You can not legally tow two trailers with a Chrysler minivan registered as passenger, but you can legally tow two trailers with a Bell-Tel Chrysler minivan registered as commercial ... Same unibody, same powertrain, same brakes ...
Last edited:
The whole "commercial vehicle" thing is another gong show, as Brian demonstrates trying to make sense of it all when you get into the nuances of even the colour of the licence plate.
Yeah, a pickup truck with a black licence plate is a "commercial vehicle". But is it really? You can register a 10,000# GVWR vehicle at 2500# if you want and avoid some aspects of not needing inspection stickers and such, and that might fly, or it might not depending on what LEO you bump into. It’s also not legal in many regards but serviceOntario will still do it for you since half the people working there don’t really understand the system themselves.
You can be anything you want to be on the Internet. The fact they doesn't even understand plate colours suggests that no, he actually isn't an MTO officer.
Not to say that an MTO officer or OPP officer wouldn't still give you bad information still however...because it's a mess of a question.
I always like to come full circle to asking them the same questions I posed earlier in this thread however:
If a D and AR class driver can specifically only haul ONE trailer, as clearly specified on the Ontario DL classes ("trailer" is always singular, and the class AR even lays it out specifically as a restriction), and the class A is the only one that specifies trailers (plural), where in any sort of logical outcome can someone draw the conclusion that in the face of this information of both D and AR being restricted from hauling multiple trailers, that it's apparently hunky-dory for someone with a class G? Especially since both a class D and AR licence classes require education and testing to obtain.
They usually don't have an answer to that question. And if they do, there's a lot of "Umm" and "Hmmm" involved.
Last edited:
MOT defines a commercial vehicle as:
A commercial motor vehicle is either:
- a truck or highway tractor with a gross weight or registered gross weight of more than 4,500 kilograms
- a bus with a seating capacity for ten or more passengers
- tow trucks
- concrete pumps and mobile cranes (not including off-road mobile cranes)
What plate you get is dictated by the VIN. A 2 door pickup will always have a "commercial" plate, a pickup with seatbelts behind the driver's seat (there is a whole big regulation about this, but it comes down to a "box" on the screen on the computer at the MOT), that is less than 4500kg can have "passenger" plates. A pickup with a seatbelt behind the driver's seat, that is more than 4500kg will get a commercial plate, but you can get a "personal and private use only" endorsement and "legally", for MOT purposes, it's a passenger car EXCEPT it has a 4500kg GVW
If you have passenger plates, your max GVW comes from your driver's license (11,000kg combined, 4600kg of trailer) and the fines aren't THAT bad
If you have commercial plates you CAN get over weight tickets, based on the registered GVW, that add up QUICKLY. like buck a LB add up quickly.
So if you gots a Dodge RAM diesel 4x4 quad cab, and a PUO endorsement, and a fat wife, you're probably overweight
I don't see that part?
BUT, if you’re using it to haul a trailer that results in renumeration of any sort (cutting lawns for money, or a $50 prize at a horse show that cost you $500 to attend…ask me how I know), you are technically using your vehicle for “commercial purposes” and then need a yellow annual inspection sticker and in some cases may even need to adhere to hours of service logbook requirements the same as I do when I’m driving a tractor trailer at work.
Like many of us keep coming back to, the entire licensing system and commercial versus non-commercial gray areas are a complete gong show in this province, resulting in all sorts of different interpretations and understandings of laws that are unclear from the onset to many, even LEO’s.
I just looked up the HTA on e-laws to see if reading the actual law could provide any clarity. I gave up. There's too many references to external regulations, too many internal contradictions. I don't think the Redditor who claims to be a MTO inspector is correct the way the law is written (e.g. s. 16 a "commercial motor vehicle" has to be operated by somebody that has a CVOR ... no exceptions ... and the colours of the letters on the license plates appear nowhere in the HTA) although he could very well be correct the way the law is being interpreted.
I am content with my decision to haul my race bike in a closed van, no trailer. Back when I travelled to the USA doing this (towing a trailer behind my car), I recall being asked whether I was going to earn money when crossing the border. (Some racers have gotten in hot water because of this. Technically they need a visa if there's prize money at the event.) I've also been pulled into the MTO yard north of Cayuga while on the way to TMP because they were inspecting every trailer on the way to the track. No more.
I am content with my decision to haul my race bike in a closed van, no trailer. Back when I travelled to the USA doing this (towing a trailer behind my car), I recall being asked whether I was going to earn money when crossing the border. (Some racers have gotten in hot water because of this. Technically they need a visa if there's prize money at the event.) I've also been pulled into the MTO yard north of Cayuga while on the way to TMP because they were inspecting every trailer on the way to the track. No more.
There WAS a time when you had to register the vehicle as commercial IF you used it for ANY commercial purpose... so taxi cabs had commercial plates, so did delivery vehicles (including pizza or chinese food) and the like.
That day is long gone. I started driving a cab in the late '70s and I don't think I ever drove an Ontario cab with commercial plates... BC? yes.
AND you were only supposed to use the vehicle for what it was licensed for... so NO you can't use the company truck to move house, that's operating out of class
Now, if the GVW of the vehicle is less than 4500kg you get regular passenger car plates, and the biggest difference in commercial and non commercial is how the thing is insured. It USED to be there was savings to be had with a commercial policy (because they had so many limitations... but there were many different types of policies sold. Artisan insurance was great, and CHEAP for service people. The idea was the truck was only used to go from home site to job site and spent most of the day parked. Taxi insurance was stupid expensive (now it's insanely expensive).
With the advent of Uber and Lyft insurance changed, again, and now you can get a hybrid commercial/personal policy.
today the distinction of commercial/personal use of a vehicle of less than 4500kg GVW is the difference in insurance policies, not vehicle registration or plates... and if you get into a collision while delivering pizza with a personal only insurance policy, your insurance company will dis-allow the claim
And last I heard, there was no insurance company in Ontario that would offer a commercial policy for a bike, so we have no bike (motorcycle) couriers (I tried)
The CVOR is nothing in this debate.
Law says IF you operate a commercially licensed vehicle over 4500kg you need a CVOR. It is a further add on license. Just more government BS... BUT the CVOR means the operator of a commercially licensed vehicle with a "G" license is bound by the same regulations as a "D" or "A" driver... in vehicles registered for 4500- 11,000kg
the commercially licensed vehicle dictates the need for the CVOR, not the other way around. The CVOR brought the drivers with a "G" under the purview of the MOT.
Law says IF you operate a commercially licensed vehicle over 4500kg you need a CVOR. It is a further add on license. Just more government BS... BUT the CVOR means the operator of a commercially licensed vehicle with a "G" license is bound by the same regulations as a "D" or "A" driver... in vehicles registered for 4500- 11,000kg
the commercially licensed vehicle dictates the need for the CVOR, not the other way around. The CVOR brought the drivers with a "G" under the purview of the MOT.
For commercial vehicle registered over 4500kg GVW. Under 4500kg no yellow sticker, no annual inspection... AND you can get blue passenger car plates for it (IF it has a seatbelt in the back... doesn't NEED a seat, just the belt)
Someone asked a similar question.. and this was the supposed MTO officer's answer.
It's tough to find a solid answer.. and some of the misinformation, if that's what it is, seems reasonable.. as does your take on it.
I couldn't find any cases on Canlii.. but it's a hard topic to search on there.
If the vehicle has factory rating of over 4500 it needs a sticker no matter what it is registered as to add to the confusion.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
There was a time I was pulling my buddy's Super Stock drag racer all over the country with a minivan, and the weigh tickets were close to the GVW of the truck, which had a PUO endorsement... which RAISED the GVW from the factory GVW, almost doubled the GVW.
And I have visions of being pulled over early sunday morning on the way up the hill to cayuga by some pimply faced young cop that doesn't know the law, THEN have to contract 3 tow trucks to pull me to Aurora, where the only "legal" scale is open on sunday morning... only to be told I'm fine... pay the tow truck drivers, have a nice day.
My brother the cop was working at the collision center at Keele/401, so I asked him to find out for me. At Keele/401 there are metro cops, OPP, RCMP, MOT AND DOT... so someone HAS to know... right?
He said every, every person he asked had a different answer.
I asked a MOT inspector and he told me the factory GVW on the VIN plate is the number AND that included towed trailers... which is 100% wrong, even I knew that. just look at the back of your "G" driver's license
I watched a MOT inspector try to pull the plates on a buddy's trailer cuz the straps didn't have a date stamp... CLEARLY not in MOT's purview AND he was trying to use some workplace safety rule... WTF?
MOT is a lot like the CRA. They're enforcing rules they don't know, with little or no accountability
The personal and private use only endorsement can get you around that on select vehicles... just to further add to the confusion
Curiously enough I got a voicemail today from somebody at the Ministry of transportation. At long last.
He reiterated the part from the highway traffic act that “only commercial vehicles“ can haul two trailers at once, as per what he got back from those in the MTO that were posed the question. No “passenger vehicles” was the exact wording, but that’s still too vague. Is a 1-Ton with black plates, an annual, and a company name on the door a “passenger vehicle” still? Or not?
I called him back and spoke to him in more detail and explained that this really isn’t the ultimate answer to the question (as well as reiterating the fact that if someone went above and beyond and earned an AR class license that suddenly regardless of what sort of vehicle they are operating they wouldn’t be able to tow double trailers, even if they were operating a class 8 commercial tractor!) the guy wholeheartedly agreed with me that the answer he received from those above him didn’t make sense, nor really fulfil the gist of the question. I reiterated the part about “commercial vehicles“ being a complete and total gray area, i.e. how a pick up truck with black license plates is considered a “commercial vehicle“. No part of the answer involved drivers license classes at all, which really didn’t make any sense additionally.
In short, it was a non-answer, which on further discussion he agreed was inadequate.
So, he sent the inquiry back into the gears of the bureaucracy to get a better, more sensible answer.
I’ve asked to have it on paper as well no matter what the end result so that once and for all the matter this whole issue can be put to bed. Here, and everywhere on the Internet.
I’ll follow up when I hear more.
He reiterated the part from the highway traffic act that “only commercial vehicles“ can haul two trailers at once, as per what he got back from those in the MTO that were posed the question. No “passenger vehicles” was the exact wording, but that’s still too vague. Is a 1-Ton with black plates, an annual, and a company name on the door a “passenger vehicle” still? Or not?
I called him back and spoke to him in more detail and explained that this really isn’t the ultimate answer to the question (as well as reiterating the fact that if someone went above and beyond and earned an AR class license that suddenly regardless of what sort of vehicle they are operating they wouldn’t be able to tow double trailers, even if they were operating a class 8 commercial tractor!) the guy wholeheartedly agreed with me that the answer he received from those above him didn’t make sense, nor really fulfil the gist of the question. I reiterated the part about “commercial vehicles“ being a complete and total gray area, i.e. how a pick up truck with black license plates is considered a “commercial vehicle“. No part of the answer involved drivers license classes at all, which really didn’t make any sense additionally.
In short, it was a non-answer, which on further discussion he agreed was inadequate.
So, he sent the inquiry back into the gears of the bureaucracy to get a better, more sensible answer.
I’ve asked to have it on paper as well no matter what the end result so that once and for all the matter this whole issue can be put to bed. Here, and everywhere on the Internet.
I’ll follow up when I hear more.
I'm not a lawyer, but the more I learn about the common law system the wilder it gets. You might not ever get an answer to your question in your lifetime because unless someone amends the HTA to be clearer, the ambiguity of the law is kind of like Schrodinger's cat. It's only proved one way or another after it's been tested in court.
But even multiple convictions don't necessarily set a precedent, so one JP could say that towing two trailers is illegal and a different JP could say it's okay depending upon how well the defence did their job. From what I understand, a precedent is only established when someone is charged with an offence related specifically to towing two trailers, loses their case, appeals it to a higher court, and wins that appeal. Even then, the wording of the appeal decision might not address all of the factors you've listed, like what license you hold.
The MTO/province can make statements about how the law should be interpreted, but that isn't the same as actually changing the law. For instance, one definition of stunting under HTA172 is "Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat". When that law came into effect, they made a public statement that this definition was not intended to apply to motorcyclists standing on the footpegs (eg: to cross over railroad tracks, etc), but that definition is still on the books, and good luck finding any official reference to that statement of interpretation anywhere.
But even multiple convictions don't necessarily set a precedent, so one JP could say that towing two trailers is illegal and a different JP could say it's okay depending upon how well the defence did their job. From what I understand, a precedent is only established when someone is charged with an offence related specifically to towing two trailers, loses their case, appeals it to a higher court, and wins that appeal. Even then, the wording of the appeal decision might not address all of the factors you've listed, like what license you hold.
The MTO/province can make statements about how the law should be interpreted, but that isn't the same as actually changing the law. For instance, one definition of stunting under HTA172 is "Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat". When that law came into effect, they made a public statement that this definition was not intended to apply to motorcyclists standing on the footpegs (eg: to cross over railroad tracks, etc), but that definition is still on the books, and good luck finding any official reference to that statement of interpretation anywhere.
Last edited:
They may want to consider tightening up the ambiguity on the issue then as if the word on this comes back that due to the gray area issues, yes, somebody with a plain old G class license can pull multiple trailers, once that news is officially on the Internet, Expect to start seeing people seizing on it pulling all sorts of nonsensical dangerous combinations. Given the gray areas, or at least into that’s clarified it seems that somebody could hook up three or four or five trailers to their pickup with black “commercial” plates and still technically be legal as long as they are under 75 feet.
As it is some of the combinations that I have seen people pulling with passenger vehicles is downright dangerous. The best one I ever saw was a fifth wheel with a giant boat behind it with the boat hanging out of a gas station on Highway 7 in an active lane of traffic - the guy had clearly no concept of where he should or shouldn’t be going with something like that and drove into a gas station for which he could either get his entire truck off the road or through the station, nor had the skill to back up to get out of the station.
This is what happens when you put a commercial style combination at the hands of someone without one iota of commercial experience or training whatsoever. Going forward is easy. Going into tight quarters or tight turns is where experience kinda matters.
Either way, I think that once they officially clarify the license class side of things, reiterating that a G is not sufficient for more than one trailer, it will remove any ambiguity about the remainder of the wording of the HTA.
As it is some of the combinations that I have seen people pulling with passenger vehicles is downright dangerous. The best one I ever saw was a fifth wheel with a giant boat behind it with the boat hanging out of a gas station on Highway 7 in an active lane of traffic - the guy had clearly no concept of where he should or shouldn’t be going with something like that and drove into a gas station for which he could either get his entire truck off the road or through the station, nor had the skill to back up to get out of the station.
This is what happens when you put a commercial style combination at the hands of someone without one iota of commercial experience or training whatsoever. Going forward is easy. Going into tight quarters or tight turns is where experience kinda matters.
Either way, I think that once they officially clarify the license class side of things, reiterating that a G is not sufficient for more than one trailer, it will remove any ambiguity about the remainder of the wording of the HTA.
