How much is an exhaust fine?

[bombshelter13]

Deleted, error on my part.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I believe that requirement is subsequent to finding that the vehicle is not in compliance. It pertains to having the vehicle submitted, for additional testing, which has the word "may" in the text.

 

[Carriers]

incorrect.. the police can and do write them.

they could do improper muffler- motor vehicle - if says not for road use. fine is $110. s.75(1)
and unnecessary noise - s. 75(4) fine is $110.

theres no 'qualification' required - just what is deemed unnecessary. e.g a chopper with open pipes which is ear piercing will get a ticket.

I never said they cannot. Police can charge u with whatever under the HTA. I said qualified, as in to legally to determine a infraction has taken place in court. Overall legal safety of a vehicle enforcement belongs to MTO. Police can enforce all laws within the province. Police will almost never give out charges base on legal safety of parts on a vehicle. How many times have you heard a police officer inspect the overall state of the vehicle as in aftermarket parts. Not that it would never happen but almost never. Police only care if the vehicle will be a hazard or nuisance on the road. Rule of thumb, if your exhaust is excessively loud, you may get a ticket. It's officer's discretion.

 

[turbodish]

HTA 82(2) says that a police officer 'may require the driver of any motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to stop, move the vehicle to a safe location as directed by the police officer or officer and submit the vehicle, together with its equipment and any vehicle drawn by it, to the examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient.'

The series of steps they can perform is chained together with 'and', not 'and/or' - they have to do the whole thing. They MUST ask you to stop (there's no provision for not asking the driver to stop in the event that the driver is already stopped). They MUST then ask you to move it to a safe location and direct you to one. Only then can they perform any inspection. So the officer TIBURON encountered couldn't have been acting under 82(2), could he?

They are not "chained together". If a vehicle is already stopped, there is no requirement to restart and then stop the vehicle to initiate a vehicle inspection. There is also no requirement to direct the vehicle to another location if the tests can be done safely and expediently at the present location of the vehicle even if that location happens to be stopped on the road.

I've seen cops do quicky drive-through vehicle checks on the highway where they give your vehicle a fast once-over while you're stopped on the highway, and then wave you on your way if good or if not good, have you pull off to the side of the road for more checking.

I've seen inspection stations complete with portable brake-test ramps and headlight alignment racks set up on side streets and in parking lots, and the cop just stands out on the street and waves selected vehicles in.

And in the height of the tuner craze, I know of vehicles stopped at random locations around the city being given written orders to immediately bring the vehicle to an MTO garage 20 or 30 km away where you got to line up with dozens others for detailed inspection on the hoist by government mechanics.

They're all legal, and you have no choice but to cooperate with the request. Failure to cooperate just means that you get fined and the vehicle gets taken off the road until it does pass an inspection. If you force the issue that far though, you can bet the inspection will become the equivalent of a body cavity search, rather than a cursory once over that might otherwise have sufficed had you simply cooperated in the first place.

 

[bombshelter13]

1. The officer may jump and jive, if he wants to.

But if if he chooses to act, he has to do both, correct? Isn't the phrasing here most similar to that of 82(2)? Looking at it, it seems to have the same structure of 'The officer may do x, y and z.'

 

[Rob MacLennan]

But if if he chooses to act, he has to do both, correct? Isn't the phrasing here most similar to that of 82(2)? Looking at it, it seems to have the same structure of 'The officer may do x, y and z.'

Sure, however this doesn't apply in the section of the HTA, to which you're referring. If the location is already deemed to be 'safe' by the officer, then he need not move the vehicle to a safe location.

 

[turbodish]

But if if he chooses to act, he has to do both, correct? Isn't the phrasing here most similar to that of 82(2)? Looking at it, it seems to have the same structure of 'The officer may do x, y and z.'

If you want to get picky, to stop a vehicle does not mean to physically stop a vehicle but rather to detain the vehicle and its occupants.

 

[bombshelter13]

Sure, however this doesn't apply in the section of the HTA, to which you're referring.

I'm still not entirely clear why it doesn't apply.

If the location is already deemed to be 'safe' by the officer, then he need not move the vehicle to a safe location.

It still doesn't seem like that's stated anywhere to me.

In any case... I'm just getting into debate mode at this point, and if I stick around I'll probably piss someone off. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us, Rob, your posts are always informative. Enjoy the thread, guys.

 

[Torren]

Police will almost never give out charges base on legal safety of parts on a vehicle. How many times have you heard a police officer inspect the overall state of the vehicle as in aftermarket parts. Not that it would never happen but almost never.

Opp does regular business at Wasaga Beach looking for non DOT approved modifications on all the fast and furious wanna be's. The Opp also has a section in their highway safety division solely for roadside vehicle inspections. Those officers have received the same training as the regular MTO green hornets.

York Region has a large roadside vehicle inspection squad complete with a 26' RV so they can go over your documents and write your tickets in heated/air conditioned comfort.

 

[Carriers]

Opp does regular business at Wasaga Beach looking for non DOT approved modifications on all the fast and furious wanna be's. The Opp also has a section in their highway safety division solely for roadside vehicle inspections. Those officers have received the same training as the regular MTO green hornets.

York Region has a large roadside vehicle inspection squad complete with a 26' RV so they can go over your documents and write your tickets in heated/air conditioned comfort.

Yep, those officers are in specialized units with the adequate training to allow them to enforce those laws effectively. Your average officer from a regular platoon within a division or district would really be not qualified to do so but of course as stated can. As a police officer you can enforce any statues within the provinces. The question is, how many of those charges will become conviction without those trainings?

 

[Torren]

Yep, those officers are in specialized units with the adequate training to allow them to enforce those laws effectively. Your average officer from a regular platoon within a division or district would really be not qualified to do so but of course as stated can. As a police officer you can enforce any statues within the provinces. The question is, how many of those charges will become conviction without those trainings?

Heck, even the ones who have "training" are pretty useless. I've had to go to a scale on a few occasions to do service calls for customers who's vehicles were deemed out of service only to find the issue at hand was very minor and required no immediate repair.

I read an article in "Todays Trucking" magazine that said all Opp officers are to have CMVSS training (same as mto) by 2015.

Edit: I should add, not all the MTO officers are useless, just most of them. The older experienced ones are usually pretty good. It's the young still wet behind the ears ones that know everything because the read it in a book ones.

 

[chidizzle]

This is the price you have to pay for safety.