OpenGambit
Banned
I still don't see the infringment on your civil rights.
And you are assuming the above statement is correct, which it is not.
|
|
|
Noise restrictions bylaw coming for Oakville
- Thread starter the bandit
- Start date
I still don't see the infringment on your civil rights.
And you are assuming the above statement is correct, which it is not.
OpenGambit
Banned
In theory, yes its applicable. In practice, I doubt it.
While your situation seems reasonable, and any infraction momentary.
the opposite would be a guy which a obcenely loud bike reving it in his driveway while going "neener neener neener" to his neighbours.
The law can't be written to cater to every situation, the gap is filled in by enforcement discretion.
As I understand it, the cops never had to wait for you to exit the driveway to begin with. Based on previous discussions it seems the HTA applies wherever you drive your vehicl unless it's a closed restricted-access course such as a racetrack.
The definition of a "highway" in the HTA extends to include your private driveway.
Interestingly, most racetracks have more stringent noise restricitions than most municipalities.
That would be incorrect.
“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)
Last edited:
No no, of course If your just sitting there, they can't come up to you and ask you to rev it. I'm saying if you were sitting there in the lot, revving it
And they saw you.
As for the hwy traffic act, let me ask you this. If it applied to parking areas, why can't they charge you with careless driving on private property? That's because it's a HTA offense. A bylaw on the other hand is a different story... Now there could be loop holes cops use to work in their fave..
Anyways, just my 2 cents... It's bed time now =D
And they saw you.
As for the hwy traffic act, let me ask you this. If it applied to parking areas, why can't they charge you with careless driving on private property? That's because it's a HTA offense. A bylaw on the other hand is a different story... Now there could be loop holes cops use to work in their fave..
Anyways, just my 2 cents... It's bed time now =D
OpenGambit
Banned
The HTA section Rob quoted answers your question.
No, your driveway does not fall under the HTA definition of highway. However, take a read of the HTA. The HTA does not contain a blanket statement that it applies only to vehicles on a "highway".
While many and perhaps even most moving offence sections make explicit qualification to operating a vehicle "on a highway", you will also find a number of sections that contain no such "highway" qualifier. Those sections could conceivably be applied to vehicle use both on or off a highway.
I know of one person who was convicted for having the license plates of one vehicle he owned installed on a second vehicle that was simply parked in his driveway when the police noticed it. Read HTA s12.(1). There is no mention of "highway" when it comes to offences related to vehicle number (license) plates.
If you have the HTA open in front of you, carry on to 82.(1). Again, there is no mention of the offences listed in s82 requiring a vehicle to have been present on a highway. A vehicle becomes subject to inspection simply for being registered as a licensed motor vehicle.
Yes, interesting indeed. Imagine having to quieten down a bike to go on a lapping or race weekend. It sort of makes you go hmmmm over arguments in favour of loud pipes for street use.
Lol...
No it doesn't because I'm telling you the HTA doesn't apply to private property. However pending the offence the cop could bend the law to still get you. Example if there wasn't a bylaw .. Then he could charge you with "causing a disturbance" - criminal code.
If he drove careless .. He could charge you with "dangerous driving" - criminal code.
If the police was called by the property owners then he could deal with you and give you tickets under the "TPA".
That's why running stop signs on private property means nothing. Just as an example.
Believe me or not.. I really don't care, I'm just sharing with you information that could be worth your while for knowledge.
Regardless, it's past my bed time now! Thanks a lot! Lol..
But really I'm finished with the replies on here.. Goodnight.
That's not totally true either.
Unless your running of those signs is done in such extreme manner that it is deemed to be dangerous driving, a criminal charge. Also, if you have even a small crash, those stop signs will matter when it comes to assigning insurance fault and when it comes to a civil suit.
Yup, you are absolutely right.. Including insurance pay outs.. If u neglected to obey a sign on private property as a result of the crash, they can deem you at fault.
And as u said, the cops can charge you with dangerous Driving. Which is criminal code.
I was only using that example, how they can't charge you with "failing to stop for a stop sign". But of course can do other things.
But you are right my friend.
OpenGambit
Banned
As turbo already indicated, the HTA does have provisions that are not limited to highways.
That being said, the ONCA did say at one point that a strip mall parking lot isn't a "highway", thats why people stunt in parking lots.
As far as your example, thats pretty much correct, you tuning your 70s muscle car with no plates or wheels sitting on blocks in your open door garage has no HTA implications that I can think of. (though I can't be 100 % sure at this moment.)
OpenGambit
Banned
Yup on the same page as you.
This is a question more than a comment, but wouldn't it be easier to avoid the whole testing procedure and just attack on the "not for street use" angle? I remember back in the 80's seeing the safety blitz's specifically for older cars, where plates were taken, cars impounded, etc. I wasn't sure if a bike would fail a regular safety inspection with an aftermarket pipe or not, but I would think that the concept of having your plates removed would be a better deterrent than a hard to enforce, complicated, by-law test. It's a little more confusing with the sportbike samples (slip-ons, etc), but I would be surprised that a straight pipe harley could be certified that way.
Too easy to beat this (just pull the guts out of the stock muffler) and way too expensive for manufacturers to do the testing required to qualify as legal for street use. What about an old bike where stock pipes are no longer available, does that mean the bike is unable to be operated on the street?
The performance based test is simple, objective and quick. We did all of Brian's bikes is less than half an hour which included pulling out trailers and warming up bikes. A setup like a RIDE check on FOTC could process 30 bikes an hour easy with one sound level meter, the cop then gives you a sticker to let you past without stopping if you do more runs. Alternatively, they could just pick off the gross offenders (GP pipes, straight pipes etc.).
Some jurisdictions in the USA (notably California) are trying to go down that route.
Problem #1: I (hypothetically - I'm not a very good welder, but just sayin') can take any EPA or e-marked muffler you care to name, cut it open, rip the guts out of it, carefully TIG weld it back together, grind smooth and re-plate, so that it keeps ALL of the EPA labels or e-markings in place, but is completely obnoxious and loud. If one cares to do so, one could even do this in a way that it still passes the "broomstick test" (broomstick handle won't pass all the way through) but it's still obnoxiously loud.
Problem #2: Some aftermarket exhaust systems are quieter than some original-equipment EPA-marked or e-marked mufflers.
Problem #3: Requiring only EPA-marked or e-marked exhaust systems screws over the owners of vintage bikes, which (A) may not have had EPA markings or e-markings in the first place even when they were originally built, and/or (B) no longer have replacement original-equipment mufflers available AT ALL from the original manufacturer, or the parts are available but at extremely high cost.
Problem #4: Requiring EPA markings (as California is doing) screws over travelers through California who own foreign-registered bikes. EPA is US-specific. Bikes not originally sold in USA don't necessarily have EPA markings. For example, a bone stock Honda CBR125R does not have an EPA-marked muffler. (It's e-marked because it's sold in Europe, and Canada recognizes that particular European standard, but the USA doesn't.) Technically, owners of such bikes ought to be protected by the internationally recognized Geneva convention on road traffic ... but the USA never really implemented that properly, and this is why US (and Canadian) road signs and certain traffic laws differ from those used EVERYwhere else in the world. The theoretical possibility exists that an owner of such a bike in California could get in hot water in California after January next year for this. (Unlikely to ever happen, but still, the theoretical possibility exists.)
It's better to have an objective test. The only trouble I see with SAE J2825, is the method by which engine RPM is established.
webb70
Well-known member
New noise by-law in Oakville for 2012.......
http://www.680news.mobi/article.aspx?content_id=318923
Some pretty steep fines there.
http://www.680news.mobi/article.aspx?content_id=318923
Some pretty steep fines there.
Re: New noise by-law in Oakville for 2012.......
Was just about to post a similar news article on CityNews.ca...
Absolutely ridiculous fines. I get the purpose of the noise bylaw, as some vehicles really are unacceptably loud... but a $25,000 maximum fine on first offense (or hell, in general for NOISE) is ridiculous. And $50,000 on 2nd offense? That's insanity, and a total cash grab. I feel sorry for any poor sap from out of town that rides through the area and gets nailed. Even the $400 minimum fine is high.
It's kind of sad that these bylaws are making noisy bikes/cars out to be a worse offender than say, a drunk driver...
Was just about to post a similar news article on CityNews.ca...
Absolutely ridiculous fines. I get the purpose of the noise bylaw, as some vehicles really are unacceptably loud... but a $25,000 maximum fine on first offense (or hell, in general for NOISE) is ridiculous. And $50,000 on 2nd offense? That's insanity, and a total cash grab. I feel sorry for any poor sap from out of town that rides through the area and gets nailed. Even the $400 minimum fine is high.
It's kind of sad that these bylaws are making noisy bikes/cars out to be a worse offender than say, a drunk driver...
|
|
|
|
|