"Obstruct Plate" | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

"Obstruct Plate"

Sure good luck with that. You want me to see a red glowing light and a white glowing light :| aimed at 90 degrees to my path of travel.
Your direction of travel and where your vehicle starts and stops is everybody's concern, there a few out there that don't want to squish you.

Look, I get where you're coming from, but trailer safety and two small red (and therefore much harder to see) reflectors on the rear sides of a motorcycle are hardly the same thing. If my bike is out at night, it's running, and if it's running, the taillight is much more visible to anyone else on the road up to around 3 and 9. Anything past that and the headlight will be bright enough blind any ability to see the reflectors anyway. I actually do have red reflectors facing rearwards mounted to my plate, as I think it's useful to have something if I was stranded by the side of the road.

As for whether it technically should pass safety, I don't know, but it did pass safety with zero issues at my local shop.

As for whether Aprilia intended the fender to be left as is, here's what it looks like stock:

2017-Aprilia-Tuono-V4-Factory-Long-Term-Test-sport-motorcycle-resized.jpg

Definitely the designers intended scaffolding as part of their overall concept and put a lot of thought into how it looks. Weird that they made it so easy to remove, with three extremely accessible bolts and spade connectors to pop the whole thing off as a unit...
 
They made it easy to remove because you bought a race bike :|
take that stuff off when you go racing (y) take the mirrors off too, on the track it doesn't matter who is chasing you:cool:
 
They made it easy to remove because you bought a race bike :|
take that stuff off when you go racing (y) take the mirrors off too, on the track it doesn't matter who is chasing you:cool:
No way! I need those mirrors so I can see the cops and know when to flip up my plate and do a runner!

(Legal disclaimer: I don't run from the police. The very expensive ticket I got as a young man for doing 186 km/h in an 80 zone is proof of that. Thank heavens it happened before the moral panic about street racing kicked in, or I would have been on the front page of whatever newspaper is in Perth...)
 
Look, I get where you're coming from, but trailer safety and two small red (and therefore much harder to see) reflectors on the rear sides of a motorcycle are hardly the same thing. If my bike is out at night, it's running, and if it's running, the taillight is much more visible to anyone else on the road up to around 3 and 9. Anything past that and the headlight will be bright enough blind any ability to see the reflectors anyway. I actually do have red reflectors facing rearwards mounted to my plate, as I think it's useful to have something if I was stranded by the side of the road.

As for whether it technically should pass safety, I don't know, but it did pass safety with zero issues at my local shop.

As for whether Aprilia intended the fender to be left as is, here's what it looks like stock:

View attachment 46037

Definitely the designers intended scaffolding as part of their overall concept and put a lot of thought into how it looks. Weird that they made it so easy to remove, with three extremely accessible bolts and spade connectors to pop the whole thing off as a unit...
do they sell an OEM fender eliminator kit? if the intention is to remove it for the street then it sounds like they're missing the boat on some money.

its meant to be removed for the track.
 
Millions of motorcycles have been sold over a period of decades in Europe and Asia without those reflectors. It's a US thing, which became a Canada thing because Transport Canada copied US standards.

Not a bad idea though. At night, on a motorcycle, anything that reflects light at another vehicle and makes you more conspicious has the potential to save your life.

Yes it is a thing, just like I now need an annual inspection on my truck and dump trailer and didn't before.

If the truck is over 4500KG GVWR it's always needed one, it's nothing new. Regardless of commercial or personal use.

If the trailer is used for commercial purposes, it's always needed one. Doesn't matter what size or weight it is - even a small utility trailer needs an annual if it's used commercially. It's nothing new.

If the trailer is used strictly, without exception, for personal use, it does not need one, regardless of it's weight.

View attachment 46036

You can see both my headlight and taillight from the side of my bike. The reflectors only come into play if it's parked and off. At that point, direction of travel is the least of my worries if someone might hit it...

See earlier comments on more the better. In a perfect world of course other vehicles would see us at night. Anyone who's ridden for more than a few months knows that when it comes to motorcycles, it's seldom perfect world.

Ontario politice can only enforce ontario standards and not federal
, reflectors aren't mentioned in the ontario standards and are not needed for a safety. If I am wrong I would like to know.

Yes, police can and do enforce federal standards. Ask any trucker who's ever been pulled over and given an out of service for a logbook violation.

And yes, reflectors very much are mentioned in the Ontario vehicle inspection standards.

You don’t need an engine to cert a vehicle’s

I can't believe people still believe this.

The standards very much do stipulate a road test need occur as part of any certification. And there's a ton of things that need to be tested and observed during that road test. Read this link and search for "Road test".

 
Here is a good thread that covers it


The Ontario Safety standard Certificate (SSC) ensures that only safe,
roadworthy vehicles are on the roads in Ontario.

The following items shall be inspected, and the motor vehicle shall be
denied an SSC if:

In the body and interior:

a) any bumper, fender or mudguard has been removed or is mounted insecurely;
b) any body part has protruding sharp edges that could be hazardous to
pedestrians or passengers;
c) any hood latch or passenger door does not operate as intended;
d) the driver's sun visor does not operate properly;
e) any occupant seat is insecure or fails to maintain its adjustment;
f) the inside and/or outside rear-view mirrors are loose, cracked or
have any significant reductions of the reflective surface, or the
inside mirror (where required) is missing;
g) where required, the seat belt assemblies are missing, insecure,
damaged, inoperative or do not function as intended;
h) the frame or any structural unitized member is broken or cracked;
has any loose or missing connecting fasteners; or is perforated with
rust that could downgrade the safety of the vehicle; or
i) The under-body, including the trunk floor pan, is perforated by rust
or damaged or has any opening that may allow entry of exhaust gas.


Glazing
a) any glass, where required, is other than safety glass;
b) any glazing material has exposed sharp edges, a missing part or is insecure;
c) any safety glass in the windshield, or to the left or right of the
driver, has been replaced with any vision-obstructing material,
or is clouded or fogged so as to affect the driver's vision;
d) the windshield has any star, crack or stone chip in the area swept
by the driver's wiper blade that could affect the driver's
vision; or
e) the driver's window does not open freely.
Lighting and Electrical
a) any prescribed lamp fails to operate or interferes with any other circuit;
b) any turn signal indicator lamp fails to operate properly;
c) any lamp or reflector is loose or missing in whole or in part, or
is discolored;
d) any headlamp is covered with a colored lacquer or is fitted with
any device affecting brightness (e.g. headlamp shields);
e) any headlamp shutter or retracting headlamp fails to operate
properly or is not secured in the fully-open position;
f) any headlamp is aligned incorrectly;
g) the headlamp dimmer switch or high-beam indicating light fails to
operate as intended;
h) the horn fails to operate or is insecure on its mount;
i) the windshield wiper/washer assemblies and the heating and
defrosting systems do not function as originally intended;
j) where originally fitted, the neutral safety switch has been removed
or allows the starter motor to operate in any other than the
neutral and park positions; or
k) the speedometer is not in good working order.

"Prescribed Lights" is the phrase used to cover the lighting
requirements of vehicles for the purposes of the HTA, and applies to
all vehicles, including passenger cars, light and heavy trucks and
trailers. "Prescribed Lights" vary with vehicle dimensions and include
the lights listed below:

Headlamps: no more than four, and shall be white or amber in color;

Turn signals: shall be self illuminating;

Stop lights: shall be red or yellow in colour;

Tail Lights: shall be red in colour;

Licence plate: rear plate must be illuminated by a white light;

Reflectors: shall be red in colour, located at the rear and as close
as practical to the outside of the vehicle body (most tail light
lenses incorporate a reflective lens in their construction); and

Side markers: one on each side near the front, green or amber in
colour, and one on each side near the rear, red in colour.

NOTE: Although side marker lights are not required for certification
of a motor vehicle with a length of 6.1 metres (20 feet) or less, the
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) requires all vehicles
manufactured on or after January 1, 1971, to be equipped with side
marker lights.


Engine and Controls
a) with the engine running, there is any visible leakage in the fuel
system (the fuel tank does not have to be filled before inspection for
leaks);
b) any attachment or component of the fuel system is insecure or
missing, including a proper fuel filler cap;
c) the accelerator linkage fails to return the engine speed to idle
when the pedal is released; or,
d) the power steering belt is defective, incorrectly adjusted or missing.
Exhaust System and Manifolds
a) any exhaust component is missing or mounted insecurely;
b) any exhaust leakage is present, other than from the manufacturer's
drain holes;
c) any exhaust component is within the occupant compartment, or is so
located or unguarded that any occupant may be burned
by entering or leaving the vehicle; or
d) the exhaust system has been shortened or modified from original, so
as to fail to direct the exhaust beyond the underbody of
the occupant compartment or luggage compartment.
NOTE: Although emission control devices are not required to be
inspected for the purpose of issuing an 550, the motor vehicle will be
in violation of the Environmental Protection Act if any component of
the emission control system is inoperative, defective, has been
removed, or fails to function as intended.


Trailer Hitch
a) any trailer hitch or attachment is damaged, excessively worn or
insecure as to affect its proper operation; or,
b) any trailer hitch lock assembly fails to operate as intended.
Steering and Suspension
a) any visible leakage of fluid is present in the power steering
system or the reservoir fluid level is too low;
b) the steering column, box or couplings are excessively worn or loose
on their mountings, or parts are missing or loose;
c) any steering linkage joint is worn or loose;
d) any steering system, or suspension locking device or clamp is
missing, loose or worn so as to affect its proper operation;
e) the front wheels are visibly out of alignment;
f) the front wheels fail to turn from full right to full left freely;
g) free movement of the steering wheel exceeds manufacturer's limits;
h) the power steering system does not operate as intended;
i) any component, or attachment of the suspension system, or its
supports, is excessively worn, corroded, broken, bent,
cracked, loose, disconnected or missing;
j) the front or rear axles are tracking improperly so as to affect
handling the vehicle;
k) any ball joint is worn beyond manufacturer's limits; or
I) any wheel or axle bearing is excessively worn, loose or damaged.


Wheels and Tires
NOTE: Only those wheels/tires installed on axles are inspected.
a) any wheel-retaining device is worn, defective, loose or missing;
b) any wheel is cracked, excessively bent or has been repaired by welding;
c) any wheel spoke is loose, broken or missing;
d) tire shows any exposed cord;
e) any abnormal bump, bulge or knot is present;
f) any tire makes contact with any vehicle component;
g) any tire bears the markings "not for highway use" or "farm use only";
h) any tire is worn beyond the minimum allowed tread depth; e.g.
built-in wear bar indicators are showing on two adjacent major tread
grooves at three equal spacings around the circumference of the tire;
i) any tire is of a smaller size than vehicle manufacturer's specified
minimum size;
j) any mixture of 50 to 60 series are installed on the front axle and
any other series on the rear;
k) any tire differs in construction type from any other tire on the
same axle; or,
I) except on a vehicle fitted with dual rear tires, any mixture of
radial tires are on the front axle and belted-bias or bias ply tires
are installed on the rear axle.


Brakes
a) any fluid or vacuum leakage is present in the braking system;
b) the brake fluid in the brake master cylinder is below the
manufacturer's recommended minimum level;
c) any brake tubing has heavy corrosion scaling;
d) any vacuum or hydraulic hose or tube is damaged, insecure, missing
or chafes against any part of the vehicle;
e) with the foot brake applied, the brake pedal moves toward the floor;
f) the brakes, including the parking brake, are not adjusted properly;
g) any brake, including the parking brake, fails to release
immediately when the pedal or lever is released;
h) any mechanical, vacuum or hydraulic component is missing, cracked,
loose, badly worn, seized or damaged so as to affect
its operation;
i) any hydraulic component is leaking fluid;
j) with the motor running and the brake pedal applied, the brake
failure warning light comes on;
k) with the vacuum depleted from the power brake (by depressing the
brake pedal three or four times), the motor shut off and
the brake pedal depressed, the pedal fails to move momentarily towards
the floor when the motor is started;
I) any brake drum or rotor is worn beyond the manufacturer's limits,
or the friction surfaces
are damaged mechanically other than from normal wear;
m) any brake rotor cooling fin is cracked or broken;
n) any bonded brake lining is thinner than 1.5 millimeters (1/16 inch)
at its thinnest point;
o) any riveted brake lining is thinner than 0.8 millimeters (1/32
inch) at its thinnest point;
p) any brake lining is broken or loose on its shoe or pad;
q) any brake lining is contaminated;
r) any wheel hub seal, axle seal or oil retainer is missing or leaking;
s) the parking brake does not hold properly and release fully;
t) where originally fitted, the dual-circuit brake warning lamp fails
to operate as intended; or,
u) on the road test, the braking system does not brake evenly or stop
the vehicle within the required distance.
Some of the standards contained in this PAGE rely on the mechanical
experience and sound judgment of the inspection mechanic, based on the
inspection standards as set down in the Highway Traffic Act.
 
Not a bad idea though. At night, on a motorcycle, anything that reflects light at another vehicle and makes you more conspicious has the potential to save your life.



If the truck is over 4500KG GVWR it's always needed one, it's nothing new. Regardless of commercial or personal use.

If the trailer is used for commercial purposes, it's always needed one. Doesn't matter what size or weight it is - even a small utility trailer needs an annual if it's used commercially. It's nothing new.

If the trailer is used strictly, without exception, for personal use, it does not need one, regardless of it's weight.



See earlier comments on more the better. In a perfect world of course other vehicles would see us at night. Anyone who's ridden for more than a few months knows that when it comes to motorcycles, it's seldom perfect world.



Yes, police can and do enforce federal standards. Ask any trucker who's ever been pulled over and given an out of service for a logbook violation.

And yes, reflectors very much are mentioned in the Ontario vehicle inspection standards.



I can't believe people still believe this.

The standards very much do stipulate a road test need occur as part of any certification. And there's a ton of things that need to be tested and observed during that road test. Read this link and search for "Road test".

Do you have a link to that document for motorcycles?

Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk
 
If the truck is over 4500KG GVWR it's always needed one, it's nothing new. Regardless of commercial or personal use.
(This was changed a year ago last July. Now 6500 kg This is why F250s and 2500s where rated at 9900 lbs, but were essentially the same trucks as F350s and 3500s rated at 11,000 lbs.)

In any case, the same thing applies with illegal HID and LED conversions. These both fall under the CMVSS act, federal legislation. Local cops won't pull you over for this, but they can certainly add on a ticket for improper lighting. The OHTA says that your vehicle must conform to CMVSS, so I don't see why they can't pull you over for a federal violation, but for whatever reason they don't seem to.
 
Not a bad idea though. At night, on a motorcycle, anything that reflects light at another vehicle and makes you more conspicious has the potential to save your life.

See earlier comments on more the better. In a perfect world of course other vehicles would see us at night. Anyone who's ridden for more than a few months knows that when it comes to motorcycles, it's seldom perfect world.
Must not be riding season for this to have gone on as long as it has...

Riding in and of itself is inherently dangerous, so we all make judgement calls about where we're willing to draw the line, from full high-vis riding school types to squids and cruisers with flip-flops and shorts.

I've ridden for a heck of a lot more than a few months, and my own comfort zone suggests the risk of removing two 1" dia. reflective discs off the sides of a fender assembly is well worth the aesthetic and (infinitesimally small) performance benefit of cleaning up the tail section. I'm certainly not trying to hide my identity, as my plate is equally visible now as compared to stock.

I don't wear high-vis gear, either, preferring to stick with quality protection and alert riding as my primary lines of defense. Frankly, I think anyone who doesn't wear a full CE 2 back protector every time they ride on the road is taking a far greater risk, but again, that's where my thresholds lie...
 
Do you have a link to that document for motorcycles?

Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk

I've linked to the safety standards and testing requirements a few times in this thread.

(This was changed a year ago last July. Now 6500 kg This is why F250s and 2500s where rated at 9900 lbs, but were essentially the same trucks as F350s and 3500s rated at 11,000 lbs.)

Interesting, I missed that update. I'm usually pretty good at staying up to date on significant changes like that but this one flew under my radar. I just went to the MTO website and brought myself up to date.

It makes sense...I guess. The "I have a 1 ton dually pavement princess that has never pulled a trailer in it's life, but look at meeeee!" crowd I guess will be happy. I used to own a 1 ton dually, but I actually used it for it's intended purpose - pulling very heavy trailers. The idea of trucks in that weight category being subject to annual inspections was never actually a terrible idea honestly as nobody wants a 20,000+ pound truck and trailer combination with worn out brakes and other unsafe bits barrelling down the road, but I guess that's OK now.

The voices that cried the loudest was the recreational crowd - RV'ers mainly, as people buying a dually to pull a big RV were upset about having to get annuals. Hopefully this means that some will opt for that heavier truck now that's actually suited properly for the job instead of trying to use a 2500 for a 3500's job as they often did before to try to escape the annuals.

As for the difference between the 2500's and 3500's, yes, they may have been "essentially the same" in many aspects, but the 3500 series are typically almost always duallies which means a higher rear axle weight rating, and accordingly GVWR as a result. A 2500, having the same drivetrain and brakes and suspension still can't legally carry the weight on that rear axle that a dual rear wheel truck can.
 
Interesting, I missed that update. I'm usually pretty good at staying up to date on significant changes like that but this one flew under my radar. I just went to the MTO website and brought myself up to date.

It makes sense...I guess. The "I have a 1 ton dually pavement princess that has never pulled a trailer in it's life, but look at meeeee!" crowd I guess will be happy. I used to own a 1 ton dually, but I actually used it for it's intended purpose - pulling very heavy trailers. The idea of trucks in that weight category being subject to annual inspections was never actually a terrible idea honestly as nobody wants a 20,000+ pound truck and trailer combination with worn out brakes and other unsafe bits barrelling down the road, but I guess that's OK now.

The voices that cried the loudest was the recreational crowd - RV'ers mainly, as people buying a dually to pull a big RV were upset about having to get annuals. Hopefully this means that some will opt for that heavier truck now that's actually suited properly for the job instead of trying to use a 2500 for a 3500's job as they often did before to try to escape the annuals.

As for the difference between the 2500's and 3500's, yes, they may have been "essentially the same" in many aspects, but the 3500 series are typically almost always duallies which means a higher rear axle weight rating, and accordingly GVWR as a result. A 2500, having the same drivetrain and brakes and suspension still can't legally carry the weight on that rear axle that a dual rear wheel truck can.
I didn't want to distract from this thread as it is an important distinction that many seem to think just because they get away with something, they think it is therefore legal. How many times have we seen "I've passed lot of cops with my plate mounted there, (or HID lights, or integrated tail light, or cut down exhaust, or blue lights . . . .) and never got pulled over"?

There are a few interesting points to the new personal use truck rules. You will find that an F450 or 3500HD with a box is rated at 14,000 GVW, this puts them neatly into the personal use category. Order that truck without the box and it is rated up to 19,000. Same GCWR, same drive line, same axles, same brakes in some cases the same frame (the Ford becomes narrower to match the GM & Ram, presumably to make mounted accessories compatible.) This now means you can purchase a dually HD truck to haul your 25,000 lb toyhauler and license it as personal use.

Last year I purchased a used F350 SRW from a dealer that had a very similar F250 priced $5,000 more than the truck I purchased. The axle weight ratings were identical on the two trucks, but the GVW on the 350 was 1500 lb higher. The salesman was trying to get me to buy the 250 on the grounds that licensing would cost me an extra 2,000 per year. I kept my mouth shut, and went with the 350. Once the deal was complete I was sent to their contract person to sort out the details. They told me I needed to purchase an annual commercial certificate for the truck ($250, which I though was rich since they had just done a standard safety) and $1,7000 in commercial licensing (which I'm quite sure was incorrect; lb vs kg). I instructed them on the personal use license requirements, they were adamant that I was misinformed. In the end $32 to transfer the ownership.
 
Hey all, thanks for the replies and information. The plate mount is the factory GSXR mount and I have never intentionally bent my plate upwards. I really should have snapped a pic as the officer was doing the same.

I've requested an Early Resolution Meeting and am waiting to hear back from the court. Never had to fight a ticket before, I am nervous as hell about it and have no idea what to say when the time comes. Thanks again to everyone for the insight.
 
Hey all, thanks for the replies and information. The plate mount is the factory GSXR mount and I have never intentionally bent my plate upwards. I really should have snapped a pic as the officer was doing the same.

I've requested an Early Resolution Meeting and am waiting to hear back from the court. Never had to fight a ticket before, I am nervous as hell about it and have no idea what to say when the time comes. Thanks again to everyone for the insight.
Dont be nervous. Be polite and respectful an it goes a long way. Have a reasonable strategy prepared (if you just argue that it wasnt you or you arent guilty, they get annoyed that you are wasting their time). If you are using he factory plate mount, I would set the plate at the correct angle, take pictures and explain that the vehicle is stock, at that point they normally drop that ticket. I dont find early resolution that helpful as they want you to plead guilty to something which I dont want to do but going through the process is good experience.
 
The plate mount is the factory GSXR mount
Seriously? What year is your bike?

Does the plate mount look like this?

1608588642088.png

How bent is your plate? Intentional or not, is it bent at all in a way that might hinder reading it?

I'd love to see a photo. You really will need one for any meetings or court dates, though it'll have to look largely like the ones the officer took.

If it's a stock plate holder on the fender and isn't bent in any meaningful way, I can't see how that'll stick...
 

Back
Top Bottom