Mine were at 4 mm. Shop dug in their heels and said buy tires or go somewhere else. Didnt have time to find another shop. F#%@^@&ers. Sure, I guess I could have reported them to a ministry but I expectt zero action and more frustration.
|
|
|
Ontario DriveON Program
- Thread starter Georg3__
- Start date
I would have walked, and there would have been a cloud of blue smoke hanging in the foyer after I'd left.
Needed to transfer title that day (and have a driveable car). I knew tires were going to be coming in a while but it would have been at least a year.
Hmm, interesting business idea. Rent good tires on rims for $150 a day including swaps. A hell of a lot cheaper than buying new tires.
Besides depth, safety regulations state "cut or crack greater than 25mm that extends deeper than a major tread groove." Unfortunately that's kinda wishy washy, a shop can legitimately fail you for tires that are even slightly weather cracked if the crack is longer than 25mm.
No cuts or cracks. Tires were worn but fine.
Not great then. I've had a couple customer cars that passed by the regulations but definitely shouldn't have for various reasons, in those situations I just told the customer that we couldn't write them a safety in good conscience and explained why, offered not to charge them if they went elsewhere.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I have a couple of places that write me safeties over the phone. They trust me and only do it for cars & bikes I plan to keep for myself. They know I keep my stuff safe and that a full inspection would not get them into trouble. A few years back there were shops in Woodbridge that had emission compliant exhausts and loaner motors they would swap in/out for owners who were running race equipment on the street, just to pass emissions. A Vette I helped change out was owned by the lead software developer for Drive Clean.
I also know places that do sight-unseen safety's for curbsiders and small car lots - those places put the public at risk.
I think this is the reason for pics and more regulation in this area - fraud and safety.
I also know places that do sight-unseen safety's for curbsiders and small car lots - those places put the public at risk.
I think this is the reason for pics and more regulation in this area - fraud and safety.
If someone is willing to swap out hardware in order to pass inspection, then put it back afterward, photos of the swapped-out status (while the on-road status is never documented) isn't going to help!
It would address the inspection-over-the-phone situations, but even then, how much real-world effect? When my father passed away, I needed an inspection in a hurry in order to transfer the ownership of my dad's 3-year-old low-mileage VW Golf to my sister. The car was fine. "Do you actually need an inspection, or do you need a piece of paper?" - but they still wanted to lay eyes on the vehicle.
It would address the inspection-over-the-phone situations, but even then, how much real-world effect? When my father passed away, I needed an inspection in a hurry in order to transfer the ownership of my dad's 3-year-old low-mileage VW Golf to my sister. The car was fine. "Do you actually need an inspection, or do you need a piece of paper?" - but they still wanted to lay eyes on the vehicle.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I agree photos won't work for emissions -- that's a moot point today for cars.
As for transferring between family members, they need a safety. Last year my kid found his little Jeep Patriot wasn't enough for his trailers, so we swapped Jeeps - he took my Hemi Commander, I took his rubber band powered Patriot. Both vehicles needed safety's to transfer ownership. Fortunately my 'guy' in Newmarket knew what we were doing and wrote out the safeties over the phone. In your case and mine, little harm/foul. But when it's done by curbsiders and shady dealers, there is risk to the public.
That must be something semi recent. I've done it a few times in the past and there was no safety required at that time.
Spouse no safety everyone else needs one.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
I've done it a few times over the past few decades. Safety required every time. FWIW, transfers were between siblings or parents. To simplify stickers, I have always owned my wifes vehicle.
KLR Junkie
Well-known member
I guess someone at the ministry saw this thread. They've added this to the Overview section:"DriveON is designed for heavy diesel commercial motor vehicles and will not include new testing requirements or fees for light passenger vehicles. There will be no changes to the existing safety inspection requirements and emissions tests will only be required for the same types of heavy diesel vehicles that currently require tests."
Interesting. It seems suspicious that it would have had passenger vehicle wording if it was heavy diesel only. Somebody had to add wording re: passenger vehicles. I'm glad it has been temporarily clarified. I expect the opposite clarification after the election.
Concur, I noted the ‘passenger’ wording before this post even went up. I figured we had something coming. Id probably lay money we still do.
|
|
|
|
|