Reply With QuoteAbout your integrated turn signals... don't they have to be a certain distance apart? I'm assuming that why most protrude.
|
|
Just one problem with that..... what if the officer has a pic of the back of his bike??????Originally Posted by frekeyguy
Then you get charged with perjury..
About your integrated turn signals... don't they have to be a certain distance apart? I'm assuming that why most protrude.
Vivere est vincere
Whoa dude, lying to the court...
Vivere est vincere
Once you admit to removing the MOT-approved bracket/mudguard and replacing it with a questionable alternative (in a location favoured by scofflaws), your credibility in the eyes of the court will likely plummet to zero.
Sell the DSLR and hire a lawyer instead.
If you were on the stand and I showed you the photo I attached earlier, you would honestly say that the entire tail section is obstructing my plate?
Again, just because I own a gun does not make me a murderer. Why would get representation for god-knows how much for a $110 non-moving violation that will not affect my insurance rate.
Last edited by Starchild; 02-15-2010 at 08:57 AM.
2007 GSX-R750 street
2009 ZX-6R track
Moderator
All that's required is that it be PARTIALLY obstructed.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Looking at the photo, what part of my motorcycle is partially obstructing my plate?
2007 GSX-R750 street
2009 ZX-6R track
Is the total value of this ticket just $125.00? Are there points involved? I would think that this kind of violation would be like a parking ticket and should not affect your insurance.
The only way I would waste a day of my time and go to court to fight a ticket is if there were points to be saved. From the look of your photo this will be a slam dunk for the Crown; please pay the Clerk on your way out Sir.
I would save my time and trouble, pay the fine, learn a lesson and relocate the plate back to where it should be.
Malks
1997 ST1100
Moderator
Nothing in that photo (though I find it difficult to see the plate but for it's shape) though an upward angle would obscure the top of the plate, along with the sticker, and it would likely be completely obscured to a car immediately behind it at a light or stop sign. It's like looking down a tunnel.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
+1 unless of course the cop is a midget.
" I don't want a pickle, I'd rather just ride on my motorcycle."
Thank you for your honesty. My plate may be obstructed only at an extreme upward angle, but the same can be said for almost any vehicle, and its not like police cars are 2 stories tall. Plus, the HTA does not mention angles. Cars stopped immediately behind me may not be able to see my plate, but in reality, if the driver cannot see the bottom of my rear tire, he is stopped too close, and if he can see the bottom of my tire, he can definitely see my plate.
2007 GSX-R750 street
2009 ZX-6R track
Moderator
Is your plate "on the rear of the vehicle"? This is a specific provision for motorcycles.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
That will depend on your insurance company and number of tickets you already have! A conviction for this ticket could potentially affect your insurance.
Moderator
Yes, they have to be a certain distance apart. But in this particular case, that's irrelevant. This model of GSXR has the rear turn signals already built into the bodywork. Those are the original-equipment turn signals. They meet CMVSS 108. That's not the issue here. The cop was wrong about mentioning it ... but that's not what the ticket was written out for, so it doesn't matter.
In the system that we have specifics aren't always written into the law unless there is a regulation. Working Standards were developed from court decisions, policy and common sense.
For example, 2 moving violations can be combined for a Careless Driving charge, although, written CD HTA definition is very vague IMO.
Be prepared for the "does not matter what others do, you were the one that was charged" response. How can you think that supplying one pic from a favourable angle will show that your plate will not ever be obstructed during normal operation of your bike? The fact that the law does not define angle can be used against you as well, since there is no limitation put on it. All depends on how you want interpret it. But, you are not going to court to fight the definition of the offence, you are going because you got charged under a specific act. Fighting the definition is not done in "traffic court".
Moderator
... and that is the point, it is OBSTRUCTED
But, those vehicles were built according to CMVSS and they can be defended on the account of "that's the way the original manufacturer built it, and it's certified to meet CMVSS". You don't have that defense. And in any case ... the angle at which yours becomes obstructed is an awful lot shallower than the angle at which a stock one becomes obstructed.
That is your *problem*, not your *defence*. Because it doesn't mention angles, you cannot say "I measured the angle at which it can be seen, and it is X degrees up from horizontal, and the regulationsays Y degrees and therefore it is in compliance." Because the HTA doesn't give numbers, you DO NOT HAVE that option. The only reliable defence is "that's the way the manufacturer built it and they certified it to CMVSS, therefore it has to be legal". PERIOD.
... So, you just admitted guilt!
Irrelevant.
Look, you have exactly one choice of defence in this matter. Put the way the license plate mounts back to stock, take pictures of it, and show the prosecutor the pictures of the bike BEFORE you go to trial. Your only option is to get the prosecutor to throw the charge out. (It happens very frequently in these "fix-it" type charges.) If you go to trial with what you are planning to do ... YOU LOSE.
And Rob's right ... you have a difficult time arguing that your plate is "on the rear". Nevermind some Harleys or whatever that have it OEM on the side at the swingarm. Those bikes were built by the original manufacturer and certified to CMVSS like that. Yours wasn't, and the argument that another vehicle manufacturer did it that way won't fly.
So, put it back to stock, take pictures of it, go meet with the prosecutor, and ask if the charge can be dismissed.
Thanks for the heads up. I do realize that this is a weak argument. My main focus should and will be fighting 13(2) specifically and proving that my plate is unobstructed.
What you are saying also applies to the person who brought up this argument about angles (and it was not me). Fact is: my plate is unobstructed from all reasonable angles viewed from the rear of my motorcycle.
I chose my words carefully. I did not say "is," I said "may."
I was charged with 13(2), not 628(4). Your advice, still, is greatly appreciated. I will definitely consider it. Is it possible to book an earlier appointment with the prosecutor?
Last edited by Starchild; 02-15-2010 at 11:37 AM.
2007 GSX-R750 street
2009 ZX-6R track
Moderator
The trouble with THIS is that you aren't the one in a position to define what "reasonable" means.
Moderator
Ont Reg 628 is a series of definitions and requirements. You get charged under 13(2) for it, just as you are charged under HTA section 172 for breaches of the definitions in Ont Reg 455.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks