Reply With QuoteI agree, mine aren't bald, but I'm replacing them due to age. I just bought the bike and it has been sitting. The tread is barely worn but they are quite old
|
|
why are people quoting provincial tire regulations and what is bald and what's not?..... who cares
If you think your tires are getting to the end of there life don't be cheap replace them, your tires are the most important part of your bike!
they are the only thing in contact with the road. A set of worn tires could cost you your life
Last edited by kw-ont-75; 03-17-2010 at 07:40 PM.
I agree, mine aren't bald, but I'm replacing them due to age. I just bought the bike and it has been sitting. The tread is barely worn but they are quite old
You can't fix stupid
Moderator
Perhaps because this is a legal, rather than technical or safety thread?Originally Posted by kw-ont-75
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
Thanks for the advice mom
Current: 2006 Triumph Daytona 675
Past: 2005 Ducati S2R 800 Dark
They can pull you over for anything they want, they don't need cause. It's 100% at there discretion.
" Run as fast as you can, then jump and slide on the pavement. Now think of traveling at 80 MPH and doing the same. Don't be a squid, wear proper gear. "
i had these on my r6. i got hassled for it when i was stopped once. but i held my ground. told him the bike had 7000km on it, and the tires had less than 1k km. the treads were above the wear bar, so i got off.Or this one: Pirelli Diablo Supercorsa Pro - rear tire...
"But officer... it's brand new, I just put it on last week!!"
"I don't believe you, we're calling a tow truck right now punk!"
2008 Triumph Daytona 675 SE
2009 Triumph Street Triple
2007 Yamaha YZF-R6
2004 Yamaha YZ-125
2002 Yamaha TTR-225
2001 Yamaha TTR-125L
no they can NOT... They must have a valid reason to stop you. many many tickets (including DUI, no Ins. and No Driver's License) were thrown out because of this. Doesn't stop them from lying about a reason though.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
01001001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01010010
01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010
00100000 01000010 01100101 00100000 01010010
01101001 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
retarded as it may (I also don't care to pour through pages of advice like "you should change your tires), have you taken photographs of the tires and taken the tires to a certified mechanic for inspection? Rosey Toes for instance?.
If they will vouch that the tires are still within 'acceptable' limits for road use, you've got what you need for court.
b.s. charge IMHO, good luck with it.
'05 EX-500
The Supreme Court of Canada says otherwise.Gerald Ladouceur was pulled over by the police as part of a random traffic check. The police discovered that he was driving with a suspended licence. He was convicted of driving without a licence.
Ladouceur challenged the provision of the Highway Traffic Act which authorized the police officers to do random traffic checks as a violation of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter. The conviction was upheld on appeal.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._LadouceurJustice Cory, writing for the majority, upheld the conviction. He found that there was clearly a violation of section 9 as the basis for the stops were in the complete discretion of the police and entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, the consequences of failing to yield to the detention included severe penalties.
He found that the act of stopping drivers did not constitute a "search" or a "seizure" and so did not invoke section 8. Lastly, Cory refused to consider whether there was a violation of section 7, given that there was already a violation of section 9.
The violation of section 9 was justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1. The government successfully established that there was a pressing and substantial objective of increasing highway safety, and that random stops were an effective means of achieving the objective through deterrence. This position was further supported by evidence of its effectiveness in other countries as well.
Moderator
Question for Rob ...
I've always pondered this: having worked hard to complete 5 years apprenticeship, the corresponding college courses and pass the written exam to earn a mechanics' license. What qualifies a police officer to determine whether a vehicle is safe for the road of not? When they have safety blitzes on the MTO is always present doing the inspections for the police.
Would the lack of qualification of the police officer be grounds to have an unsafe vehicle charge dismissed? Has this been tried before?
Soar # 21
You don't need a mechanic's license to be able to recognize tires down to their tread wear bars, holes in rusted out floor pans, rusted fender panels blowing in the breeze, rear axles kept from sliding along leaf springs by chain or wire, badly leaking fuel systems, problems with grossly out of whack suspensions or steering gear, etc.
For the more subtle stuff, the cop can just issue an inspection order requiring you to present the vehicle to an MTO inspection facility.
As for stuff being thrown out because the cop is not a licensed mechanic, forget it. Your only out would be to demonstrate that the vehicle defect was in fact not a critical defect.
Moderator
Turbodish is correct; the officer's lack of specific knowledge is not an impediment to a finding of guilt, as many things are blatantly obvious to even an untrained eye, and for those less obvious he can order inspection by someone who DOES have such knowledge.
If you're driving the Flintstone-mobile, it doesn't take an expert to know that it's unsafe.
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
C'mon we've all seen cars and bikes on the road with bald tires, or stuff held together with duct tape, a lot of generally unsafe things. The owners need to fix it. if I was driving along and your tire blew and you crashed into my car, and you KNEW you needed new tires but didn't put them on. I would be very ******.
I'm on this car forum, and joke is that this particular car is going extinct because people are buying them cause they are cool, but when it comes to parts and repairs that they are so expensive, people drive the car until everything breaks and then they trash the car.
Same with bikes. If you go out and buy a bike, but can't afford tires, brakes, or maintenance, perhaps it's time to think about TTC.
Don't blame the system because you messed up, suck it up and go buy tires.
so you get the tires checked by a mechanic and a written note (or rather signed note) explaining that they are not below wear and are legal for road use in their present condition. the real pain in the *** at the end of the day is your time in court or going to the courthouse, and the cost of the tow...can one claim the cost back because the officer may have been wrong? or are you sol?...that would really rile me if the officer was wrong and it cost me...as it has in the past...
"In life there are winners and there are lugers..." - Kevin
i've always wondered about this as well.
2008 Triumph Daytona 675 SE
2009 Triumph Street Triple
2007 Yamaha YZF-R6
2004 Yamaha YZ-125
2002 Yamaha TTR-225
2001 Yamaha TTR-125L
Moderator
There is no recovery if the officer is acting in good faith, in pursuance of his duty.
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
Just show up to court with a tire depth gauge. Ask the officer if he knows what it is, if he knows, then ask him if he used it to verify whether the tire had the required 1.5mm of tread depth or not.
If he says he does not know what it is, then case closed. You just describe to the to the JP what the instrument is used for and explain that your tires were safe because they did have the required 1.5mm of tread and the tires were also in accordance to the other requirements in the HTA.
Wrong. There is no requirement for a cop to know what a tire depth gauge is, and a cop not knowing what one is not evidence that the tire had sufficient tread. There is an alternate method that is just as acceptable to determine if the tread depth is sufficient, and that is to visually inspect the tread wear indicators built into the tires precisely for that purpose.
Last edited by turbodish; 04-07-2010 at 11:01 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks