I knew exactly what the license plate would look like from the thread title. There's only one reason to mount your plate like this, it's intentionally making your plate less visible but thinking you can get away with it.
|
|
|
License Plate Obstructed Ticket... when it was clearly visible. Worth fighting?
- Thread starter bhattabdul
- Start date
I knew exactly what the license plate would look like from the thread title. There's only one reason to mount your plate like this, it's intentionally making your plate less visible but thinking you can get away with it.
The only chance of getting off that charge, would be if the officer didn't turn up. Others have already enumerated why, but I'll chime in too.
- The plate obviously contacts the tire under compression, as indicated by the dent in the bottom of it. That means the tire may well fully block view from the rear under such compression.
- The picture is taken at the best possible angle by someone who is standing closely behind the bike, with no rider on it. Even at that position I can see that the rear hugger overlaps the bottom of the plate slightly. Change the angle to that of a person seated in a car and the wheel may partially obscure the plate even without a rider on the bike. Add a rider and it's almost certainly blocked, in a more than minimal manner.
- I don't see a plate light. That, in itself, is an infraction. The plate is not mounted vertically, but rather at an angle. This is not explicit in the HTA, but is implied, and is the only point that might be arguable. Given the rest, it wouldn't get you off the charge.
To top it off in addition to the plate charge, the officer could have applied a charge for the lack of an effective mudguard (HTA, RSO 1990, c. H.8; 66 (3)). A hugger does not qualify as a mudguard.
Did they also hit you for improper use of the HOV lane?
- The plate obviously contacts the tire under compression, as indicated by the dent in the bottom of it. That means the tire may well fully block view from the rear under such compression.
- The picture is taken at the best possible angle by someone who is standing closely behind the bike, with no rider on it. Even at that position I can see that the rear hugger overlaps the bottom of the plate slightly. Change the angle to that of a person seated in a car and the wheel may partially obscure the plate even without a rider on the bike. Add a rider and it's almost certainly blocked, in a more than minimal manner.
- I don't see a plate light. That, in itself, is an infraction. The plate is not mounted vertically, but rather at an angle. This is not explicit in the HTA, but is implied, and is the only point that might be arguable. Given the rest, it wouldn't get you off the charge.
To top it off in addition to the plate charge, the officer could have applied a charge for the lack of an effective mudguard (HTA, RSO 1990, c. H.8; 66 (3)). A hugger does not qualify as a mudguard.
Did they also hit you for improper use of the HOV lane?
I'm not sure how being unable to speak comes into play.
It's possible that the OP purchased the bike that way, and didn't realize that it's a problem, as it passed inspection.
There are probably issues that could warrant a charge for your bike as well if you've messed around back there, turn signal distance or brightness maybe? not to mention potential future wiring issues.
Not sure why you'd advertise having a flip plate along with your S.O.A.R. number, but to each his own. No offense.
WTF are you talking about? I have a flip plate because I don't believe that it is right to be charged for something we paid with out taxes , specially when most or even some of the money is going to a Spanish company, right or wrong that is my opinion and my actions are to me justified accordingly.
You keep following me around threads, sorry I'm married , you need to find someone else.
A goodly portion of the 407 was built using private money, which was part of the agreement for the toll structure. It is illegal to have a flip plate and an officer is empowered to not only take the plate but also the device that is used to conceal it, if it's detected. Given that I have witnessed an OPP officer remove a wired in RADAR detector and all its wiring, in a most ungentle manner, it's not something I'd want to have happen to any vehicle of mine.
While the 407 is Spanish owned I thought one of our civil servant union pensions held a sizable chunk of the Spanish company?
Not directed at @ZX600, but using a flip plate on the 407 is not a good idea. If you're taking the same on and off-ramp at the same time every day; it wouldn't take them much effort to get an OPP toll collector to wait for you at either end, especially with a supersport... they'd have YRPs Air-2 involved.
If you're in a traffic stop for a document check, and they palm your plate and it pushes back; you'll be in trouble.
HTA 13(3)
HTA S13(3.1)
HTA S191.3(1)
If you truly want to protest the 407, the best way is not to use it. I've actually back-pedalled my feelings on the 407 deal; in earnest, we actually got a pretty good deal, with all things considered.
ON built the highway for 1.5B and sold it for 3.1B. Although their profit numbers since 99' are not available, in 2014 the 407ETR made a profit of 223M. So using that number, it would take them more than 13 years to just to break even. It's pretty clear that at this very moment, they most likely have not broken even yet.
A lot of people argued they should have sold it for 12B, just because that's what they're valued at right now; do people actually think a Spanish conglomerate would go to their board and shareholders and ask them to wait +50 years to see a profit?
If the 407 is truly making it rain, why doesn't the provincial government buy it back?
407 East Extension is being named Hwy 412, and for it's entire life it will be a toll road.
They're also proposing a GTA West Highway running from the 400 to the 401/407 interchange: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...parts_of_greenbelt_proving_controversial.html
If you're in a traffic stop for a document check, and they palm your plate and it pushes back; you'll be in trouble.
HTA 13(3)
Obstruct plate preventing accurate photograph
HTA S13(3.1)
Obstruct plate preventing identification by toll system
HTA S191.3(1)
Engage in activity to evade toll system
Engage in activity to obstruct toll system
Engage in activity to interfere with toll system
Use device to evade toll system
Use device to interfere with toll system
Engage in activity to obstruct toll system
Engage in activity to interfere with toll system
Use device to evade toll system
Use device to interfere with toll system
If you truly want to protest the 407, the best way is not to use it. I've actually back-pedalled my feelings on the 407 deal; in earnest, we actually got a pretty good deal, with all things considered.
ON built the highway for 1.5B and sold it for 3.1B. Although their profit numbers since 99' are not available, in 2014 the 407ETR made a profit of 223M. So using that number, it would take them more than 13 years to just to break even. It's pretty clear that at this very moment, they most likely have not broken even yet.
A lot of people argued they should have sold it for 12B, just because that's what they're valued at right now; do people actually think a Spanish conglomerate would go to their board and shareholders and ask them to wait +50 years to see a profit?
If the 407 is truly making it rain, why doesn't the provincial government buy it back?
407 East Extension is being named Hwy 412, and for it's entire life it will be a toll road.
They're also proposing a GTA West Highway running from the 400 to the 401/407 interchange: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...parts_of_greenbelt_proving_controversial.html
They can't. That 3.1B is leasing the 407 for literally 99 years. Their lease is going to outlast the internal combustion engine.
And let's say your math is 100% correct, and it would have taken maybe 15 years to completely pay off the 407. Maybe add another year or two to pay down the interest on financing the whole project, since we didn't have a spare billion lying around.
Then that would have been it. The highway is paid for. Success! The provincial government now has options with their newish highway system:
-Abolish tolls to increase usage and reduce strain on the heavily burdened 401/403/427/QEW (also diverting some shipping traffic from those routes)
-Retain reduced tolls to enjoy a new revenue stream (if we're being honest, almost guaranteed to happen, as the gov't doesn't like saying no to money)
-Expand the 407 without having to worry about battling corporate interests
The province sold the operating rights for twice what it cost to build the highway, and that money went back into the public coffers where it could be used for other public uses, but it goes further than that. When the province leased the operating rights to 407ETR, it also divested itself of any financial obligation to maintain and expand the highway. The province also no longer has to pay to plow and salt the highway and even the policing costs are picked up by 407ETR.
That represents further savings for the average taxpayer who does not use the 407, and it simply moves the 407 into more of a user-pay facility where those who benefit from the highway pay for that benefit.
This is directed at ZX600. When someone comes into Canadian Tire for service or to browse the aisles, what do you consider it when they then leave without paying for the good or services they have taken? That's right, and any excuses they may make to justify their lack of payment doesn't change that. You are no different when you evade the 407 tolls regardless of what excuse you put forward.
No, it's not that simple. The province would still have been on the hook to maintain the thing, never mind pay for all of the expansion and upgrading of the highway.
That 3.1 billion lease is shifting all of those obligations onto the 407ETR people for the length of the lease. At the end of the 99 year lease there will be a hyper-expanded highway system that reverts back to the province at no cost to the taxpayer.
407ETR can continue to raise toll rates but they can do so only as long as traffic volume continues to rise. If traffic volume stagnates, so too do the toll rates under the agreement with the province. That is the purest form of a supply-demand curve on a economics graph - if you want growth, you can only charge for a service up to what the market will bear, or the market volume will drop.
When that happens so too will 407 tolls, but it hasn't happened yet. That suggests that the toll cost is seen as being reasonable for the service provided by those who actually pay (as opposed to steal) to use the 407.
I am nearly certain that in 2097, whatever value the 407 provides now will be greatly diminished. The 99 year lease covers the useful life of the highway and then some.
That economic model only works for maximizing the profits of 407ETR. They are not really bothered (pleased, in fact) if the capacity of the highway is underutilized. They are not motivated to reduce traffic on the overloaded neighbouring highways. The constraint you mention on toll rates might as well not exist, because they are already ****ing high! IF you were to use it to commute 40km you'd currently be coughing up almost $600 a month. It might make sense for company vehicles to use it while on the clock to decrease travel time, but that's about it.
griff2 does raise good points, as tax payers we haven't spent another dime on the 407 since the sale. We actually made a 1.5B profit on the sale, however there are numbers out there arguing that we spent $100B acquiring the land.
407ETR has spent over $1.2B in extensions and expansions. Does anyone here honestly believe that the province would have spent the equivalent of that? Absolutely not.
Being underutilized, similar to the Pan-Am HOV-3 is the goal; you want a freeway that you can do 120km/hr at any hour of the day. If you're sitting in standstill traffic when entering the 407ETR, the first thing that comes to mind... "WTF, why am I paying to sit in this ****?". I consistently hear from my passengers, "do you get a refund, when there's traffic like this?".
http://www.407etr.com/about/usage-statistics.html
Even with higher tolls, more and more people are using it; it's supply and demand, which means they'll just keep raising the rates.
Either way it's water under the bridge; their intentions were always to make it a toll highway... lets see what they do with the 407E extension. If they actually only make it toll just to cover the cost of the extension, and then make it free... I'll be very surprised.
Interesting quote from Mike Harris in Jan 2012, suggesting that other 400-series highways were also for sale.
Maybe someone with some experience could answer this, why doesn't the province invoke "eminent domain" and just take back the 407?
407ETR has spent over $1.2B in extensions and expansions. Does anyone here honestly believe that the province would have spent the equivalent of that? Absolutely not.
Being underutilized, similar to the Pan-Am HOV-3 is the goal; you want a freeway that you can do 120km/hr at any hour of the day. If you're sitting in standstill traffic when entering the 407ETR, the first thing that comes to mind... "WTF, why am I paying to sit in this ****?". I consistently hear from my passengers, "do you get a refund, when there's traffic like this?".
http://www.407etr.com/about/usage-statistics.html
Even with higher tolls, more and more people are using it; it's supply and demand, which means they'll just keep raising the rates.
Either way it's water under the bridge; their intentions were always to make it a toll highway... lets see what they do with the 407E extension. If they actually only make it toll just to cover the cost of the extension, and then make it free... I'll be very surprised.
Interesting quote from Mike Harris in Jan 2012, suggesting that other 400-series highways were also for sale.
I was approached by a French consortium to buy all the 400 series highways. I asked them, how can we be sure you’ll put the necessary maintenance and expansion dollars into it? They said, ‘When we own the highway and traffic is moving at 120 km/hr, we make money. When it moves at 60 km/hr, we make little money. And when traffic is dead stopped, we don’t make any money. So who’s going to build the new lanes faster? Furthermore, when you’ve got health and education competing for tax dollars, highways will always lose. We’ll build them, because we make money when cars move, and we don’t when they don’t.'
Maybe someone with some experience could answer this, why doesn't the province invoke "eminent domain" and just take back the 407?
It would be extremely expensive.
Amusing quote from the late NDP MPP Doug Rollins taken from that link:
"I think this business plan clearly - and I've been assured by the minister that of this $104 billion or $107 billion that we have invested in this thing so far, if we don't get the money, he won't accept the deal. We're going to tender this thing out in a fair and transparent way and at the end of the day the minister will make a decision that is to the best benefit and the best advantage of the people of Ontario."
(Of course, there are other MPPs talking single digit billions in the same transcript so he clearly was not speaking with any authority on the matter)
Let's not forget that 407ETR has also made other changes, which enrich their pockets even more. The first one to come to mind is if their system fails to detect your transponder, they used to charge you for only one exit. Now they take the "average distance traveled at that time. So how does one prove they didn't travel say the average 10 km but rather you only traveled 4 km?? You can't because you only get informed when you get your bill several weeks later.
and that is a risk I am willing to take and for sure I won't be coming in here to cry about it and won't be asking if this was legal or illegal, I know it is illegal and I am more than happy to take a ticket for it, but since I don't ride a sports bike anymore and my plate is in the most far part of the bike, I doubt they will be bothering me instead of the squids out there. Screw the 407 as they go out of their way to screw people on their billing.
And to those saying that the leasing of the 407 is "saving us" from the expenses of salting, maintain etc, I am sure the companies that leased it did it so they could lose money! give me a break, the profit made from the toll charges cover all those expenses and make a nice profit on top, money that by the way would be going back into the province for much needed infrastructure expenses.
.. and if the people that goes into Canadian Tire to steal something were the same people that paid to build the company, I would feel they are justified to take a few things. Stupid example, but of course what can we expect from Bill on his 55th soon to be banned account.
Last edited:
That is their response to the "transponder-in-a-tin-foil-bag" trick when either entering or exiting the highway, but not both. That lets you get billed for one-exit billing through the transponder for either the entry or exit depending on when you bagged the transponder, and for one-exit billing through the license plate recognition system for the other.
Even with the cameras surcharge, that strategy still worked out well for longer trips. It was just a matter of time before 407ETR responded to that form of services theft by changing their billing policies.
|
|
|
|
|