License Plate Obstructed Ticket... when it was clearly visible. Worth fighting? | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

License Plate Obstructed Ticket... when it was clearly visible. Worth fighting?

nobbie48 said:
Loosely translated, "I am above the law."
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Back to the Canadian Ture analogy, he's right, it is a stupid example because he hasn't fleshed it out to encompass the full reality. Fully fleshed out it goes like this - If the people that went into Canadian Tire to steal something were the same people that paid to build the company, but who then profited when it was later sold for double what it cost to build, then no, there is no way for them to later justify going back in to "take a few things". It would just be theft pure and simple.

The taxpayer paid to build the 407 out of the tax coffers, the government then sold the rights to operate the highway for twice what it cost to build, and those proceeds went back into the tax coffers. The taxpayers as a body were well-compensated by that sale. Those taxpayers who actually use the highway pay for the convenience under a user-pay system.

If the government had NOT sold the operating rights to the 407 to 407ETR and kept it in-house, the same people who steal from the 407 now would still be stealing from a 407 under government operation. Only the excuses used to rationalize the theft would change.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I asked a police officer before about flip plates, and was advised that they are completely legal. They only become illegal if you are caught using them.
 
silverbullet132 said:
I asked a police officer before about flip plates, and was advised that they are completely legal. They only become illegal if you are caught using them.
Click to expand...

Wait what !?! How can they be legal and illegal at the same time? I'm confused :confused:
 
Jampy00 said:
Wait what !?! How can they be legal and illegal at the same time? I'm confused :confused:
Click to expand...

Lots of stuff like that.

Not illegal to own a hammer but illegal to bash someone with it.

Not illegal to have high beam headlights, just illegal to use them to blind other drivers.
 
Of course, could also be a misinformed officer.
 
silverbullet132 said:
I asked a police officer before about flip plates, and was advised that they are completely legal. They only become illegal if you are caught using them.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same I was told.

..and back to the Canadian Tire example - If the store had been sold without the owners consent I would find it justified, illegal but justified, Unless there was a referendum and a vote where the majority decided to sell it? I didn't think so.

and not I am not "loosely translated above the law" I said I was willing to take my ticket but after 4 years of using it often entering and exiting in the same spot at approximately the same time I have had no problems.

I guess all of you that go above 100 on the 401 because you feel that 100 is way to slow also feel that you are above the law? it works both ways my friends, can't be judgmental about me using a flip plate while you are breaking other laws, it is called hypocrisy
 
Last edited:
I can see a flip plate being legal to own; all the old cars had "flip" plates when you thinks about it. Had to flip them to put gas in the car; if it had a remote cable to operate it, it is only an assisted switch in theory. Interesting....
 
Exactly, zx600 didn't state he was "above the law" in fact he stated earlier. He is willing to take the ticket. That is the definition of conviction. If you believe honestly in your conviction then you MUST be willing to accept the consequences of that conviction. Kudos to him. Under the law, generally the judiciary views theft of services differently then they view theft of property.

The mere installation of a "flip plate" is not covered in the HTA iirc. The offence has been posted by iFly55, which is toll evasion.


ZX600 said:
Exactly the same I was told.

..and back to the Canadian Tire example - If the store had been sold without the owners consent I would find it justified, illegal but justified, Unless there was a referendum and a vote where the majority decided to sell it? I didn't think so.

and not I am not "loosely translated above the law" I said I was willing to take my ticket but after 4 years of using it often entering and exiting in the same spot at approximately the same time I have had no problems.

I guess all of you that go above 100 on the 401 because you feel that 100 is way to slow also feel that you are above the law? it works both ways my friends, can't be judgmental about me using a flip plate while you are breaking other laws, it is called hypocrisy
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Exactly, zx600 didn't state he was "above the law" in fact he stated earlier. He is willing to take the ticket. That is the definition of conviction. If you believe honestly in your conviction then you MUST be willing to accept the consequences of that conviction. Kudos to him. Under the law, generally the judiciary views theft of services differently then they view theft of property.

The mere installation of a "flip plate" is not covered in the HTA iirc. The offence has been posted by iFly55, which is toll evasion.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the sections that were specifically added to address the 407, the HTA states the following:

"Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and obstruction and shall be affixed so that the entire number plate, including the numbers, is plainly visible at all times, and the view of the number plate shall not be obscured or obstructed by spare tires, bumper bars, any part of the vehicle, any attachments to the vehicle or the load carried."

A charge under that section, based on the strict wording "at all times", would be possible for even a parked vehicle with a flip plate.

The sections that include comments about the 407 read like this:

"The number plates shall not be obstructed by any device that prevents the entire number plates including the numbers from being accurately photographed using a red light camera system."

Oddly enough my brief search attempts today have not turned up any cases regarding flip plates. The wording of those sections implies that a charge would not be upheld, unless the flip was in use at the time. I'll try again, perhaps tomorrow.
 
ZX600 said:
Exactly the same I was told.

..and back to the Canadian Tire example - If the store had been sold without the owners consent I would find it justified, illegal but justified, Unless there was a referendum and a vote where the majority decided to sell it? I didn't think so.

and not I am not "loosely translated above the law" I said I was willing to take my ticket but after 4 years of using it often entering and exiting in the same spot at approximately the same time I have had no problems.

I guess all of you that go above 100 on the 401 because you feel that 100 is way to slow also feel that you are above the law? it works both ways my friends, can't be judgmental about me using a flip plate while you are breaking other laws, it is called hypocrisy
Click to expand...

If everyone did over 100 on the 401 there would be no cost to anyone. Things might even improve.

If everyone used flip plates the 407 would go belly up.

While referendums are of value we would have chaos if every item on the public agenda was handled by them. That's why we have elected officials to make the right choices. We "Hire" people like Wynne and McGuinty to do what's right. The fact that it hasn't worked out is because we have dumb voters. Either smarten them up or leave the province.
 
This is all I could find, looks like decisions related to flip plates haven't been published.

R. v. Laidlow [2002] O.J. No. 2612

Trial of Laidlow on charges under the Highway Traffic Act for an obstructed plate preventing identification by a toll system and for engaging in activity to evade a toll system. Laidlow pleaded guilty on two of the three charges. The plate of Laidlow's vehicle was recessed and not visible to the cameras on the 407 and the transponder had not been activated for that trip. The plate was not visible because that was the way the trailer was built. The plate positioning conformed to the Highway Traffic Act and to the regulations. Laidlow's transponder was last activated on December 5, 2001 and the offence date was December 6, 2001.

HELD: Laidlow's plea to the charge of obstructing a plate was struck and an acquittal on that charge was entered. A conviction was entered on the charge of engaging in an activity to evade a toll system. The set fine of $90 was imposed. The third charge was withdrawn. There was no device that Laidlow obstructed the plate. It was the design of the vehicle and the location of the plate that rendered it not visible to the cameras. The facts did not support the charge of obstructing a plate preventing identification. The charge of engaging in an activity to evade a toll system was a mens rea offence and required some positive act or some evidence that Laidlow engaged in activity for the purpose of evading, obstructing or interfering. On the facts admitted this requirement was met.
 

Attachments

  • R. v. Laidlow, [2002] O.J. No. 2612.pdf
    12.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
Leaving aside the sections that were specifically added to address the 407, the HTA states the following:

"Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and obstruction and shall be affixed so that the entire number plate, including the numbers, is plainly visible at all times, and the view of the number plate shall not be obscured or obstructed by spare tires, bumper bars, any part of the vehicle, any attachments to the vehicle or the load carried."

A charge under that section, based on the strict wording "at all times", would be possible for even a parked vehicle with a flip plate.
Click to expand...
Wow Rob, this is a stretch, a really big stretch - The fact that it is physically possible to flip the plate does not mean that the plate will ever be flipped and the officer would have to prove in court that the plate was obstructed or flipped at certain point.

With your reasoning, I could never walk behind my bike because that would momentarily obstruct the plate and an officer can charge because he figures at certain point I may have walked behind my bike and obstruct my plate.

I hope you warmed up before that stretch, don't wanna pull a muscle. Unless you were just making a remark as part of the conversation, if that is the case then I digress.
 
Last edited:
In Ontario many towed devices do not have to be licensed. They are mobile pieces of equipment like asphalt kettles, welders etc. They do obscure plate numbers so how are they treated?
 
Blue Star Trailer Rentals Inc. v. 407 ETR Concession Co. [2008] O.J. No. 409

HELD: Application allowed. The legislature did not intend that "vehicle" as used in para. 13(1)(a) refer to a "trailer". Accordingly, the respondent was not authorized to bill the applicant for the tolls, administrative fees and interest and any other amounts it charged the applicant for the use of Highway 407 by any trailer attached to a motor vehicle where the motor vehicle's license plate was not issued in the applicant's name. The Registrar was therefore not authorized to invalidate the 122 plates issued to the applicant.​

Didn't get a chance to read the entire thing, but it might answer your question @nobbie48.
 
ZX600 said:
Wow Rob, this is a stretch, a really big stretch - The fact that it is physically possible to flip the plate does not mean that the plate will ever be flipped and the officer would have to prove in court that the plate was obstructed or flipped at certain point.

With your reasoning, I could never walk behind my bike because that would momentarily obstruct the plate and an officer can charge because he figures at certain point I may have walked behind my bike and obstruct my plate.

I hope you warmed up before that stretch, don't wanna pull a muscle. Unless you were just making a remark as part of the conversation, if that is the case then I digress.
Click to expand...

The purpose of a remotely operated flip plate is to hide the plate. The purpose of walking behind your bike is to walk. Who is it, who is making the stretch? ;)
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The purpose of a remotely operated flip plate is to hide the plate. The purpose of walking behind your bike is to walk. Who is it, who is making the stretch? ;)
Click to expand...
My flip plate operates manually not remotely, not sure at which point anyone said remotely? maybe I missed it.
 
This gadget looks good (except I'd change the first two letters LoL)
plate-flipper1.jpg
 
I had a license plate positioned in a similar spot to where the OP's was. Friends and others who rode behind me always had a clear sight of my plate (I asked) when I was riding (I'm also not fat ;)).

I changed it eventually due to OPP harassing me in a parking lot...they said it was used to evade the 407. Ironically, the 407 actually managed to regularly bill me for my trips from Markham to Mississauga when I had the lower plate. I moved the plate back using Yoshimura's kit (had a Werkes before) and the 407 keeps missing my plate now lol
 
Also remember there are "products" that claim they work against photo raadar and red light cameras. One of which is a spray that reflects the camera flash as well as at least two plate covers. But the 407 cameras do not use a flash. I confirmed with the sole Canadian dealer, (which is in Calgary). He confirmed that these products do NOT work for the "Ontario toll cameras" Just in case anyone was considering these as an option...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom