Undertail / Integrated Tail Lights | GTAMotorcycle.com

Undertail / Integrated Tail Lights

Sorry, if its been covered. I have tried searching but wondering about undertails with integrated brake/tail lights? I know they are technically illegal but is it something the police will pull you over for or harass you about? I am a respectful rider while driving and when speaking to cops. I understand I've done something wrong and no reason to give them a hard time.

I just wanted to know if I used them would I be getting pulled over right away or is it more of a 'extra' ticket when I get pulled over they will throw this one on.

Thanks
 
Both. You might find the occasional cop who will pull you over for that alone, you will definitely find that they'll give it to you as an add on, depending on your attitude of course. Many riders have them and seem to have no problems. I'm more a fan of stock lights, I don't ride track and I want to be seen. Ymmv

Sent from my Le Pan TC802A using Tapatalk
 
The HTA doesn't specifically address the situation. But there is a theoretical possibility that the cops could require your vehicle to be subjected to a roadside safety inspection, and if the MTO is doing this and not your friendly local mechanic, there is not going to be any wiggle room. Compliant rear turn signals per CMVSS 108 have to be 9" / 230mm apart, and those integrated taillights all fail that. They also typically don't include the CMVSS-required reflectors (side or rear), and those kits frequently have issues with license plate illumination, and then there is the whole issue about the adequacy of the "mudguard".

Having said that ... I've never heard of this happening for motorcycles. The MTO frequently does commercial-vehicle inspection blitzes, and if you go to those import car shows that attract the car hooligans and cops alike, then perhaps that could be inviting trouble if you get into a situation where the cops are giving every vehicle the fine-tooth-comb treatment in order to harass the participants (cough) enforce their "anti street racing" agenda.

The more common-sense reason to avoid those integrated taillights is simply that drivers/riders behind you can't see your intentions from far enough back.
 
The HTA doesn't specifically address the situation. But there is a theoretical possibility that the cops could require your vehicle to be subjected to a roadside safety inspection, and if the MTO is doing this and not your friendly local mechanic, there is not going to be any wiggle room. Compliant rear turn signals per CMVSS 108 have to be 9" / 230mm apart, and those integrated taillights all fail that. They also typically don't include the CMVSS-required reflectors (side or rear), and those kits frequently have issues with license plate illumination, and then there is the whole issue about the adequacy of the "mudguard".

Having said that ... I've never heard of this happening for motorcycles. The MTO frequently does commercial-vehicle inspection blitzes, and if you go to those import car shows that attract the car hooligans and cops alike, then perhaps that could be inviting trouble if you get into a situation where the cops are giving every vehicle the fine-tooth-comb treatment in order to harass the participants (cough) enforce their "anti street racing" agenda.

The more common-sense reason to avoid those integrated taillights is simply that drivers/riders behind you can't see your intentions from far enough back.

Undertail and integrated signals implies removal of the mudguard/fender. The HTA specifically requires the presence of a mudguard on motorcycles, meaning that the undertail is illegal and easily noticeable as such. HTA 66 (3).
 
I can say as a former copper, this is something that if your patrolling and no calls are in the system, then I would pull over something like this. Sure it can be a ticket, BUT, it could lead to something bigger like, rider has been drinking, no insurance, rider doesn't have paperwork, etc etc etc.

Plus there is the visibility factor, I WANT to be as visible as possible, from as far away as possible. Not sure why people consider putting these small ights on their bikes, it is tantamount to removing your stock head light and replacing it with an LED flashlight. There are requirements for lights on a bike and manufacturers put lights where they do for a reason.
 
Thanks for all the info guys. I ordered a set of turn signals and mounting bracket to connect them. Hopefully it will be enough to keep everyone happy and not look horrible.
 
Undertail and integrated signals implies removal of the mudguard/fender. The HTA specifically requires the presence of a mudguard on motorcycles, meaning that the undertail is illegal and easily noticeable as such. HTA 66 (3).

So... people with fender eliminators have been riding illegally this whole time? Wow.
 
My bigger concern is with how terrible most of these are. I have no interest in being a hood ornament when the car behind me can't see the gentle glow from the lights. I have seen one that kicked *** and was much more visible than stock lights, the other 1000 I have seen I wouldn't want anywhere near my bike.
 
....But there is a theoretical possibility that the cops could require your vehicle to be subjected to a roadside safety inspection, and if the MTO is doing this and not your friendly local mechanic, there is not going to be any wiggle room. Compliant rear turn signals per CMVSS 108 have to be 9" / 230mm apart, and those integrated taillights all fail that....

Dude, why are you still saying this stuff? CMVSS are FEDERAL safety standards, which are primarily directed at manufacturers for the production, development and importation of vehicles/etc. Transport Canada Inspectors enforce it. Municipal and provincial police enforce PROVINCIAL standards, which are the HTA and related regulations. In those PROVINCIAL standards, including the safety inspection regulation, there is zero mention of rear turn signal metrics. In fact, signal lights are not even required on a motorcycle in ON as per ON legislation and regulations.

...They also typically don't include the CMVSS-required reflectors (side or rear), and those kits frequently have issues with license plate illumination, and then there is the whole issue about the adequacy of the "mudguard"..

Again, CMVSS has no bearing on provincial and municipal police enforcement, so it is irrelevant. Checking out the provincial legislation and regulations, there are a lot of grey areas. Plate illumination by white light is needed, but reflectors are nebulous since the language used of "prescribed reflectors" is not further defined in any ON regulations or legislation, and the mudguard requirement is vague. For example, I'd argue that a plate mounted at the rear below an undertail is a mudguard as defined and described by the ON legislation and regulations for motorcycles.


I have an undertail that is legal per the ON HTA act and regulations. However OP, as per your question, even if it is technically legal, law enforcment can pull you over and/or hassle you for such things if they want. They can even charge you and force you to go to court if you want to fight it.

I found in my experience as long as you make the effort to adhere to the spirit of the provincial law you wont get pulled over for it or hassled. That means a clearly visible brake light, a conspicuous plate, and the plate lit by a white light.


My bigger concern is with how terrible most of these are. I have no interest in being a hood ornament when the car behind me can't see the gentle glow from the lights. I have seen one that kicked *** and was much more visible than stock lights, the other 1000 I have seen I wouldn't want anywhere near my bike.

You must be looking at some pretty cheap crappy options. I'm no fan of integrated tail lights but the quality products I've seen show them to be at least as bright as OEM and usually much brighter. Definitely stay away from the cheap poorly lit options.
 
Last edited:
Except that hardly anyone actually buys the quality parts. The vast majority of what I actually see on the street, is crap knock-off junk with inappropriate lighting.
 
Dude, why are you still saying this stuff? CMVSS are FEDERAL safety standards, which are primarily directed at manufacturers for the production, development and importation of vehicles/etc. Transport Canada Inspectors enforce it. Municipal and provincial police enforce PROVINCIAL standards, which are the HTA and related regulations. In those PROVINCIAL standards, including the safety inspection regulation, there is zero mention of rear turn signal metrics. In fact, signal lights are not even required on a motorcycle in ON as per ON legislation and regulations.



Again, CMVSS has no bearing on provincial and municipal police enforcement, so it is irrelevant. Checking out the provincial legislation and regulations, there are a lot of grey areas. Plate illumination by white light is needed, but reflectors are nebulous since the language used of "prescribed reflectors" is not further defined in any ON regulations or legislation, and the mudguard requirement is vague. For example, I'd argue that a plate mounted at the rear below an undertail is a mudguard as defined and described by the ON legislation and regulations for motorcycles.


I have an undertail that is legal per the ON HTA act and regulations. However OP, as per your question, even if it is technically legal, law enforcment can pull you over and/or hassle you for such things if they want. They can even charge you and force you to go to court if you want to fight it.

Prescribe:
verb (used with object), prescribed, prescribing.

1. To lay down, in writing or otherwise, as a rule or a course of action to be followed; appoint, ordain, or enjoin.

LIGHTING
6. (1) Prescribed lamps and reflectors shall be inspected and tested and,
(a) each circuit shall light the filaments of all lamps on the circuit when the appropriate switch is in the “ON” position, and each indicator lamp shall indicate correctly;
(b) the operation of any lighting circuit shall not interfere with the operation of any other circuit;
(c) each lens and reflex reflector shall be correctly installed and shall not be discoloured or missing in whole or in part;
(d) each lamp and reflector shall be securely mounted on the vehicle and none shall be missing;
(e) the turn signal lamps and the flasher unit shall operate properly;
(f) the brake light shall operate when the appropriate control is actuated;

.... continues on about headlamps and more ....

The Lighting requirement IS PRESCRIBED in the CMVSS requirements. It's pretty clear, and believe me, the MTO enforment officers don't believe in the 'grey area' because there really isn't one; only a lack of understanding with the language used in the HTA

BODY WORK
1. (1) The motorcycle shall have,
(a) where they were originally installed, securely mounted fenders, mudguards and operative footrests;

The first three lines of Schedule 6 .... Pretty clear again. Your plate is not, nor will it ever be, a mudguard.

FTR, I'm not saying I agree with the requirements; just clarifying
 
You don't get it. The Ontario HTA and regulations for motorcycles do not refer to CMVSS anywhere in any capacity. Their language of "prescribed" is undefined. As such, it is open to interpretation, which takes on the outcomes of case law and precedents. Unless there is case law defining that "prescribed" applies to CMVSS standards there is no legal basis for such supposition and inferences. In fact one would argue that such a notably conspicuous absence in this case lends strong merit against any supposition that CMVSS standards apply. The application of Federal safety standards are spelled out elsewhere in ON HTA regulations, such as for motor tricycles with two front wheels.

Same thing on the mudguard. A mudguard is not defined in any significant detail in the regulation or anywhere in the HTA, only vague info such as "Every motor vehicle and every trailer shall be equipped with mudguards or fenders or other device adequate to reduce effectively the wheel spray or splash of water from the roadway to the rear thereof, ". Again, if there is no case law clarifying this, then anything can be considered a mud guard if it is in the original location and serves to adequately reduce spray. A two by four piece of wood can be used to function as a mud guard even.

You are inferring aspects to the Ontario HTA laws and regulations that just don't exist. It may work for you on the internet, but it doesn't in a court room.


I'll add that I don't know the case law and precedents around these things. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't much there. And if so, it will come down to arguments before the court and a decision from a JP. How well these things are debated will go a long way to determining the outcome.
 
Last edited:
You don't get it. The Ontario HTA and regulations for motorcycle do not refer to CMVSS anywhere in any capacity. Their language of "prescribed" is undefined. As such, it is open to interpretation ...

Here is the situation. You are correct in that "prescribed" is not defined within this document. BUT ...

If you present an inspection officer in Ontario (be it a mechanic of your choice, or a cop, or an MTO official) with a bone stock vehicle that is compliant with CMVSS using all original-equipment components and they all work ... they will have no case whatsoever, and if they DID write a ticket to you, it would go nowhere in court (and they would probably get chewed out for wasting the court's time).

If you present an inspection officer in Ontario with a vehicle that is not stock but which nevertheless has functional and accepted equivalents (DOT-marked reflectors and lights with all the relevant compliance markings on them, etc) there might be perhaps some back and forth related to documentation and manner of proper installation, but even if it goes to court, it's still defensible as long as it was all functional and documented and installed properly.

If you present an inspection officer in Ontario with a vehicle that lacks equipment that it was originally built with (reflectors, etc) ... then you are on your own.

A lot of Ministry officials will be sticklers about documentation. A light that is supposed to be "visible from 150 metres" could be as bright as the sun but if it hasn't got the required DOT or e-markings it might as well not be there, and another barely visible light on a Ford Model T that is supposed to be "visible from 150 metres" but was original equipment to a 1924 Ford Model T but that's how they were built back then, is fine.

Back to bikes ... There are no CMVSS compliant "undertail / integrated tail lamp" units. It's up to the cop whether they like them or not. If it ends up in court, you are on your own. If you stay with the original lighting ... it will never end up in court to begin with.

I'll add that I don't know the case law and precedents around these things. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't much there. And if so, it will come down to arguments before the court and a decision from a JP. How well these things are debated will go a long way to determining the outcome.

Yup. But it's better to not get put in front of court to begin with.

I don't say I agree with a lot of this, either. And not all my bikes are stock, but the important lighting functions are all there and they are all good enough to "look stock to a cop".
 
An excerpt of how something can be subject to interpretation - here's a line item out of the inspection requirements.

(e) the turn signal lamps and the flasher unit shall operate properly;

"Properly" could be interpreted as meaning "when you activate the turn signal, something happens".

Or, on the other extreme, it could be interpreted as meaning "compliant with all applicable codes and standards including all standards to which the vehicle was originally built".

Your friendly local mechanic who is interested in keeping your business could quite possibly interpret it as the former.

But if you encounter a cop and/or a MoT inspection officer on an enforcement binge, you can be almost assured that they will NOT be on your side, and will be on a mission to find any excuse to write tickets and pull vehicles off the road.

All stock equipment and working properly - they will have no case.

Questionable ... you'll have to defend it in court. I'd rather not do that.
 
You don't get it. The Ontario HTA and regulations for motorcycles do not refer to CMVSS anywhere in any capacity. Their language of "prescribed" is undefined. As such, it is open to interpretation, which takes on the outcomes of case law and precedents. Unless there is case law defining that "prescribed" applies to CMVSS standards there is no legal basis for such supposition and inferences. In fact one would argue that such a notably conspicuous absence in this case lends strong merit against any supposition that CMVSS standards apply. The application of Federal safety standards are spelled out elsewhere in ON HTA regulations, such as for motor tricycles with two front wheels.

Same thing on the mudguard. A mudguard is not defined in any significant detail in the regulation or anywhere in the HTA, only vague info such as "Every motor vehicle and every trailer shall be equipped with mudguards or fenders or other device adequate to reduce effectively the wheel spray or splash of water from the roadway to the rear thereof, ". Again, if there is no case law clarifying this, then anything can be considered a mud guard if it is in the original location and serves to adequately reduce spray. A two by four piece of wood can be used to function as a mud guard even.

You are inferring aspects to the Ontario HTA laws and regulations that just don't exist. It may work for you on the internet, but it doesn't in a court room.

I'll add that I don't know the case law and precedents around these things. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't much there. And if so, it will come down to arguments before the court and a decision from a JP. How well these things are debated will go a long way to determining the outcome.

So says the guy who uses the argument "As such, it is open to interpretation, which takes on the outcomes of case law and precedents" then ends with "I don't know the case law and precedents around these things"

My interpretation of the regulation works for me on a daily basis when I'm performing SSC inspections. It's also worked out for me in the few times some smart *** customer has decided to challenge my interpretation with the MTO. So go ahead and bring your semantics argument to court; I wish you good luck. Maybe you can post the results as precedents for the rest of us ;)
 
This is wrong again. You keep going on about irrelevant stuff.

There are zero ON HTA and regulation references for CMVSS. Look that the safety inspection checklist and regulation for motorcycles. No DOT requirements either. An inspection officer can charge you for non DOT or CMVSS compliance, but it will get tossed in court faster than you can blink. The ON safety inspection regulation has zero power to enforce anything outside of those provincial laws and regulations. This is not rocket science.

This isn't about avoiding court or baseless charges. Its about what is legal and illegal in Ontario with the municipal and provincial police, which is found under the ON HTA and regulations. Let's keep it at that.

So says the guy who uses the argument "As such, it is open to interpretation, which takes on the outcomes of case law and precedents" then ends with "I don't know the case law and precedents around these things"

My interpretation of the regulation works for me on a daily basis when I'm performing SSC inspections. It's also worked out for me in the few times some smart *** customer has decided to challenge my interpretation with the MTO. So go ahead and bring your semantics argument to court; I wish you good luck. Maybe you can post the results as precedents for the rest of us ;)

You obviously don't know the case law and precedents pertaining to these issues either. At least I'm honest about it. :). Congrats on the appeal to authority logical fallacy too.
 
Last edited:
An excerpt of how something can be subject to interpretation - here's a line item out of the inspection requirements.

(e) the turn signal lamps and the flasher unit shall operate properly;

"Properly" could be interpreted as meaning "when you activate the turn signal, something happens".

Or, on the other extreme, it could be interpreted as meaning "compliant with all applicable codes and standards including all standards to which the vehicle was originally built".

Your friendly local mechanic who is interested in keeping your business could quite possibly interpret it as the former.

But if you encounter a cop and/or a MoT inspection officer on an enforcement binge, you can be almost assured that they will NOT be on your side, and will be on a mission to find any excuse to write tickets and pull vehicles off the road.

All stock equipment and working properly - they will have no case.

Questionable ... you'll have to defend it in court. I'd rather not do that.

In my personal experience with the MTO, it's the latter
 
I found in my experience as long as you make the effort to adhere to the spirit of the provincial law you wont get pulled over for it or hassled. That means a clearly visible brake light, a conspicuous plate, and the plate lit by a white light.

That's been my experience, too.
 
^^^ Agreed Like I said earlier, I'm not defending the regulation. Some of it is over the top. I've personally removed some of the required equipment.
 

Back
Top Bottom