Side mounted license plate | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Side mounted license plate

Forum Sponsor
"30% more visible" on one side doesn't offset "blocked by rear tire" when viewed on the other side.

On any sport bike, the license plate is mounted further rearward than the turn signals. IIRC there might be some cruisers or touring bikes where the stock license plate position might be partially blocked by side bags and the like, and the view from above at an angle (407 cameras ...) might be blocked by top boxes.

There are some SUVs with tailgate-mounted spare tires in which the position of that spare tire can partially block the view of the license plate if viewed from a fairly extreme angle offside or above (depending on the relative orientation of that spare tire and where they put the license plate). I've heard of cases where it's such that the 407 cameras can't pick them up.

However, as has been pointed out many times here, there is a big difference between something that the original manufacturer built that way, and something that you did yourself. If the original manufacturer built it that way and certified that it meets Transport Canada standards and Transport Canada did not have an objection then that's how it is, it's not the owner's fault. But if YOU did it then the onus is on YOU.
 
TK4 said:
This isn't rocket science people -just remount it where its supposed to be in (roughly) the stock position and avoid all the unnecessary trauma ?
Click to expand...

No kidding; having it in or near the stock position makes the bike less of a heat score, and that is a good thing.
 
Mount your plate, wherever, and however, YOU want it to be. Just remember that it isn't in the STOCK position when your getting that ticket. One could argue and given that JP's have NO formal legal training that the intent of having the plate mounted horizontally is so that the numbers are plainly visible, (IE easy to read), mounting it vertically makes reading it more difficult and as such "not plainly visible"

Not sure why anyone would want to bring increased drama upon themselves just so they can "look cool" by having their plate vertical. Personally, it doesn't float my boat, but I don't own your bike, nor have the need to be "special."

With all the shenanigans of last season with the idiotic riders blocking highways etc, I would do EVERYTHING I could to avoid standing out.
 
Does anybody really think that having the plate mounted on the swingarm or vertically actually "looks cool"? I just don't understand why you would want to draw visual attention to a very ugly part of your bike.
 
turbofj6 said:
Does anybody really think that having the plate mounted on the swingarm or vertically actually "looks cool"? I just don't understand why you would want to draw visual attention to a very ugly part of your bike.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Mounted on the mudguard is just another flat spot it's on top of. Sideways or on the swingarm just accentuates an piece of metal sticking out in the wind.
 
Brian P said:
"30% more visible" on one side doesn't offset "blocked by rear tire" when viewed on the other side.

On any sport bike, the license plate is mounted further rearward than the turn signals. IIRC there might be some cruisers or touring bikes where the stock license plate position might be partially blocked by side bags and the like, and the view from above at an angle (407 cameras ...) might be blocked by top boxes.

There are some SUVs with tailgate-mounted spare tires in which the position of that spare tire can partially block the view of the license plate if viewed from a fairly extreme angle offside or above (depending on the relative orientation of that spare tire and where they put the license plate). I've heard of cases where it's such that the 407 cameras can't pick them up.

However, as has been pointed out many times here, there is a big difference between something that the original manufacturer built that way, and something that you did yourself. If the original manufacturer built it that way and certified that it meets Transport Canada standards and Transport Canada did not have an objection then that's how it is, it's not the owner's fault. But if YOU did it then the onus is on YOU.
Click to expand...


Great. I'm open to discussing it in front of a Provincial judge. It's a crock and you know it.
 
Oh, no argument about it being a crock ... but if you want to discuss it in front of a provincial judge, be my guest, because I ain't got time for that!
 
I sold the vehicle. It’s now on the new owners driveway. I did nit mount the plate in that horrific position. I actually did not catch its position when I bought the bike but noticed it after delivery. I had planned on moving it before I was pulled over because I did not like where it was. Not to the fact that it was illegal. It I had paid attention then I would have had the dealership deal with it. It was a lesson learned but I was curious after the fact and figured this was a safe forum to ask a question. I will have to be more aware of what I ask.

As for the guy that bought it. He loves it. I received a message thanking me for selling it to him.


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
 
I think people are a bit surprised you can ride a motorcycle but can't even try to move a license plate.

You asked two questions, is it hard and do you have to move it. Both were answered politely in the first two replies.

Don't get upset or take it personally, but if you don't want to know the answer don't ask the question.
 
Roadghost said:
Great. I'm open to discussing it in front of a Provincial judge. It's a crock and you know it.
Click to expand...

No Provincial Judge, (unless you pan to appeal your conviction)..lol It is an HTA infraction therefore, you would be seeing a JP, (with NO formal legal training), therefore they tend to "listen" to what the crown is arguing, and if it "seems reasonable" they go with that.
 
hedo2002 said:
No Provincial Judge, (unless you pan to appeal your conviction)..lol It is an HTA infraction therefore, you would be seeing a JP, (with NO formal legal training), therefore they tend to "listen" to what the crown is arguing, and if it "seems reasonable" they go with that.
Click to expand...

I tried to challenge a speeding myself several years ago
as I was questioning the officer, it was clear he was reading his answers from a notebook
in disclosure I had been given a copy of one page with next to nothing on it

when I raised the issue with the JP about incomplete disclosure
he shrugged and just looked at the Crown
she said, no, that's all he's getting
JP shrugged again
and a few minutes later registered a conviction

was an interesting show
 
Thread back on. Anyone notice any.... ahem...obstructed license plates here?

jju1ae.png


63xerl.png


YouTube:

https://youtu.be/T2XNgHgCMUY
 
Last edited:
Not obstructed, "may" not conform to the requirement of the 407, BUT they are exempted from that regulation. The plate is mounted fully to the rear of the vehicle and is visible from all but a VERY high angle, even a tractor trailer driver would be able to read that plate. From that angle however, had the plate been a side mounted vertical plate it would be obstructed...lol

MLadin said:
Thread back on. Anyone notice any.... ahem...obstructed license plates here?

jju1ae.png


63xerl.png


YouTube:

https://youtu.be/T2XNgHgCMUY
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Not obstructed, "may" not conform to the requirement of the 407, BUT they are exempted from that regulation. The plate is mounted fully to the rear of the vehicle and is visible from all but a VERY high angle, even a tractor trailer driver would be able to read that plate. From that angle however, had the plate been a side mounted vertical plate it would be obstructed...lol
Click to expand...
BS... according to them the plate must be the last thing sticking out at the rear of the bike. Hence the hideous OEM plate holders that come on today's bikes. They're all clearly in violation of a law they're enforcing. Just like them riding side-by-side a foot apart. To anyone else in Toronto that would be a stunting charge. They are exempt for what reason? Shouldn't the law set an example of law?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
"Last thing sticking out at the rear of the bike" is perhaps an easy-to-explain oversimplification.

Somewhere, buried in CMVSS, will be the actual technical requirements for what actual angles side-to-side and up-and-down the license plate is supposed to be visible from and what angles it is allowed to be mounted at. I am quite sure that Harley-Davidson built those bikes in compliance with those standards, including the allowance for the top box (which AFAIK is original-equipment from H-D).

I am also pretty sure that if you mount your license plate in some reasonable but non-stock location and get a ticket for it (which is unlikely, if your mounting location is "reasonable") but you can show that it meets the CMVSS requirements for viewing angles and lighting and so forth, it ought to be dismissed (although it's likely that the JP at the original provincial offences court will convict and you will have to appeal in order to get it in front of a real judge).

And I can also say that the popular places to "hide" license plates - up underneath the rear bodywork facing downward at an angle and well ahead of the rear wheel centerline and generally with no light illuminating it as required!!, or on the swingarm off to the side as is the topic of this thread - are not going to be compliant with CMVSS, which means that course of action is a non-starter.
 
hedo2002 said:
No Provincial Judge, (unless you pan to appeal your conviction)..lol It is an HTA infraction therefore, you would be seeing a JP, (with NO formal legal training), therefore they tend to "listen" to what the crown is arguing, and if it "seems reasonable" they go with that.
Click to expand...

I would appeal if I lost with the JP. As the law is written the plate must be displayed to the rear unobstructed. To the REAR unobstructed.
 
Roadghost said:
I would appeal if I lost with the JP. As the law is written the plate must be displayed to the rear unobstructed. To the REAR unobstructed.
Click to expand...

Who can find the actual laws/regulations we are arguing about here? I can't find the relevant section of CMVSS.

I found this in Reg 628:
(4) The number plate for a motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle or trailer shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position on the rear of the vehicle. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9 (4).

Defense of that one comes down to what is the rear of the vehicle. I think they mean the actual furthest point to the rear (otherwise they could have said facing the rear). Obviously even cars tuck the license plate in ~6" from the actual rear (bumper plus license plate indented area). Arguing that a foot forward of the rear of the bike is acceptable (similar to the plates in this discussion) could go either way (personally, I would argue they are not at the rear).

The side mounted plates are conspicuous so compliance with that statement shouldn't be a problem. Many undertails are neither rear nor exposed nor conspicuous so you are just asking to lose.

EDIT:
Stolen from another forum and in regards to front plates, but they seem to be correct and it would also apply to this discussion. " The HTA uses "to the front" to describe things like prohibited lights that cannot be visible from the front of the vehicle, no matter where they are mounted. The wording being "on the front" implies that the plate must be attached to the most forward point of the vehicle, namely the front bumper cover or the grille area."
 
Last edited:
Brian P said:
"Last thing sticking out at the rear of the bike" is perhaps an easy-to-explain oversimplification.

Somewhere, buried in CMVSS, will be the actual technical requirements for what actual angles side-to-side and up-and-down the license plate is supposed to be visible from and what angles it is allowed to be mounted at. I am quite sure that Harley-Davidson built those bikes in compliance with those standards, including the allowance for the top box (which AFAIK is original-equipment from H-D).

I am also pretty sure that if you mount your license plate in some reasonable but non-stock location and get a ticket for it (which is unlikely, if your mounting location is "reasonable") but you can show that it meets the CMVSS requirements for viewing angles and lighting and so forth, it ought to be dismissed (although it's likely that the JP at the original provincial offences court will convict and you will have to appeal in order to get it in front of a real judge).

And I can also say that the popular places to "hide" license plates - up underneath the rear bodywork facing downward at an angle and well ahead of the rear wheel centerline and generally with no light illuminating it as required!!, or on the swingarm off to the side as is the topic of this thread - are not going to be compliant with CMVSS, which means that course of action is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
This thread is turning into a thing, and rightly so. I watched the OPP spot check every bike into the Wasaga Beach Motorcycle Rally. Of course they let the cruiser crowd go right in, but every sportbike without an OEM plate holder was pulled over and told the plate must be the last thing on the rear of the bike protruding outwards. This was set up like an actual spot check at the corner where Pizza Dee's is. Undertail plates were ticketed. There are several videos on YouTube in the US explaining the same thing to sportbike riders pulled over. So the question is, is this a made-up law to harass sport riders or is it for real or does it or has it actually been challenged in court with an actual case number. If it hasn't, this should be considered police street justice and not law and every cop everywhere should be asked to cite the statute roadside.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
Jeez, this isn't that hard - DON'T HIDE THE PLATE !
Turning this into a political/legal discussion is like a dog chasing its own tail.
Its not that tough people....
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom