Darksider - conviction registered

[GreyGhost]

I thought JP's couldn't set precedent, I thought it had to be challenged and ascend the ranks to be considered precedent? If that is the case and nobody has ever heard of the details of the original referenced case, the chances the rider lost, then appealed, then lost again in a higher court which set precedent is quite small. Based on that, I would go with the chance of legal precedent in Ontario courts is small, but that has no bearing on whether any particular cop writes a ticket.

 

[nakkers]

It's your ride, you decide.

I understand the origins of this back on the day.

Most bikes that can spoon on a car tire are not low buck surplus rides brought back from a war.

You spend a fair amount of hard earned dollars on a big machine and now you are looking to save a few bucks and compromise handling and safety?

If you want to ride super slab and run car tires, just get a convertible or spyder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrivatePilot]

I thought JP's couldn't set precedent, I thought it had to be challenged and ascend the ranks to be considered precedent?l

The window tint issue I linked to seems to suggest otherwise. These charges are being tossed out by judges at the first level of court because anyone with the skill to represent themselves effectively, or willing to hire a paralegal (or lawyer) to fight it easily demonstrates that the law on the issue is NOT clear, and accordingly, the charge gets tossed out.

Repeatedly.

This is "precedent" to me.

As as I understand and have read, it seems like most LEO's now don't even bother with window tint charges in all but the most grievous applications (ie, an obvious full blackout) because it ends up being a waste of time and effort when the law isn't clear and the charge is almost instantly dropped as a result.

 

[hedo2002]

Personally, My thought is the manufacturers put bike tires on bikes for a reason. As Private Pilot stated RV manufacturers have made the switch from ST to LT tires, but the bike manufacturers have not started to ship bike with car tires. The likelihood of getting hit with a darksider charge is pretty low, BUT doesn't mean it can't happen and yes a "dedicated" defendant likely could win, (remember to be a JP you require zero legal training). But is it worth countless court appearances, with the potential for appeals etc and thousands of not tens of thousands in legal fees?

Much more importantly, than any possibility of a traffic ticket to me would be the potential insurance ramifications. You are involved in a crash and when the adjuster arrives to look over your bike he notes it has a car tire installed and advises the company to deny the claim due to an "unreported" modification, which could have safety implications for the vehicle. Then you also have to be concerned about a diligent personal injury lawyer. You have hit their client and they take note of the car tire on the bike and add hundreds of thousands if not millions to the claim, stating you had made an unsafe modification to the bike. Again your now "holding the bag" for tens, hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars potentially. Now again it would take "observant" people to catch this, but there are so many potential eyes on it, someone at some point may notice it.

First thing I did when I was hit by a rider two years ago was look at his bike and take photos at the crash scene from every imaginable angle. My lawyer asked for the photos so they could have "an expert" look at the bike to make sure everything was "in order". Never knew what they meant by that...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

IF the charge stuck, which is up for debate (again, it likely would not have had the offender challenged it), is the question. It came out in the wash that the tire was damaged by rubbing somewhere which *is* contrary to the laws (and is clear) which muddied the waters. He would have got the same charge had be be running a legit motorcycle tire that was too big and also rubbed - accordingly the charge had less to do with tire type, as not proven / clear by law, and everything to do with the fact it rubbed and was becoming damaged as a result.

He also had a lot of other crap that hit the fan at the same time so I suspect the "improper tire" charge was the least of his concern in the end.

To to the other responses, the "should you/shouldn't you" discussion has been beat to death so continuing that debate isn't the ultimate goal here when I bumped this thread, it was trying to narrow down the legal side of things. If we could all try to keep it on that rail that'd be more productive.

I made no comment, in my response, about my feelings on the issue. If you're looking for the precedent on the issue and you aren't willing to accept my comment, I recommend that you PM Bike Cop and see if he will give you the information on the case. All that can be said here, has been said.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I thought JP's couldn't set precedent, I thought it had to be challenged and ascend the ranks to be considered precedent? If that is the case and nobody has ever heard of the details of the original referenced case, the chances the rider lost, then appealed, then lost again in a higher court which set precedent is quite small. Based on that, I would go with the chance of legal precedent in Ontario courts is small, but that has no bearing on whether any particular cop writes a ticket.

Barring a judgment from a higher court, case law sets the standard.

 

[hedo2002]

Barring a judgment from a higher court, case law sets the standard.

Exactly correct. It isn't really "precedent setting" until it has been tested. I think people are confused by the term. Once a court makes a ruling that case can be cited, as "case law". Higher courts may overrule a case, which can then be referred to as a "precedent". Just as the whole helmet camera thing. A few lower courts have registered convictions, which the crown may now reference as case law. Don't believe anyone has yet taken it to higher court under appeal.

 

[PrivatePilot]

I made no comment, in my response, about my feelings on the issue. If you're looking for the precedent on the issue and you aren't willing to accept my comment

For the record it wasn't your comments I was referring to.

Also for the record I haven't yet decided which way I'm going to go when the time comes (and for my wife's bike it wasn't even on the radar), however before replying here I did a metric crap ton of reading on the issue (for a few weeks on and off, actually) bolstered by my experience with the trailer tire situation.

I'm an open minded person that investigates things sometimes relentlessly before making a decision. The evidence to backup many of the arguments *against* dark side is slim, if not none, despite the fact many like to tirelessly repeat them, and I never "drink the cool aid" just because it's the way most people lean, I use critical thinking and evidence to form a decision or opinion accordingly. I'm at that stage right now and still contemplating things, looking for evidence to or against (not just opinion) as well as trying to narrow down the exact legallity.

I respect the potential legal implications should the matter not be 100% clear, and would be the first to say the same thing to anyone else here, so I'm listening, and expected such.

That said, a charge being laid that may (or may likely not) stick is of zero evidence to me with regards to the safety aspect, however the many millions of Kilometers people have traveled on dark side spanning several decades is. An overzealous LEO could pull over my horse trailer and charge me for having LT tires fit to it, by that neither automatically makes my vehicle inherently dangerous, nor is it going to stick in courts as I *would* fight it tooth and nail, and there is plenty of evidence to support my side of the case. Therefore, it is unfair to compare that situation that would result in a charge to darkside and drawing any sort of correlations.

So, here's what I think I'm going to do - with an open mind, I'm going to draft a letter to the Minister of Transport as well as perhaps the head of the OPP, present the situation and evidence both to and against the matter, point out the unclear/fuzzy laws, and ask for their "official" word on the matter. From what I can see, despite much unnecessary fighting and uninformed (on both sides, admittedly) wrangling (this thread being a great example), nobody has ever actually contacted the government in a very formal way like this and asked for clarification. I'll be happy to do so.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Please keep in mind that, despite Fox New's protestations on occasion, the truth does not always lie smack-dab in the middle of any argument. Those who support darksiding do so with an almost religious zealotry, while it isn't likely to be on the RADAR of the average rider. Non-darksiders only tend to comment on the issue when it is raised by darksiders. This makes the 'evidence', for and against, rather one-sided in internet searches. Be diligent in your reading and don't take the "millions of miles travelled" comments too deeply to heart. Those who succeed crow about it. Those who fail go crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again.

 

[PrivatePilot]

those who fail go crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again.

I don't doubt that this happens for many things, the Darkside argument being no exception. No debate there, however one may suggest that if it was such a legal disaster that some suggest it so very clearly is some of the aftermath would have leaked out, Biette me a call becaus however one may suggest that if it was such a legal disaster that some suggest it so very clearly is some of the aftermath would have leaked out, be it mea-culpas by those who did it and experienced a major problem that led to failure or injury (not everyone is afraid to admit they're wrong or had a problem, contrary to the typical internet experience), on in case law or court records.

Best as I can find, none exist.


There is some stories to be found online about Darkside tire failures, however what I observed is that they are typically occurring with people that wore the tires FAR beyond what would have even been legal in automobile use. Arguably, even running a true motorcycle tire, they very well may have experienced failure of it as well, so again, I don't automatically blame darkside alone.

Compounding the questionability of many of the arguments made against Darkside, many of the arguments used (the sidewalls/edges will wear off etc) are simply not true - looking at many of the pictures available online of worn out Darkside tires (I'll post some later when I'm not mobile), the wear is actually very surprisingly unified across the entire tire and the edges and sidewalls remain intact.

Its this evidence vs rhetoric result that's caused me to take a long second look at the situation.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Also keep in mind that many motorcycle crashes go unreported.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Also keep in mind that many motorcycle crashes go unreported.

Again, fair enough and I'll agree, but there's still the argument when you do see reports - one darksider crashes for any reason and it's a pigpile of "It was the car tire that caused it!" comments, typically without evidence to the effect the tires had anything to do with it.

Meanwhile 100 other bikes crash and nobody bats an eye at the tires. Cagers, rider error, the usual suspects.

Perhaps (likely, actually) some of those 100 non-darkside crashes were a result of an inability to stop, something that as well known in the Darkside circles as to be much less of an issue because of dramatically better rear wheel braking on a car tire because they have FAR more contact patch in both straight and leans.

Using the reverse logic of some, does that make traditional motorcycle tires suspect or at fault in those 100 accidents?

 

[GreyGhost]

I would love to have a decent rider go to a track, do a bunch of laps (endurance race?) on proper touring tires, then switch to the darkside on the same bike and repeat. In my head, handling should go to hell, but the anecdotal evidence doesn't agree with me (although as Rob mentioned above, the anecdotal evidence is strongly filtered). If the lap times were similar, the rider didn't fear for their life and the tire survived the track I would be more inclined to believe this works. You still have the above-mentioned insurance problems (although, what if you told the ins. company that you had switched your bike to high-mileage tires, would that count as material misrepresentation?).

 

[hedo2002]

But if for years one had been extolling the virtues of darksiding then suddenly experienced a catastrophic failure, how likely are they to then post on the net.. you know what guys I was a huge supporter, but "i have seen the light" That is if they survived the failure. Personally again, not something I am interested in testing out. even though my bike is a huge cruiser, it still manages to lean pretty far in a corner. a square car tire was not designed to do that.

You asked for the legalities of running a darkside tire, despite evidence that at least one court in Ontario has registered a conviction. You then get others who say there are inherent risks. But you argue that if it isn't on the internet then it can't exist, and your doing your research and "keeping an open mind". Yet when someone post a differing view you only resort to the argument that you have read on the internet about the "millions of miles and decades of experiments." while dismissing the counter arguments.

For "evidence", (on the legality issue), you have an officer from your very own Jurisdiction, (Ontario), advising he laid a charge and it resulted in a conviction. Remember he didn't post that in reply to your question, it was posted LONG before you posted the question. Therefore, there is little reason to question the authenticity of his post.

If you want to ride the darkside, feel free to do so, no need to justify your decision to us. You asked if it is legal to do so in Ontario. Given there has been a conviction registered for doing so then the answer to your initial question is no it is not legal to do so in Ontario based upon case law.

I don't doubt that this happens for many things, the Darkside argument being no exception. No debate there, however one may suggest that if it was such a legal disaster that some suggest it so very clearly is some of the aftermath would have leaked out, Biette me a call becaus however one may suggest that if it was such a legal disaster that some suggest it so very clearly is some of the aftermath would have leaked out, be it mea-culpas by those who did it and experienced a major problem that led to failure or injury (not everyone is afraid to admit they're wrong or had a problem, contrary to the typical internet experience), on in case law or court records.

Best as I can find, none exist.


There is some stories to be found online about Darkside tire failures, however what I observed is that they are typically occurring with people that wore the tires FAR beyond what would have even been legal in automobile use. Arguably, even running a true motorcycle tire, they very well may have experienced failure of it as well, so again, I don't automatically blame darkside alone.

Compounding the questionability of many of the arguments made against Darkside, many of the arguments used (the sidewalls/edges will wear off etc) are simply not true - looking at many of the pictures available online of worn out Darkside tires (I'll post some later when I'm not mobile), the wear is actually very surprisingly unified across the entire tire and the edges and sidewalls remain intact.

Its this evidence vs rhetoric result that's caused me to take a long second look at the situation.

 

[nakkers]

For the record it wasn't your comments I was referring to.

Also for the record I haven't yet decided which way I'm going to go when the time comes (and for my wife's bike it wasn't even on the radar), however before replying here I did a metric crap ton of reading on the issue (for a few weeks on and off, actually) bolstered by my experience with the trailer tire situation.

I'm an open minded person that investigates things sometimes relentlessly before making a decision. The evidence to backup many of the arguments *against* dark side is slim, if not none, despite the fact many like to tirelessly repeat them, and I never "drink the cool aid" just because it's the way most people lean, I use critical thinking and evidence to form a decision or opinion accordingly. I'm at that stage right now and still contemplating things, looking for evidence to or against (not just opinion) as well as trying to narrow down the exact legallity.

I respect the potential legal implications should the matter not be 100% clear, and would be the first to say the same thing to anyone else here, so I'm listening, and expected such.

That said, a charge being laid that may (or may likely not) stick is of zero evidence to me with regards to the safety aspect, however the many millions of Kilometers people have traveled on dark side spanning several decades is. An overzealous LEO could pull over my horse trailer and charge me for having LT tires fit to it, by that neither automatically makes my vehicle inherently dangerous, nor is it going to stick in courts as I *would* fight it tooth and nail, and there is plenty of evidence to support my side of the case. Therefore, it is unfair to compare that situation that would result in a charge to darkside and drawing any sort of correlations.

So, here's what I think I'm going to do - with an open mind, I'm going to draft a letter to the Minister of Transport as well as perhaps the head of the OPP, present the situation and evidence both to and against the matter, point out the unclear/fuzzy laws, and ask for their "official" word on the matter. From what I can see, despite much unnecessary fighting and uninformed (on both sides, admittedly) wrangling (this thread being a great example), nobody has ever actually contacted the government in a very formal way like this and asked for clarification. I'll be happy to do so.

Really? I highly doubt you will get what your're looking for from LE or Ministry of Transport.


I don't think there is any motivation to clarify things legally. Motorcycling in Canada is a small population. The number of hobbiest actually darksiding is significantly smaller. So what's left over?


I think it's a bit of a fools errand if you ask me. But if you have the time, please enjoy.

For my curiosity, can you remind me of the benefits of considering car tires on a motorcycle again?

 

[PrivatePilot]

I would love to have a decent rider go to a track, do a bunch of laps (endurance race?) on proper touring tires, then switch to the darkside on the same bike and repeat. In my head, handling should go to hell, but the anecdotal evidence doesn't agree with me (although as Rob mentioned above, the anecdotal evidence is strongly filtered). If the lap times were similar, the rider didn't fear for their life and the tire survived the track I would be more inclined to believe this works. You still have the above-mentioned insurance problems (although, what if you told the ins. company that you had switched your bike to high-mileage tires, would that count as material misrepresentation?).

During my reading I did actually come across a story of somebody who is "burning up the track" (or something to the effect) on Darkside. IIRC he seemed to have a lot of cred as a track guy as well. I'll see if I can dig it up tonight.

That said, most guys running darkside are cruisers and tourers, not sport/track.

With regards to the apparent *single* conviction years ago (with curiously none mentioned anywhere online ever since despite continued darkside acceptance and utilization), as I mentioned in a previous response, it likely had more to do with the fact the tire was rubbing (which IS a clear violation of the law), as well as possibly a lack of will to fight the charge considering there was much bigger fish he had to fry at the same time, as was mentioned. Yes, with a rubbing tire he would likely have not beat it anyways, darkside or regular motorcycle tire was irrelevant as to the outcome.

I would not consider that situation a blanket verification of what is still a very fuzzy legal question.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Really? I highly doubt you will get what your're looking for from LE or Ministry of Transport.

With all due respect, those both creating and enforcing the laws should be able to explain or clarify them upon request. This is NOT too much to ask and is done all the time in the commercial industry.

For my curiosity, can you remind me of the benefits of considering car tires on a motorcycle again?

A tire that goes 3-5 times the number of Kilometers than a motorcycle tire does at typically less than half the cost, primarily. Many cruiser guys and even more so the touring guys are going through 2 rear tires per season at easily $300-$500 each after labor and such. There's an environmental aspect as well, less tires being scrapped.

 

[hedo2002]

Problem is, I can point you to about 1,000 "poorly worded/unclear" sections in the HTA. The MTO merely writes the legislation, then passes it to the legislature to approve it, it is actually the courts who "interpret" the regulations and apply them. Just as the officer on the road, will enforce it as he/she interprets that particular section. I have had two junior officers tell me that the same section of the HTA meant something totally different. The officer lays the charge the courts then rule if the charge was appropriate and all the elements of the charge have been met. As the other poster said if you have the time and ability to write by all means just don't expect anything other than the regulation stands as written.

You make it sound in your last few posts that darksiding is the rule rather than the exception for cruisers. I would respectfully submit darksiders represent a VERY small minority of riders especially here in Ontario as opposed to the US.

With all due respect, those both creating and enforcing the laws should be able to explain or clarify them upon request. This is NOT too much to ask and is done all the time in the commercial industry.

A tire that goes 3-5 times the number of Kilometers than a motorcycle tire does at typically less than half the cost, primarily. Many cruiser guys and even more so the touring guys are going through 2 rear tires per season at easily $300-$500 each after labor and such. There's an environmental aspect as well, less tires being scrapped.

 

[PrivatePilot]

You make it sound in your last few posts that darksiding is the rule rather than the exception for cruisers. I would respectfully submit darksiders represent a VERY small minority of riders especially here in Ontario as opposed to the US.[/QUOTE

Wasnt meant to sound that way, I'd agree with your assessment.

It it is much more common in the US, where, as we all know, litigiousness runs rampant, and yet we still don't hear stories of people suing installers, companies, manufacturers, each other, denied insurance claims, etc. I respectfuly refuse to believe it's all being "covered up" or going unreported given the scale of the practice there.

Like I've said, I see benefits and negatives to the practice (although benefits based on evidence outweigh the negatives, short any trump card legality issue), I'm just weighing them from the legal "scale" at this point, if you see what I'm getting at.

 

[hedo2002]

But you have your answer. A court in Ontario has ruled it to be illegal, as per Bike Cops post. Not sure how much more legalities is required than that. As I said though I would be much more concerned with potential insurance issues. I guess one could call their broker and get written, (I wouldn't take verbal confirmation), that in the event of a claim the insurer is aware you have installed a car tire on your bike.

You make it sound in your last few posts that darksiding is the rule rather than the exception for cruisers. I would respectfully submit darksiders represent a VERY small minority of riders especially here in Ontario as opposed to the US.[/QUOTE

Wasnt meant to sound that way, I'd agree with your assessment.

It it is much more common in the US, where, as we all know, litigiousness runs rampant, and yet we still don't hear stories of people suing installers, companies, manufacturers, each other, denied insurance claims, etc. I respectfuly refuse to believe it's all being "covered up" or going unreported given the scale of the practice there.

Like I've said, I see benefits and negatives to the practice (although benefits based on evidence outweigh the negatives, short any trump card legality issue), I'm just weighing them from the legal "scale" at this point, if you see what I'm getting at.