Most of the street crashes that I've seen that didn't involve another vehicle, were what I refer to as "failure to turn."
|
|
|
Darksider - conviction registered
- Thread starter Bike Cop
- Start date
Most of the street crashes that I've seen that didn't involve another vehicle, were what I refer to as "failure to turn."
Only one person here was in court for this and has a clear idea of the verdict. I said it before; PM Bike Cop.
Well by the sounds of things or lack there of, I don't think there really is a law to address this.
Run car tires and save yourself a bundle.
LE doesn't appear to be laying charges and and I'm sure if insurance claims are denied, we'd hear about it. One charge and conviction doesn't seem like a huge concern.
I personally witness dozens of laws broken on a daily basis. I'd chalk this up there with fender eliminator kits and plate relocation. Maybe even less of a concern.
But I doubt you we ever see a legal opinion specific to using car tires on a motorcycle. Or running inappropriate tires on a vehicle.
This is one of those things that just be side you can, doesn't mean you should.
Don't hold your breath getting a clear and ringing endorsement from the ministry or LE to go ahead and do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Run car tires and save yourself a bundle.
LE doesn't appear to be laying charges and and I'm sure if insurance claims are denied, we'd hear about it. One charge and conviction doesn't seem like a huge concern.
I personally witness dozens of laws broken on a daily basis. I'd chalk this up there with fender eliminator kits and plate relocation. Maybe even less of a concern.
But I doubt you we ever see a legal opinion specific to using car tires on a motorcycle. Or running inappropriate tires on a vehicle.
This is one of those things that just be side you can, doesn't mean you should.
Don't hold your breath getting a clear and ringing endorsement from the ministry or LE to go ahead and do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
After coming back from a ride today, I just did some ride-height juggling in order to try to get a (heavy) bike to steer and turn somewhat properly now that both front and rear tires are minutely flat-spotted in the center from riding on Ontario roads. There is ample tread depth remaining and the profile is just a smidge off what it should be and the pressures are good.
I can't imagine how messed up the steering would feel with a car tire on the back ...
I can't imagine how messed up the steering would feel with a car tire on the back ...
Seriously? You went there?
I have (unfortunately) ridden a bike with a car tire mounted on the rear. I didn't run that particular shop and I had to take a customer's bike on a test ride for some reason or other. I made it 1/3 of the way around the route and cut the ride short. If there was any change in the road angle the bike darted and danced within the lane almost uncontrollably. It was the worst riding experience I've ever had, and the customer described that as normal. I will never work on another bike with a car tire mounted, nor will I ever subject any of my employees to it. It is my professional opinion that motorcycles with car tires are unsafe to ride and consequently will not pass a safety at my shop.
PrivatePilot: None of this helps you with the legal side of the argument, and to be honest I wouldn't even try to give you a legal interpretation. But I hope you think long an hard before trying this. My personal experience with it was not good, but maybe yours will be better, but most likely not.
But just imagine how good the brakes are, oh I mean brake is.
All the anecdotes I've seen are from guys running car tires on their cruisers or choppers. Those bikes don't turn to begin with, even right out of the factory. It's risky enough to go darksider based on those reports, but to carry over the results onto bikes that are actually designed to corner well is downright foolhardy.
I'm wondering if a car tire would make it easier for the rear to skid on hard braking and come around on you.
Anyways, here's some links where it's been discussed:
http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1784
[url]http://msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2446
http://msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14733
[/URL]
Anyways, here's some links where it's been discussed:
http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1784
[url]http://msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2446
http://msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14733
[/URL]
How is this still being considered?! Cruiser guys (ya, you, $40,000 screaming eagle Harley Davidson rider) will spend thousands at every HD dealer along the way on chrome bezels and bits for the bike, but want to save $300 every 20,000km and use a square tire in a round application? Didn't we sort this out as infants?
Listen here mister, us HD riders just figured we ride on flat roads and make round tires square so, why not just install square car tires and save
ourselves the work.
In all honesty, the darkside experimenters ride all makes. Triumph T Birds, Honda Goldwings and others is similar girth.
For the HD folks, it's not the cost of the rubber, it's the labor to do the job. Ever have to remove a rear tire from a touring bike? You can buy an island for the same cost........
Bike Cop
Well-known member
Didn't know this thread was still going... for those still reading, dig out your e-laws website bookmark and open up regulation 611 to the motorcycle Schedule (I believe it's #6). These are the requirements to get a safety standards certificate for your bike. Look at the wheels and tires section and see the line that reads "proper size and application". How would you interpret that? I think it's clear. Motorcycle tires go on motorcycles. The tire manufacturers agree. The MTO engineers agree. If your mechanic will sign off your SSC with a car tire on the back, that's their problem and I would think, a huge liability.
I saw another one of these just recently, and it is winding it's way through the court process as we speak.
I saw another one of these just recently, and it is winding it's way through the court process as we speak.
"Proper size and application" is a vague statement that is subject to being taken way overboard (and this is coming from someone who agrees that a car tire has no business being on a motorcycle).
But ... How far do you go ...
I have three bikes and one car that all have tires that aren't the same size as what the little sticker says is supposed to be on there. They're all correct tires for the rim sizes based on the tire manufacturer's charts and the bikes all have bike tires and the car has car tires. But not stock sizes according to what's on that label.
The car even has OEM rims on it ... just not OEM for this particular version of that car (they're OEM for a different trim/option level).
But ... How far do you go ...
I have three bikes and one car that all have tires that aren't the same size as what the little sticker says is supposed to be on there. They're all correct tires for the rim sizes based on the tire manufacturer's charts and the bikes all have bike tires and the car has car tires. But not stock sizes according to what's on that label.
The car even has OEM rims on it ... just not OEM for this particular version of that car (they're OEM for a different trim/option level).
I agree the wording is vague when it comes to size, but I would say application is pretty clear, I am sure the "average person of average intelligence", would interpret it to mean, a bike tire for a bike a car tire for a car, a truck tire for a truck.
As soon as someone shows that a LT (light truck) tire is legal for a trailer (as it is) in lieu of ST, that a lot of light duty pickup trucks come with P rated (passenger car) tires, and vice versa, LT tires can be legally used on any car...it's not so clear anymore, is it?
A good lawyer would have a heyday in court with those facts. It would then be up to the crown to show proof of this assumption, and the vagaries with all the above would make burden of proof pretty difficult using those arguments alone.
Totally agree PP. But the the tire savings is burned up in time off work and mounting a defence, lawyer etc.
Some folks just have too much time on their hands.
It it only takes one or two cases, once a court tosses out a few of these charges based on vagaries in the law (as has been happening with the window tint cases for YEARS now, as I linked to in my initial reply to this thread) it should become less of an issue to everyone else that follows....and for some people in the motorcycle community the money isn't an issue, they will fight on premise alone. Either the laws will need to be clarified at that point (if indeed the crown decides it's such an issue deserving of amendments), or overzealous enforcement will cease.
However, on the flip side. If this second case Biker Cop refers to also results in a conviction then, you now have two case law convictions for crowns to rely upon becomes much more difficult to win a case without going to appeal and thousands if not tens of thousands in legal fees. I get what your saying about trailers, BUT they are also not motorized vehicles. Again, you have to remember your dealing usually with a JP. So they are likely to just simply look at the fact the person charged has put a tire designed for a car on a bike and that is not the proper application of a passenger tire. I highly doubt an officer is likely to pull over a pickup with a "P" tire on it and issue a violation. So those type of cases will likely never see the inside of a court room.
I guess to get the definitive answer to your question of is it legal you can follow the second case if it too results in a conviction then one can assume from the courts perspective, (which is the one a person would be dealing with if they go darkside and get charged), then the answer would be no it is not legal to do so, as per the HTA. Now other jurisdictions may or may not have the same regulations that Ontario has.
It is not the crowns who decide if a regulation requires rewording certainly the AG's office is involved and makes recommendations but it would be the MTO and ultimately the legislature. I would hardly call two charges "overzealous enforcement"..lol
Again, if one looks closely the vast majority of HTA regulations are poorly worded, as they have to be to cover the widest possible scenario. Otherwise the HTA would be 500 - 1000% larger if they had to put every possible scenario in the regulations
I guess to get the definitive answer to your question of is it legal you can follow the second case if it too results in a conviction then one can assume from the courts perspective, (which is the one a person would be dealing with if they go darkside and get charged), then the answer would be no it is not legal to do so, as per the HTA. Now other jurisdictions may or may not have the same regulations that Ontario has.
It is not the crowns who decide if a regulation requires rewording certainly the AG's office is involved and makes recommendations but it would be the MTO and ultimately the legislature. I would hardly call two charges "overzealous enforcement"..lol
Again, if one looks closely the vast majority of HTA regulations are poorly worded, as they have to be to cover the widest possible scenario. Otherwise the HTA would be 500 - 1000% larger if they had to put every possible scenario in the regulations
|
|
|
|
|