How much is an exhaust fine? | GTAMotorcycle.com

How much is an exhaust fine?

KyokushinFighter

KyokushinFighter

Well-known member
For example, one might have an Arrow Titanium 2 into 1 exhaust on oh let me see, say a 2000 RC51... It might say on the underside of said exhaust "Not for road use" if one was pulled over and said Officer spotted that. What would the fine be? lol


Side Note... Anyone wanna buy an Arrow 2 into 1 Titanium exhaust for an RC51?
 
lol, you would only get a ticket for the officer hearing the noise. The charge I believe would be excessive noise from muffler or exhaust system. Only officer qualified to charge you for that having a non street legal equipment installed would be a MTO officer. As those officers deal with more of safety and regulations of vehicles on the road. Then again they mostly only pull over commercial vehicles. Not sure of the fine; I believe it to be around $110.
 
incorrect.. the police can and do write them.

they could do improper muffler- motor vehicle - if says not for road use. fine is $110. s.75(1)
and unnecessary noise - s. 75(4) fine is $110.

theres no 'qualification' required - just what is deemed unnecessary. e.g a chopper with open pipes which is ear piercing will get a ticket.
 
I have had cops hear the bike. Idled next to cops, foot patrol and bicycle patrol. No one has said anything. It's loud, but not annoying chopper sound. It's more of a "Sexual Thunder" tone... lol
 
There's also the potential for a simple excessive noise bylaw ticket, the fine for which varies by jurisdiction. You can get that one with a stock exhaust, if you're being a jerk by revving the snot out of your bike.
 
I have loud pipes, straight pipes on one bike and cobra pipes on another. It comes down to are you being an *** with it or just riding normally. I've been by cops also and no issues, but then I ride like I know I am loud.... short shifting on residential streets etc. I like to be loud and heard but I dont have to be a ***** about it.
 
As long as I'm not riding behind someone with loud pipes and they're not riding through my neighbourhood, I'm fine with it.

I have stock pipes and ride like I know I am loud. Stockers aren't that quiet.
 
Baggsy said:
As long as I'm not riding behind someone with loud pipes and they're not riding through my neighbourhood, I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...

Thats why I am not offended if I get asked to ride in back in group rides. Its my choice and I won't force it on people anymore than I have to. My straight pipe bike is also my smallest. Its smaller than the cbr125 size wise.
If there was a button to adjust volume it would be the most used control.
 
I was riding yesterday on King street, I was at the red light on king and Yonge when 2 Toronto police officers on horses pulled beside me, the officer was looking at me and he said "give it a little gas" I thought the guy liked my bike, so i did, then he replied again "more, give it a good blast", I really thought this guy likes my bike wow, I even ask if the horse was going to get scared for the sound.
After 3 good blast he said ok sir, have a good day......
Then I realized that this guy was checking the noise...lmao
I thought he like the sound of my open pipes lol

so.........yes, they can check excessive noise
 
^ 2 on the same horse? talk about homo 2uping =p
 
TIBURON said:
the officer was looking at me and he said "give it a little gas"
Click to expand...

Is this legit? If you're beside a cop in traffic and the ask you to 'give it a little gas' are you under any particular obligation to comply, or can you just say 'No thank you, Officer.' / nothing at all?

I've spent a lot of time looking at the HTA trying to familiarize myself with the laws I've got to watch out for, but I don't recall seeing in it giving the police the power to demand ad-hoc engine revving from drivers they encounter?

I mean, if I was waiting at a light and an officer says 'Clap your hands three times', I'm not obligated to comply because there's nothing that gives them the power to spontaneously request that citizens clap their hands. Is this any different, or was TIBURON basically just doing the officer a favour by complying?

Seems like if this power did exist in the law that it would at least require they pull you over to a safe spot first, as with a typical traffic stop? It seems totally unreasonable that they would be able to demand this of you when you're in traffic in the middle of a street.
 
TIBURON said:
I was riding yesterday on King street, I was at the red light on king and Yonge when 2 Toronto police officers on horses pulled beside me, the officer was looking at me and he said "give it a little gas" I thought the guy liked my bike, so i did, then he replied again "more, give it a good blast", I really thought this guy likes my bike wow, I even ask if the horse was going to get scared for the sound.
After 3 good blast he said ok sir, have a good day......
Then I realized that this guy was checking the noise...lmao
I thought he like the sound of my open pipes lol

so.........yes, they can check excessive noise
Click to expand...

Are they even allowed to do that?

Can they make you rev your engine, causing you to make noise, and then write you a ticket for excessive noise?

Just because your bike is capable of making a lot noise when it is red-lining doesn't mean that you make it do that when you ride. I could have a super powerful sound system in my house, but just because it is capable of shattering glass doesn't mean I'm going to play it that loud.
 
bombshelter13 said:
Is this legit? If you're beside a cop in traffic and the ask you to 'give it a little gas' are you under any particular obligation to comply, or can you just say 'No thank you, Officer.' / nothing at all?

I've spent a lot of time looking at the HTA trying to familiarize myself with the laws I've got to watch out for, but I don't recall seeing in it giving the police the power to demand ad-hoc engine revving from drivers they encounter?

I mean, if I was waiting at a light and an officer says 'Clap your hands three times', I'm not obligated to comply because there's nothing that gives them the power to spontaneously request that citizens clap their hands. Is this any different, or was TIBURON basically just doing the officer a favour by complying?

Seems like if this power did exist in the law that it would at least require they pull you over to a safe spot first, as with a typical traffic stop? It seems totally unreasonable that they would be able to demand this of you when you're in traffic in the middle of a street.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the HTA requires you to clap your hands on demand.

However, HTA 82.(2) permits a cop to do a roadside inspection of your vehicle, and HTA 82.(8) requires you to assist the cop in doing that inspection as directed.

Saying "no thank you" can result in a $1,000 fine, plus the fines for any defects. The cop can also order the vehicle off the road and remove the license plates on the spot. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK144
 
Last edited:
turbodish said:
However, HTA 82.(2) permits a cop to do a roadside inspection of your vehicle, and HTA 82.(8) requires you to assist the cop in doing that inspection as directed.
Click to expand...

This can't be the case. The HTA includes the word 'roadside' in only three locations, and in all cases that's as part of the phrase 'for the purpose of carrying out a roadside repair', not about inspections.

HTA 82(2) says that a police officer 'may require the driver of any motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to stop, move the vehicle to a safe location as directed by the police officer or officer and submit the vehicle, together with its equipment and any vehicle drawn by it, to the examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient.'

The series of steps they can perform is chained together with 'and', not 'and/or' - they have to do the whole thing. They MUST ask you to stop (there's no provision for not asking the driver to stop in the event that the driver is already stopped). They MUST then ask you to move it to a safe location and direct you to one. Only then can they perform any inspection. So the officer TIBURON encountered couldn't have been acting under 82(2), could he?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
When they 'MUST' do something, under the HTA, the word 'shall' is used in the statute.
Click to expand...

Where is the significance of 'shall' specified? Gonna guess it's in some other, less specific document relating to how to read laws in general?

You definitely seem to know what you're talking about with legal stuff, so maybe you can enlighten me here: How should the following hypothetical clauses be interpreted?

1. The officer may jump and jive.
2. The officer shall jump and jive.
3. The officer may jump or jive.
4. The officer shall jump or jive.

Are clause 1 and clause 2 different? If 'shall' means what you suggest, then is the interpretation that clause 2 requires that they both jump and jive in the specified order, but clause 1 would permit them to either jump without then proceeding to jive or to simply proceed straight to jiving with no jumping occuring?

If that's the case, does that make clauses 1 and 3 identical? Or does clause 3 preclude doing both, but permit them the option of doing one or the other on it's own?

Could the officer, in any if these cases, jive first and jump second?

How would a clause permitting an optional sequence of actions be written, wherein the sequence is optional in it's entirety but, if performed must be performed completely and in order? E.g., if I wanted a clause the allowed the officer the option of jumping and then proceeding to jive (e.g., the officer may choose to do nothing or may choose to jump and then jive, he may not choose to merely jump or merely jive), how would that be worded?
 
Last edited:
bombshelter13 said:
Where is the significance of 'shall' specified? Gonna guess it's in some other, less specific document relating to how to read laws in general?

You definitely seem to know what you're talking about with legal stuff, so maybe you can enlighten me here: How should the following hypothetical clauses be interpreted?

1. The officer may jump and jive.
2. The officer shall jump and jive.
3. The officer may jump or jive.
4. The officer shall jump or jive.

Are clause 1 and clause 2 different? If 'shall' means what you suggest, then is the interpretation that clause 2 requires that they both jump and jive in the specified order, but clause 1 would permit them to either jump without then proceeding to jive or to simply proceed straight to jiving with no jumping occuring?

If that's the case, does that make clauses 1 and 3 identical? Or does clause 3 preclude doing both, but permit them the option of doing one or the other on it's own?

Could the officer, in any if these cases, jive first and jump second?
Click to expand...

It's a case of common usage. "Shall" means "must do." "May" means "may, at his or her discretion." For example, read the statutes in HTA 172. Once an officer has pulled you over, for such an infraction, they have a series of tasks that they must perform.

1. The officer may jump and jive, if he wants to.
2. The officer must both jump and jive.
3. The officer has the option of either jumping or jiving, if he wants to.
4. The officer must jump or jive; not both.

Order isn't stated as being material, to the task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom