License Plate Cover | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

License Plate Cover

nobbie48 said:
The front plate thing is odd. Some provinces and many states don't require them. Trucks need the stickers on the front but cars on the rear.

My buddy likes his 4X4 pickup because he can smash his way into a snowbank to make a parking spot. He did that a week or so back and it tore off his front plate which he then put on his dash.
Click to expand...

A couple of weeks ago my friend and I were pulled over in his F-150 on 89. Turns out he has installed small red lights to illuminate the grill and that is a definite no no. The OPP officer also told him that his plates were on the wrong ends of the truck. He has personalized plates, (blue letters on white field not the typical black lettering on white field that are on trucks), but since it is a truck the yearly validation sticker must be on the front plate. He was not aware of the plate requirement and told the officer that he has always had the validation sticker on the rear plate and they were installed that way at the dealer when he bought the truck over two years ago.

Fortunately this officer was in a good mood, or noted that my friend has a Class A licence and just gave him a warning to take care of these problems. He swapped the plates and disconnected the lights when he got home.
 
Malks said:
A couple of weeks ago my friend and I were pulled over in his F-150 on 89. Turns out he has installed small red lights to illuminate the grill and that is a definite no no. The OPP officer also told him that his plates were on the wrong ends of the truck. He has personalized plates, (blue letters on white field not the typical black lettering on white field that are on trucks), but since it is a truck the yearly validation sticker must be on the front plate. He was not aware of the plate requirement and told the officer that he has always had the validation sticker on the rear plate and they were installed that way at the dealer when he bought the truck over two years ago.

Fortunately this officer was in a good mood, or noted that my friend has a Class A licence and just gave him a warning to take care of these problems. He swapped the plates and disconnected the lights when he got home.
Click to expand...

When I bought my first Astro van it was the passenger version with seats but I intended to remove them for work. The lady at the MOT asked if I wanted the vehicle licensed as a car or truck, front or rear sticker? She also indicated a conflict if the vehicle was registered as one but used as the other. I can't remember which way I went but never had a problem.
 
Well, A couple of points. The cops in York region WILL provide you with a ticket, if your driving with your dog on your lap. A client of mine was driving at 6:30 am on a Sunday morning, with his dog, on his lap. He was ticketed for doing so.

Now as for the cell phone and police issue. I know this will come as a shock to many here. Toronto is NOT the center of the universe. So, the original reason the exemption was put in place was because, in rural areas police radios sometimes don't get reception, so the only viable option is for an officer, (when they lose radio comms), was to call the dispatch centre via a cell phone, so they could get updates while enroute, also for officer safety, if they started to "take fire", the comms people, knew and could send massive backup pronto.

Also, pre scrambling of police comms, sometimes, it was necessary, to communicate via a cell as opposed to the radio, so no one could "listen" in on critical comms, (tactical response, planning a course of action etc).

As a police supervisor, if you pulled up on a cruiser, for a chat, and the officer was using their cell while driving and you knew they weren't talking to comms, you were to instruct them, on the proper and legitimate use of a cell phone while operating a cruiser...

So, do some cops abuse the use, of course they do, just as most of us, have abused a policy a work at some point, in our working careers...lol
 
hedo2002 said:
Well, A couple of points. The cops in York region WILL provide you with a ticket, if your driving with your dog on your lap. A client of mine was driving at 6:30 am on a Sunday morning, with his dog, on his lap. He was ticketed for doing so.

Now as for the cell phone and police issue. I know this will come as a shock to many here. Toronto is NOT the center of the universe. So, the original reason the exemption was put in place was because, in rural areas police radios sometimes don't get reception, so the only viable option is for an officer, (when they lose radio comms), was to call the dispatch centre via a cell phone, so they could get updates while enroute, also for officer safety, if they started to "take fire", the comms people, knew and could send massive backup pronto.

Also, pre scrambling of police comms, sometimes, it was necessary, to communicate via a cell as opposed to the radio, so no one could "listen" in on critical comms, (tactical response, planning a course of action etc).

As a police supervisor, if you pulled up on a cruiser, for a chat, and the officer was using their cell while driving and you knew they weren't talking to comms, you were to instruct them, on the proper and legitimate use of a cell phone while operating a cruiser...

So, do some cops abuse the use, of course they do, just as most of us, have abused a policy a work at some point, in our working careers...lol
Click to expand...
There was a simple solution to the issue. Only Police issued phones are exempt. All personal phones, even if owned by a police officer are not allowed. Trivially easy. Put them in easily identifiable cases if you really want to make it simple. The force then has a paper trail for the use if a complaint or crash happens. The department should be issuing phones anyway if they are necessary for the officer to safely do their job.
 
I think the Police force does not provide cell phones for their cops. They are all personal phones. But they do get some really good rates/plans from the cell providers. So I have been told.

I think driving with a dog on your lap is just as dangerous as driving with a cell phone if not more gangrenous.
I don't care how much you know or trust your dog. You are never guaranteed what they will or won't do next.

This should be a law. Period.

As for lights and accessories on or inside a car. No additional lights are allowed on your vehicle other than the ones your car come with from the factory. Doesn't matter what color or location. Unless its for off-road use only.

As for inside.
Even an air freshener hanging off of the rear-view mirror is not allowed and against the law.

Someone once told me a story that they new a Catholic School Chaplain who went for drivers test. They whole test went fine without and mistakes. However they failed it because they had a rosary hanging off of the rear view mirror.
 
oioioi said:
I think the Police force does not provide cell phones for their cops. They are all personal phones. But they do get some really good rates/plans from the cell providers. So I have been told.

I think driving with a dog on your lap is just as dangerous as driving with a cell phone if not more gangrenous.
I don't care how much you know or trust your dog. You are never guaranteed what they will or won't do next.

This should be a law. Period.

As for lights and accessories on or inside a car. No additional lights are allowed on your vehicle other than the ones your car come with from the factory. Doesn't matter what color or location. Unless its for off-road use only.

As for inside.
Even an air freshener hanging off of the rear-view mirror is not allowed and against the law.

Someone once told me a story that they new a Catholic School Chaplain who went for drivers test. They whole test went fine without and mistakes. However they failed it because they had a rosary hanging off of the rear view mirror.
Click to expand...
They're not supposed to allow the test if there are any vehicle defects that jeopardize safety (that is why they check lights and such prior to beginning). Story seems plausible on the surface but unlikely in practice. They charge you for the test whether you take it or not.
 
Malks said:
Fortunately this officer was in a good mood, or noted that my friend has a Class A licence and just gave him a warning to take care of these problems. He swapped the plates and disconnected the lights when he got home.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, someone with a class A licence should really know better on both of those topics.
 
PrivatePilot said:
With all due respect, someone with a class A licence should really know better on both of those topics.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was surprised he didn't seem to know red lights on the front of his vehicle were not allowed. He cut a break on that one.

The other plate issue is a little more obscure because he has personalized "car" plates on his F-150, not the usual truck plates. He had the same plates on his previous Ford Sport Trac for over 8 years and they have now been on this F-150 for a couple of years now. The plate requirement surprised me, but then I've never owned a truck / commercial vehicle. The officer pointed out that his ownership shows COMM, not PASS, even though the pates look like car plates.
 
From Wikipedia

The Canadian province of Ontario first required its residents to register their motor vehicles in 1903. Registrants provided their own licence plates for display until 1911, when the province began to issue plates.[1] Plates are currently issued by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO).
The location of plates and renewal stickers is specified by the Highway Traffic Act[2] and Regulation 628 under the Act.[3]

So in 1903 they said "Stick something on your car so we know who owns it." Now you need a law degree.

Don't you just love governments.
 
Is this like the radar detector scenario? You can import them, own them but not allowed to use them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom