Got two tickets need help

[jchc91]

Hi all,

Literally just got two tickets conforming to the HTA.

I have one for improper headlights and one for improper muffler.

I am pretty sure my lights will be futile since they're purple but I read the HTA and the PROJECT E. R. A. S. E. post stickied in this forum.

My exhaust is a Hi-Power by HKS and it allows my car to pass emissions. It's a cutback.

The officer said that it requires baffles and that is why I am getting the ticket.

Any help would be appreciated..

Thanks

[XTOTHEL]

For the headlights, maybe change it out to an allowed colour and they'll reduce or throw it out?

Also for the exhaust, you might want someone to do a reading and show it confirms to the decibel limit.

[Hyperion]

1) the purple is your fault. But you should get it removed it you show a receipt that you bought normal lights and a picture that you have them installed.
2) I'm pretty sure the big ass cannon on the back of the hks is a "baffle" or a resonator/muffler as we refer to them

[Thrizzl3]

HKS system has a muffler, resonator and 2nd muffler in the tip. cop was bullshitting and bored during his shift. I had an HKS on my sedan and cops didn't give 2 shits about it.

As for the headlights. yeah...just put the originals back in and you're good to go.

[jchc91]

I have a previous picture of my car with 6000k HID. would that work
Thrizzl3 Is there a way I could prove this? I couldn't find on the Hks site

[Thrizzl3]

I have a previous picture of my car with 6000k HID. would that work
@Thrizzl3 (http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/member.php?u=6509) Is there a way I could prove this? I couldn't find on the Hks site

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK130


75. (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s75s1) (1) (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s75s1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

you clearly have a full exhaust system with cat, resonator, muffler and baffles.
i don't understand why the cop would say you need baffles :S that's a first.

[Stathakos]

Well, You could just show the HID photo and just say the cop mustve seen them in the wrong light. :s

And as for the exhaust, he might have a point on it being too loud, but I think this is one of those "trying to get you for every last thing" situations.

[jchc91]

Well, You could just show the HID photo and just say the cop mustve seen them in the wrong light. :s

And as for the exhaust, he might have a point on it being too loud, but I think this is one of those "trying to get you for every last thing" situations.

http://i.imgur.com/q5YQycz.jpg Would this work?

So everyone here thinks I should fight the tickets then?

[TheMAN]

unless there is a forecast for gloomy weather in the next week or so, that pic isn't going to work ;)

[jchc91]

unless there is a forecast for gloomy weather in the next week or so, that pic isn't going to work ;)

Haha that's true... I just found another picture in my library actually...

http://i.imgur.com/b8c31Q4.jpg

Would this one work instead?

[Hyperion]

Just replace your god dam purple lights. No one likes them anyways and they look retarded.
Also, why would a judge accept a picture of a car with a blurred out license plate. Stop being so lazy and take a picture with new lights in.
Do not ask this question again.

[jchc91]

Just replace your god dam purple lights. No one likes them anyways and they look retarded.
Also, why would a judge accept a picture of a car with a blurred out license plate. Stop being so lazy and take a picture with new lights in.
Do not ask this question again.

LOL!

Yes sir.

[Jenuine]

I think when you bring pictures and submit them as evidence, there has to be a time/date stamp on it. You can't bring an old picture haha. Only thing you can do is take a new picture to show you changed them. Not sure if the ticket would get dropped but they may reduce the fine.

[jchc91]

I think when you bring pictures and submit them as evidence, there has to be a time/date stamp on it. You can't bring an old picture haha. Only thing you can do is take a new picture to show you changed them. Not sure if the ticket would get dropped but they may reduce the fine.

Yeah. That makes sense. I'll hope for the best after I plug my new ones in

[aboss]

They probably want more evidence than just a photo, anyway. I would bring "proof of purchase" of some sort... like a receipt. If you fix the problems and then bring it to the pre-trial meeting thingy (the first stage in fighting the ticket) they will often reduce it or throw it out. This is probably your best option.

[jchc91]

Going back to the exhaust though... Should I do an etest and show them my exhaust conforms to HTA?

[Jenuine]

Going back to the exhaust though... Should I do an etest and show them my exhaust conforms to HTA?

Your first step before anything should be to request disclosure. After you get this, see what "evidence" the cop has against you. You might get lucky and the cop might not have written anything down, in which case he/she might not even show up.

[peterm15]

What exactly is the charge?

I know you got a tic for your headlights and exhaust. But what's the actual offense. (hta #)

[Chrisinski]

Exhaust is to officers discretion. If the officer believes you are above allowed decibles they can get you for that so suck it up. You pay to play. Headlights... as soon as you put anything aftermarket in especially if it has higher lums than stock and you cannot prove that then you are at faut. Try changing them out to normal halogen and you may get a break. Once again you pay to play. I think this covers everything. The motoring laws are so open that it is difficult to fight anything without big time evidence.

[jchc91]

What exactly is the charge?

I know you got a tic for your headlights and exhaust. But what's the actual offense. (hta #)

DRIVE WITHOUT PROPER HEADLIGHTS - MOTOR VEHICLE 62(1)

IMPROPER MUFFLER - MOTOR VEHICLE 75(1)


Exhaust is to officers discretion. If the officer believes you are above allowed decibles they can get you for that so suck it up. You pay to play. Headlights... as soon as you put anything aftermarket in especially if it has higher lums than stock and you cannot prove that then you are at faut. Try changing them out to normal halogen and you may get a break. Once again you pay to play. I think this covers everything. The motoring laws are so open that it is difficult to fight anything without big time evidence.

But from what I understand there is no decibel rating in Ontario. He was basically saying that my exhaust is a straight pipe which is completely not true.

[peterm15]

Easy fight on the muffler. You have one. It's not a noise tic so that has no bearing.

Take pics of your system and have a shop write you a letter saying all parts are intact.

[jchc91]

Thanks for the help guys..

So for both these tickets would I be going for early resolution or trial through court?

[Jenuine]

Thanks for the help guys..

So for both these tickets would I be going for early resolution or trial through court?

You can set a date to meet with the prosecutor and if the tickets aren't dropped or you don't like the offer then you can proceed with a trial date.

[Fack_Dude]

You must of been driving like an idiot for you to get pulled over.

[jchc91]

You must of been driving like an idiot for you to get pulled over.

At this point I wish. I was driving speed limit and everything. Cop did a Uturn and first comment was about purple lights

[jchc91]

You can set a date to meet with the prosecutor and if the tickets aren't dropped or you don't like the offer then you can proceed with a trial date.

It says if I choose meet with prosecutor for early resolution I don't get to go to trial

[Stathakos]

It says if I choose meet with prosecutor for early resolution I don't get to go to trial


No you still can. If you don't like the deal the prosecutor offers you, that will allow you to go to trial. The day of your trial, right before the judge comes in the prosecutor(most likely a different one) will probably offer you another deal. (as in my case It was $10 cheaper than what the early resolution offered me) I declined and went to trial even after that!

[jchc91]

No you still can. If you don't like the deal the prosecutor offers you, that will allow you to go to trial. The day of your trial, right before the judge comes in the prosecutor(most likely a different one) will probably offer you another deal. (as in my case It was $10 cheaper than what the early resolution offered me) I declined and went to trial even after that!

I see... Well I guess that's a bit of a relief. Hopefully you got your charges dropped haha

However; as you can probably notice, this is my first time dealing with such an issue.

Thank you all for your help.

[jchc91]

No you still can. If you don't like the deal the prosecutor offers you, that will allow you to go to trial. The day of your trial, right before the judge comes in the prosecutor(most likely a different one) will probably offer you another deal. (as in my case It was $10 cheaper than what the early resolution offered me) I declined and went to trial even after that!

I see... Well I guess that's a bit of a relief. Hopefully you got your charges dropped haha

However; as you can probably notice, this is my first time dealing with such an issue.

Thank you all for your help.

[Stathakos]

I see... Well I guess that's a bit of a relief. Hopefully you got your charges dropped haha

However; as you can probably notice, this is my first time dealing with such an issue.

Thank you all for your help.

Nope, lost in court. Luckily the judge was forgiving and let me off with $100. (cellphone ticket) I didn't have a lawyer, but the Durham cop lied on his notes. I couldn't really say anything. You on the other hand have a good case for yourself, I'm sure you'll be fine. If however you feel like it, x-copper may be something you might want to look into.

[jchc91]

Nope, lost in court. Luckily the judge was forgiving and let me off with $100. (cellphone ticket) I didn't have a lawyer, but the Durham cop lied on his notes. I couldn't really say anything. You on the other hand have a good case for yourself, I'm sure you'll be fine. If however you feel like it, x-copper may be something you might want to look into.

That sucks dude... Well at least the judge was nice. Cell phone charges are pretty hectic huh?

I was actually just looking into x-copper before you mentioned them. Are they a good organization to look to with HTA offenses?

[Stathakos]

The cop literally said I was driving with my hand on the wheel and the other hand holding my phone above the dash, not talking or texting on it. LOL. meh.


Yes X-Copper is very good with HTA offenses. I believe they are mainly meant for HTA offenses!

[jchc91]

The cop literally said I was driving with my hand on the wheel and the other hand holding my phone above the dash, not talking or texting on it. LOL. meh.


Yes X-Copper is very good with HTA offenses. I believe they are mainly meant for HTA offenses!

LOL. Clearly you must be that gangster to be texting in plain sight.

Ah. Never knew that. Guess I'll see for myself. Always hear about them on the edge but I'm skeptical of their advertisements

[Fack_Dude]

At this point I wish. I was driving speed limit and everything. Cop did a Uturn and first comment was about purple lights

Yeah. Get rid if them. Pure heat score.

[CloudPump]

Don't waste your money on X-Copper. Fix-it tickets do not show up on your MVR and insurance companies can't see them.

-Geoff

[Chrisinski]

I find it rather entertaining that the cop decided your lights were so annoying that he actually took the time to do a U-turn. IMO never go above 6000k so the colour of light doesnt add havoc to the already abundantly bright lights.

[gotak]

I find it rather entertaining that the cop decided your lights were so annoying that he actually took the time to do a U-turn. IMO never go above 6000k so the colour of light doesnt add havoc to the already abundantly bright lights.

I wish (and people would yell I bet) more cops do this. I hate hate hate being blinded by bad light mods. So much so I have seriously thought about how to build a device to shoot a laser pointer back at the offending driver.

[greyseason]

I wish (and people would yell I bet) more cops do this. I hate hate hate being blinded by bad light mods. So much so I have seriously thought about how to build a device to shoot a laser pointer back at the offending driver.

lmao!! GB once its completed

[jchc91]

I wish (and people would yell I bet) more cops do this. I hate hate hate being blinded by bad light mods. So much so I have seriously thought about how to build a device to shoot a laser pointer back at the offending driver.

I too, have a hatred for this. My Mazda comes with projector lenses so that's why I did the switch... I feel like every time I see people with reflector housings trying to pull hids off should HAVE THEIR retinas burned out.


lmao!! GB once its completed

I second this. Will pay extra for a stealth install with auto detect

[Hyperion]

I hate people with purple and blue lights.

[jchc91]

I hate people with purple and blue lights.

Haha guess you're quite adamant with your hatred towards purple lights

[Thrizzl3]

Haha guess you're quite adamant with your hatred towards purple lights

he only hates purple lights..everything thing else that is purple is loves....

[Hyperion]

he only hates purple lights..everything thing else that is purple is loves....

Dude you high?

[Thrizzl3]

Dude you high?

nah...

but OP how can you see with purple headlights?

[jchc91]

nah...

but OP how can you see with purple headlights?

I mostly drive around bathurst and yonge in Richmond Hill so there's ample lighting.

Even when there were sections of darkness like on bathurst between King Road and Jefferson Sideboard I rely more on the reflectiveness that shines off signs and road markers

[greyseason]

I mostly drive around bathurst and yonge in Richmond Hill so there's ample lighting.

Even when there were sections of darkness like on bathurst between King Road and Jefferson Sideboard I rely more on the reflectiveness that shines off signs and road markers

What are the point of headlights than? Looks? Delete that shit if you don't need it

[Aitch]

1. Purple headlights are useless IMO. Change them, get the proof, and then avoid the hassle of getting pulled over again.

2. Cop asked me about my muffler once, stating it was "Hollywood style" (as mentioned in the HTA) and straight through (no baffles). I contested that on the spot, informing him I had both cats, a resonator, and a baffled Magnaflow muffler. He asked me to rev the engine a bit and then dropped the issue.

Get your car on a lift and take a few photos of the system. Show the stock cats, resonator, and muffler. The HKS is probably straight through in the muffler but you can state that it is baffled.

[boxjohn]

As Aitch touched on, it's not just having "a muffler' but it can't technically be straight through. That means that in spite of possibly being much quieter (like when I switched to oval case magnaflows on my other car from flowmaster 40's), anything glasspack or that you can otherwise see straight through is technically illegal.


At the end of the day though, anything designed to make the car faster is also illegal (the street racing laws), so any obviously non-stock exhaust can get you in trouble, no matter how quiet or what type of muffler.

Considering it's a fix-it ticket, I'd double check that it's a straight-through design, and unless it isn't I'd just take the ticket, stupid as it may be.

Oh, and not trying to be a hater but I agree with what others have said that no one who sees you on the road likes your non-white headlights. Certainly not enough to be getting tickets for.

[mikey32235]

first... The purple lights are not allowed... we are ONLY allowed yellow lights, no green blue purple etc...
secondly.. ANY aftermarket exhaust is concidered illegal. your lucky you didnt get an environmental ticket and unessesary noise cause they can throw those at you aswell for a total of $485.

[Tozer]

first... The purple lights are not allowed... we are ONLY allowed yellow lights, no green blue purple etc...
secondly.. ANY aftermarket exhaust is concidered illegal. your lucky you didnt get an environmental ticket and unessesary noise cause they can throw those at you aswell for a total of $485.

Any aftermarket exhaust is illegal? So all these dealerships offering aftermarket exhausts on brand new cars are breaking the law? I doubt it

[jchc91]

http://imgur.com/PNZ5M3E
http://imgur.com/Jk4zOKD

Comparison between stock and mine. Guess which ones mine.

I understand about the lights though.. Figured I would try them for the next bit since my last ones burnt out.

Back to 6000!

[Dave_The_BMXER]

Any aftermarket exhaust is illegal? So all these dealerships offering aftermarket exhausts on brand new cars are breaking the law? I doubt it

I think he is basing it off the tampering with emissions devices being illegal thing.

[Aitch]

secondly.. ANY aftermarket exhaust is concidered illegal. your lucky you didnt get an environmental ticket and unessesary noise cause they can throw those at you aswell for a total of $485.

No.


No person shall operate a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle unless it is equipped with a muffler that is a) operating; b) in good working order; and c) sufficient to prevent excessive or unusual sound and excessive or unusual smoke.
No person shall operate a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle equipped with a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device.

If your muffler is not "straight-through" and not overly loud (officer's discretion) you're perfectly legal. The exhaust after the 2nd cat (and O2 sensors) is not an emissions device.

As stated already, a lot of aftermarket exhausts are straight-through, but if they're not excessively loud you can often either get by either with an officer or in court.

[Fack_Dude]

Ninja edit.

[jchc91]

No.



If your muffler is not "straight-through" and not overly loud (officer's discretion) you're perfectly legal. The exhaust after the 2nd cat (and O2 sensors) is not an emissions device.

As stated already, a lot of aftermarket exhausts are straight-through, but if they're not excessively loud you can often either get by either with an officer or in court.

Yeah. Made sure I got an exhaust that wasn't obnoxious.. It's a 2.0L. I've got no need for a straight pipe unless I'm thinking of converting this thing into a race car.


Ninja edit.

Curious to what it said before the edit.

[mikey32235]

No.



If your muffler is not "straight-through" and not overly loud (officer's discretion) you're perfectly legal. The exhaust after the 2nd cat (and O2 sensors) is not an emissions device.

As stated already, a lot of aftermarket exhausts are straight-through, but if they're not excessively loud you can often either get by either with an officer or in court.

actually yes.. contact the ministry.

UNLESS it comes factory from a dealership then thats different cause it has been approved by MTO Laws... BUT putting aftermarket that isnt approved (HKS, Greddy, Flowmaster, Cobb ETC ETC) IS illegal. if you dont believe me then drive around with it at your own risk but dont post up threads after this about exhaust and if its illegal or not.

[Tozer]

I still think you're mistaken considering my dealership (cambridge scion) tried to sell me on a GReddy Exhaust add-on before even taking ownership. I'm almost positive a big dealership like that would not do that if that was the case

Edit: Cat-Back*

[Kiyomi]

i laughed a bit cause the hks isnt that loud.

pay the ticket for the lights after you fix it, as others have said, may get reduced. that ones on you.
fight the second as thats bs. you can contend that the cop had no db reader and its all on his discretion. not only that, but just show pics of your setup, and do your hw, and make the cop look like a fool in court for making stuff up. :D

[Fack_Dude]

I still think you're mistaken considering my dealership (cambridge scion) tried to sell me on a GReddy Exhaust add-on before even taking ownership. I'm almost positive a big dealership like that would not do that if that was the case

Edit: Cat-Back*



Dude,

Any moron can sell you any part on the street. When it comes to installing the shit on your ride it's a different story.

[Tozer]

Dude,

Any moron can sell you any part on the street. When it comes to installing the shit on your ride it's a different story.

They sell it AND install it before you get your vehicle. Same with intakes coilovers etc. if it was actually illegal you think dealerships would do it? That's my point

[CloudPump]

actually yes.. contact the ministry.

UNLESS it comes factory from a dealership then thats different cause it has been approved by MTO Laws... BUT putting aftermarket that isnt approved (HKS, Greddy, Flowmaster, Cobb ETC ETC) IS illegal. if you dont believe me then drive around with it at your own risk but dont post up threads after this about exhaust and if its illegal or not.

You are incorrect.

Here's what the HTA has to say about exhausts:

Muffler


75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

Here's the link to the Environmental Protection act as it pertains to motor vehicles:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_980361_e.htm

The word "muffler" is in there 0 times.

The word "exhaust" is in there twice. Neither reference is to a muffler, but instead to exhaust as a gas that exits the engine.

-Geoff

[Aitch]

actually yes.. contact the ministry.

UNLESS it comes factory from a dealership then thats different cause it has been approved by MTO Laws... BUT putting aftermarket that isnt approved (HKS, Greddy, Flowmaster, Cobb ETC ETC) IS illegal. if you dont believe me then drive around with it at your own risk but dont post up threads after this about exhaust and if its illegal or not.

Sorry Mikey, going to call BS on this again.

As CloudPump pointed out, your statement is not backed up by anything in Ontario law. I don't care what some person at the MTO says, if the law (even where it is ambiguous) doesn't prohibit ALL aftermarket exhausts, then even if an officer just tickets you for "improper exhaust" he doesn't have legal backing and you can get it tossed out in court. You simply have to make sure that your exhaust conforms to the HTA and EPA laws.

Now I'll qualify that by going back to what I'd already posted - the brands you mention are nearly all "straight through" mufflers, i.e. a straight resonated pipe with no baffles or turns in the muffler. This is illegal, and admittedly what most TM3ers with modded exhausts have. I already covered that in my last post, so please don't make the blanket statement that ALL aftermarket or non-original equipment exhausts are illegal.

[mikey32235]

Sorry Mikey, going to call BS on this again.

As CloudPump pointed out, your statement is not backed up by anything in Ontario law. I don't care what some person at the MTO says, if the law (even where it is ambiguous) doesn't prohibit ALL aftermarket exhausts, then even if an officer just tickets you for "improper exhaust" he doesn't have legal backing and you can get it tossed out in court. You simply have to make sure that your exhaust conforms to the HTA and EPA laws.

Now I'll qualify that by going back to what I'd already posted - the brands you mention are nearly all "straight through" mufflers, i.e. a straight resonated pipe with no baffles or turns in the muffler. This is illegal, and admittedly what most TM3ers with modded exhausts have. I already covered that in my last post, so please don't make the blanket statement that ALL aftermarket or non-original equipment exhausts are illegal.

im just going by what ive been told twice by police officers.. cause when you get pulled over for that shit, theres no arguing with them, it doesnt work and you never win. my advice is run the stock speed 3 exhaust, delete a resonator and it sounds just as good as any other exhaust. i had the CP-e and i put the stock back in, deleted a resonator and it sounds the exact same. if your looking for power run a downpipe, the exhaust will mabye give you a FEW extra hp.. (speed 3 guys)

[Aitch]

im just going by what ive been told twice by police officers.. cause when you get pulled over for that shit, theres no arguing with them, it doesnt work and you never win. my advice is run the stock speed 3 exhaust, delete a resonator and it sounds just as good as any other exhaust. i had the CP-e and i put the stock back in, deleted a resonator and it sounds the exact same. if your looking for power run a downpipe, the exhaust will mabye give you a FEW extra hp.. (speed 3 guys)

You're right in that it *hardly* ever works. My experience was different - during a stop I was told I was running a straight-through or "Hollywood" muffler. I calmly replied that was not the case, stated that the muffler was baffled (although I'm not certain that the Magnaflow muffler was; however it was tucked way under the car so the officer couldn't physically examine it) and I had both cats and the stock resonator in place. He asked me to rev it a couple of times and I did, keeping the RPMs under 3000, and I didn't get a ticket. For full disclosure I was ticketed for having a taillight out (why I was pulled over) but not the exhaust.

I understand you've heard differently from officers and sure, lots of the time they are dicks and just write you up anyway. But it is not 100% and certainly not the law.

[midnightfxgt]

...certainly not the law.

This trumps all. Simply saying any aftermarket exhaust is illegal is false.

Can you be pulled over based on noise? yup. Many have gotten the ticket dropped, so there IS something you can do about it. I am of the opinion that the ministry should set a DB rating, and then it will be black and white, and no one can complain.

-John

[CloudPump]

There's nothing in the laws about a straight through muffler. It says you can't run a straight exhaust. A straight exhaust is just a pipe from then engine to the back of the car.

Cops don't know everything, they often think they do, though. Just because a cop gave you a ticket doesn't mean that he's right and you're wrong. They are human beings, not HTA machines.

-Geoff

[TheMAN]

1. Purple headlights are useless IMO. Change them, get the proof, and then avoid the hassle of getting pulled over again.

2. Cop asked me about my muffler once, stating it was "Hollywood style" (as mentioned in the HTA) and straight through (no baffles). I contested that on the spot, informing him I had both cats, a resonator, and a baffled Magnaflow muffler. He asked me to rev the engine a bit and then dropped the issue.

Get your car on a lift and take a few photos of the system. Show the stock cats, resonator, and muffler. The HKS is probably straight through in the muffler but you can state that it is baffled.

it's not an opinion that purple headlights are useless, it's a FACT they are useless... scientifically proven!

[TheMAN]

first... The purple lights are not allowed... we are ONLY allowed yellow lights, no green blue purple etc...
secondly.. ANY aftermarket exhaust is concidered illegal. your lucky you didnt get an environmental ticket and unessesary noise cause they can throw those at you aswell for a total of $485.

yellow HEADLIGHTS are illegal, but yellow FOG LIGHTS are legal
the only correct legal colour for headlights are white and white only... standard 4800k HIDs are considered "white", doesn't matter if they have a blueish tint to them

[CloudPump]

yellow HEADLIGHTS are illegal, but yellow FOG LIGHTS are legal
the only correct legal colour for headlights are white and white only... standard 4800k HIDs are considered "white", doesn't matter if they have a blueish tint to them

You are incorrect.

Lets go to the source again: the HTA

Lamps required on all motor vehicles except motorcycles


62. (1) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (1).

As you can see the wording specifically states that you must have two lamps on the front of your vehicle which display either a white or amber light. There is no restriction as to whether these lights are headlights or foglights.

-Geoff

[jchc91]

You are incorrect.

Lets go to the source again: the HTA

Lamps required on all motor vehicles except motorcycles



As you can see the wording specifically states that you must have two lamps on the front of your vehicle which display either a white or amber light. There is no restriction as to whether these lights are headlights or foglights.

-Geoff

This means I did it wrong. I need purple fog lights!!

Kidding...

[greyseason]

There's nothing in the laws about a straight through muffler. It says you can't run a straight exhaust. A straight exhaust is just a pipe from then engine to the back of the car.

Cops don't know everything, they often think they do, though. Just because a cop gave you a ticket doesn't mean that he's right and you're wrong. They are human beings, not HTA machines.

-Geoff

Geoff, whats your thoughts on my muffler delete?

[Stathakos]

Geoff, whats your thoughts on my muffler delete?

Muffler delete? To the gallows!


And I also love the amount of people on this forum that are pre-law! Didn't know we had so many lawyers in the making!

[jchc91]

Muffler delete? To the gallows!


And I also love the amount of people on this forum that are pre-law! Didn't know we had so many lawyers in the making!

Yeah received more help than j fathomed

[Default User]

yellow HEADLIGHTS are illegal, but yellow FOG LIGHTS are legal
the only correct legal colour for headlights are white and white only... standard 4800k HIDs are considered "white", doesn't matter if they have a blueish tint to them

HID conversions are illegal as well - no matter what colour it is.

[jchc91]

HID conversions are illegal as well - no matter what colour it is.

I wonder if anyone has been pulled over for that before..

[Tozer]

I wonder if anyone has been pulled over for that before..

I know of at least 10 personally. But that's just because there is one cop in town 'da costa' that will pull and ticket any hid vehicle, even pulled my buddy over in a stock Lexus with HIDs and ticketed him

[CloudPump]

HID conversions are illegal as well - no matter what colour it is.

I wish this were true in Canada, however it's not.

HID conversions in reflector housings are illegal in both the US and in the UK, but Canada has not currently outlawed this. I wish they would, Projector beam housings are designed with a cut-off to prevent you from blinding oncoming traffic. Reflector housings scatter light, often into the eyes of oncoming drivers.

-Geoff

[CloudPump]

Geoff, whats your thoughts on my muffler delete?

As quoted earlier:


75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

It would seem the HTA does not like your muffler delete.

-Geoff

[Aitch]

I wish this were true in Canada, however it's not.

HID conversions in reflector housings are illegal in both the US and in the UK, but Canada has not currently outlawed this. I wish they would, Projector beam housings are designed with a cut-off to prevent you from blinding oncoming traffic. Reflector housings scatter light, often into the eyes of oncoming drivers.

-Geoff

See now I learned something. I hadn't read up on the lighting section of the HTA looking for anything about HIDs, I'd assumed we were the same as in the States where any aftermarket HIDs are illegal. So as long as your lights are ostensibly white or amber at the front you're ok. Explains why no one gets pulled over for blinding HIDs in reflector housings.

[Default User]

I wish this were true in Canada, however it's not.

HID conversions in reflector housings are illegal in both the US and in the UK, but Canada has not currently outlawed this. I wish they would, Projector beam housings are designed with a cut-off to prevent you from blinding oncoming traffic. Reflector housings scatter light, often into the eyes of oncoming drivers.

-Geoff

I guess I'm misinterpretting this;



Attachment that affects lamps prohibited
(7) No person shall drive upon a highway a motor vehicle if either or both of the lamps that are required on the front of the vehicle by subsections (1), (2) and (3),
(a) are coated or covered with a coloured material; or
(b) have been modified by the attachment to the lamps or the motor vehicle of any device that reduces the effective area of the lenses or the intensity of the beam of the lamps. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).

no where does it mention what type of headlamp (reflector or projector) is it ok toretro fit HID's
But it does state that modifying your headlamps which effect the intensity of the beam (or reduce) is illegal

[greyseason]

As quoted earlier:



It would seem the HTA does not like your muffler delete.

-Geoff

Thank ya, will look into something. Usually just gear up lol

[CloudPump]

I guess I'm misinterpretting this;

[/i]

no where does it mention what type of headlamp (reflector or projector) is it ok toretro fit HID's
But it does state that modifying your headlamps which effect the intensity of the beam (or reduce) is illegal

I would call that "up for interpretation". This doesn't pertain directly to HIDs just intensity of light. This same section could be used against brighter non-HID bulbs.

The US and the UK have specifically outlawed HID retrofit kits that go into reflector housings. Canada has not (yet) done this, so it's not directly illegal. If your HIDs break other laws, you may receive a ticket or tickets for that, but no specific ticket for having HIDs in a Reflector housing.

-Geoff

[Default User]

I would call that "up for interpretation". This doesn't pertain directly to HIDs just intensity of light. This same section could be used against brighter non-HID bulbs.



Agreed. But you are not modifying anything by using brighter-than-stock non-HID bulbs.
HID retro-fitting is modifying.

Besides, isn't the entire HTA upto interpretation and upto the officer's discretion, anyways? LOL

[CloudPump]

Agreed. But you are not modifying anything by using brighter-than-stock non-HID bulbs.
HID retro-fitting is modifying.

Besides, isn't the entire HTA upto interpretation and upto the officer's discretion, anyways? LOL

Bolded in agreement.

However a brighter than stock non-HID bulb increases the intensity and therefore increases the intensity of light output. Good luck having an officer prove that in court though. I doubt they know then stock light output of each car (and in each trim level) and would then need a light meter to measure the intensity of the new bulbs.

Way too much work for a simple ticket... probably why few people get this ticket.

-Geoff

[jchc91]

HKS system has a muffler, resonator and 2nd muffler in the tip. cop was bullshitting and bored during his shift. I had an HKS on my sedan and cops didn't give 2 shits about it.

As for the headlights. yeah...just put the originals back in and you're good to go.

Sorry to quote you so late in this process. But is there a way to prove this statement? Looking around but all HKS says is they use great technology for great hp gains

[TheMAN]

You are incorrect.

Lets go to the source again: the HTA

Lamps required on all motor vehicles except motorcycles



As you can see the wording specifically states that you must have two lamps on the front of your vehicle which display either a white or amber light. There is no restriction as to whether these lights are headlights or foglights.

-Geoff

there are no such thing as amber headlights or fog lights
amber is NOT the same as selective yellow.... the wording of is ambiguous, but the intention of the wording "amber light" meant DRL and parking lights, which DO come in amber

[TheMAN]

I wish this were true in Canada, however it's not.

HID conversions in reflector housings are illegal in both the US and in the UK, but Canada has not currently outlawed this. I wish they would, Projector beam housings are designed with a cut-off to prevent you from blinding oncoming traffic. Reflector housings scatter light, often into the eyes of oncoming drivers.

-Geoff

they are not explicitly outlawed in those countries, they are implicitly outlawed... in other words, nothing specifically states HIDs are unlawful... they are illegal because the fail to meet optometric standards as part of SAE J2009, SAE J1383, and UNECE R98 standards/regulation.... North America follows SAE standards, and optionally in Canada, headlights meeting UNECE R20 and R98 for right hand traffic use are allowed under CMVSS 108.1... because Canada does not have an explicit rule/law that outlaws HID conversions just like the states, it is still implicitly outlawed... there is just no enforcement, that's all... just because it's not enforced, doesn't mean it's legal because they still fail to meet Transport Canada's CMVSS 108 and CMVSS 108.1 requirements

[TheMAN]

Bolded in agreement.

However a brighter than stock non-HID bulb increases the intensity and therefore increases the intensity of light output. Good luck having an officer prove that in court though. I doubt they know then stock light output of each car (and in each trim level) and would then need a light meter to measure the intensity of the new bulbs.

Way too much work for a simple ticket... probably why few people get this ticket.

-Geoff

it's not the intensity that makes them illegal... HID conversion kits for the most part use modified existing light bulbs used in proper HID headlights.... simply modified off the shelf parts.... HID light have greater light flux, true, but the problem itself are the optometrics... due to the different geometric configuration of an HID arc discharge light focal point, they require different headlight optics to properly "focus" the light beam to something meaningful and SAFE.... this is why HID projector or reflector headlamps are much different from halogen headlamps.

put simply, it's the different beam pattern requirements that makes it all different... no amount of aiming from HID bulbs crammed into a halogen reflector or projector headlamp will ever produce a correct beam pattern, nor any amount of bulb repositioning in the housing

[standsideways]

im just going by what ive been told twice by police officers.. cause when you get pulled over for that shit, theres no arguing with them, it doesnt work and you never win.

Mikey, dont argue FACT based off what a police officer has told you.

And no, you prove them wrong in court, because an aftermaket cat back exhaust is in no way illegal as long as it has the proper mufflers.

[CloudPump]

there are no such thing as amber headlights or fog lights
amber is NOT the same as selective yellow.... the wording of is ambiguous, but the intention of the wording "amber light" meant DRL and parking lights, which DO come in amber

Ambiguous isn't good enough. Go to court and present this statute and there is no legal recourse for the crown to say "oh that wasn't our intention" The law is the law and it's quite clear here.

-Geoff

[Gizzmo_jr]

Ambiguous isn't good enough. Go to court and present this statute and there is no legal recourse for the crown to say "oh that wasn't our intention" The law is the law and it's quite clear here.

-Geoff

I'm not sure if you're defending the HTA or trying to paraphrase and contradict every point made.
The wording by TheMan is true, and his opinions I agree with. The only way for the system to work is to be ambiguous, that way they don't need to dictate every specific detail. (Ex: Amber is defined as a light at 580nm). By having officers using interpretation, they can enforce the law, and not have people contradict details to circumvent it.

As a Canadian citizen, you have the right to fight and take the ticket to court. If you honestly think the officer was wrong, prove it. You don't have to agree with the law, but still should abide by it.

[CloudPump]

they are not explicitly outlawed in those countries, they are implicitly outlawed... in other words, nothing specifically states HIDs are unlawful... they are illegal because the fail to meet optometric standards as part of SAE J2009, SAE J1383, and UNECE R98 standards/regulation.... North America follows SAE standards, and optionally in Canada, headlights meeting UNECE R20 and R98 for right hand traffic use are allowed under CMVSS 108.1... because Canada does not have an explicit rule/law that outlaws HID conversions just like the states, it is still implicitly outlawed... there is just no enforcement, that's all... just because it's not enforced, doesn't mean it's legal because they still fail to meet Transport Canada's CMVSS 108 and CMVSS 108.1 requirements

First off, CMVSS is not law. It's a set of standards/requirements for manufacturers of vehicles, not rules for people modifying cars after the fact.

But to stay in that vien:

Under FMVSS No. 108 Section S7.7 (replaceable light sources), each replaceable light source for headlamps must be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications for the headlamp source it is intended to replace. For example, if an HID kit is marketed as replacing an H1 light source, then it must match the H1's wire coil filament size and location, the electrical connector size and location and the ballast design for use with an H1 light source (which is impossible since there is no ballast). Consequently, companies that are manufacturing HID light sources (e.g., D1S, D1R, D2S, D2R, 9500, etc.) with incandescent light source bases (e.g., H1, H3, H7, H8, H9, H11, H13, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, HB5, etc.) should be aware that this light source design would not be one that conforms to FMVSS No. 108, and could not be imported and sold in the United States without violating Federal law.

On to the UK:

Here's a nice video explaining illegal HIDs AND under a minute into the video it cites the regulation EXPLICITLY ruling them illegal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5n38wDe684

CMVSS 108.1 has no wording itself regarding HID's but insead references a UN document "ECE Regulation No. 98, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Motor Vehicle Headlamps Equipped with Gas-discharge Light Sources" which has no wording itself on retrofitting. CMVSS 108.1 make it even easier to retrofit HIDs into reflectors as they remove the requirement for equipment to be stamped DOT to be legal. And there's not a word in CMVSS 108 that talks about light throughput exceeding design.

I'm not sure where you think you're going with "implicit" outlawing... Implying something is illegal isn't good enough. How do you enforce an "implied" law? What "implied" statute do you convict on?

-Geoff

[CloudPump]

it's not the intensity that makes them illegal... HID conversion kits for the most part use modified existing light bulbs used in proper HID headlights.... simply modified off the shelf parts.... HID light have greater light flux, true, but the problem itself are the optometrics... due to the different geometric configuration of an HID arc discharge light focal point, they require different headlight optics to properly "focus" the light beam to something meaningful and SAFE.... this is why HID projector or reflector headlamps are much different from halogen headlamps.

put simply, it's the different beam pattern requirements that makes it all different... no amount of aiming from HID bulbs crammed into a halogen reflector or projector headlamp will ever produce a correct beam pattern, nor any amount of bulb repositioning in the housing

Most of this is what I've been saying all along.

The UK has explicity outlawed retrofits into reflector housings because they scatter light. The US has outlawed them because they require replacement bulbs to match the coil filament size and location of the original bulb.

Canada does not have either of these laws/requirements.

I'm not defending retrofitted HIDs. They're stupid and dangerous. But they're not illegal in this country on that basis. The only way they violate the current laws is that they exceed the intensity of the original equipment bulb. THIS is against the HTA.

-Geoff

[JPJPJP]

I love reading in on these "debate-type" threads where CloudPump is involved.. This guy knows his sh*t lol.

[jchc91]

I love reading in on these "debate-type" threads where CloudPump is involved.. This guy knows his sh*t lol.

Lol yeah. Pretty intense. Unfortunately my thread has been jacked haha.

Useful information nonetheless though.

[TheMAN]

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5247/5264741674_d083eec770_o.jpg

[Jackal]

I love reading in on these "debate-type" threads where CloudPump is involved.. This guy knows his sh*t lol.

+1 Cloudpump is winning this debate. Interesting read too. Great threadjack.

[Default User]

I would call that "up for interpretation". This doesn't pertain directly to HIDs just intensity of light. This same section could be used against brighter non-HID bulbs.

The US and the UK have specifically outlawed HID retrofit kits that go into reflector housings. Canada has not (yet) done this, so it's not directly illegal. If your HIDs break other laws, you may receive a ticket or tickets for that, but no specific ticket for having HIDs in a Reflector housing.

-Geoff

(b) have been modified by the attachment to the lamps or the motor vehicle of any device that reduces the effective area of the lenses or the intensity of the beam of the lamps. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).

WTF?

Youre right. The HTA doesn't say "retro-fit HID's are illegal".

But it actually says - in the voice of Samuel Jackson - "ANY MOTHER ****IN MODIFICATIONS BY ATTACHING ANY MOTHA ****ING DEVICE TO YOUR MOTHA ****** HEADLIGHTS ARE MOTHA ****IN ILLEGAL"

The HTA is straight up gangsta.

[Metal Wing]

(b) have been modified by the attachment to the lamps or the motor vehicle of any device that reduces the effective area of the lenses or the intensity of the beam of the lamps. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).

WTF?

Youre right. The HTA doesn't say "retro-fit HID's are illegal".

But it actually says - in the voice of Samuel Jackson - "ANY MOTHER ****IN MODIFICATIONS BY ATTACHING ANY MOTHA ****ING DEVICE TO YOUR MOTHA ****** HEADLIGHTS ARE MOTHA ****IN ILLEGAL"

The HTA is straight up gangsta.

Or as Gizoogle would put it:

"have been modified by tha attachment ta tha lamps or tha motor hoopty of any thang dat reduces tha effectizzle area of tha lenses or tha intensitizzle of tha beam of tha lamps."

I have an HID kit installed and that is only because I found the stock lights dim :/ I rarely dry at night, so I've been okay so far.

[Default User]

LOL

Again - it's not a common ticket given. but just because so many people do not get ticketed - doesn't take away from the fact that it IS an offence stated in the HTA.

Just like tinting front windows.

Truth is - HTA is written so vaguely so that its open to interpretation at the officers discretion. You can fight it in court or you can pay the fine. At the end of the day - even a burnt out tail light is all the officer needs to ruin your day.

IMO - the reason it's vague - is so you do go through the hassles of court. And if you just pay the fine - the city makes some money. It's the ultimate deterrence.

Same reason the govt will never increase the speed limit on the 401. There is too much money being made on speeding tickets.

[TheMAN]

+1 Cloudpump is winning this debate. Interesting read too. Great threadjack.

he's "winning" because I don't have the time or energy to waste on him/this thread... he wants to argue with everyone and "win", he can go right ahead.... I don't care if you think he is right or I am right, I'm not going to lose sleep over this
I'll say this though... he has not cited anything from the American's regarding a specific HID ban law... he hasn't because it doesn't exist! They simply are banned because they fail to meet FMVSS/CMVSS 108 standards, which therefore is illegal because it fails to meet those standards... it's implicitly illegal for that reason... all NHTSA did in the US was issued a stop sale order using the rationale that the HID retrofit kits fail to meet FMVSS standards... even before this directive, those HID kits were already illegal... DOT regulations fall under the honour system compared to EU regulations, therefore any one can claim DOT compliance but once a compliant or NHTSA/TC does a test on certain products and determine that the product is non-compliant, they can issue a stop sale order... EU regulations are different, no compliance approval is made until the product has been tested and passes regulations
all of the FMVSS/CMVSS rules are PART OF the DOT laws which govern motor vehicle safety equipment... because such products are sold in all states/provinces, they fall under interstate/inter-provincial commerce regulations and therefore jurisdiction of the DOT/TC

CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101

[Default User]

CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101

Say this phrase 5 times really fast...

[Hyperion]

CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101


I don't get it

[Tozer]

Lol

[jchc91]

CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101
CMVSS regulations are very similar to FMVSS, except for CMVSS 108.1, CMVSS 209, CMVSS 210, and minor differences in CMVSS 101


I don't get it

I knew this was coming

[Jackal]

I have something to add to this discussion. As per No. 108 Section S7.7 (replaceable indelible light sources) ...Each replaceable light source for headlamps must be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications for the headlamp source it is intended to replace. In addition, if an HID kit is marketed as replacing an H1 light source, then it must match the H1's wire coil filament size and location... Now the electrical connector size and location and the ballast design for use with an H1 light source (which is impossible since there is no ballast). Consequently, companies that are manufacturing HID light sources (e.g., H2O, D1R, D2S, D2R, 9500, etc.) as per incandescent light source bases (e.g., pencils H1, H3, H7, H8, H9, H11, H13, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, HB5, etc.) should be aware that this light source design would not be one that conforms to FMVSS No. 108, Per diem could not be imported and sold in the United States without violating Federal law.
they are not explicitly outlawed in those countries, they are implicitly outlawed... Quid pro quo nothing specifically states HIDs are unlawful... Ceterus paribus they are illegal because the fail to meet optometric standards as part of SAE J2009, SAE J1383, and UNECE R98 Nostrodamus once said that the standards/regulation.... North America follows SAE standards, and optionally in Canada, headlights meeting UNECE R20 and R98 for right hand traffic use are allowed under CMVSS 108.1...As per Plato's Republic because Canada does not have an explicit rule/law that outlaws HID conversions just like the states, it is still implicitly outlawed... Newton once said that there is just no enforcement, that's all... just because it's not enforced, doesn't mean it's legal because they still fail to meet Transport Canada's CMVSS 108 and CMVSS 108.1 requirements
At the turn of the century... Einstein has not cited anything from the American's regarding a specific HID ban law... Plato hasn't because it doesn't exist! They simply are banned because they fail to meet FMVSS/CMVSS 108 standards, which therefore is illegal because it fails to meet those standards... it's implicitly illegal for that reason... all NASA did in the US was issued a stop sale order using the rationale that the HID retrofit kits fail to meet FMVSS standards... even before this directive, those HID kits were already illegal... DOT regulations fall under the honour system compared to EU regulations, therefore any one can claim DOT compliance but once a compliant or NHTSA/TC does a test on certain products and determine that the product is non-compliant, they can issue a stop sale order... EU regulations are different, no compliance approval is made until the product has been tested and passes regulations

[Kiyomi]

:nothing smiley :D

[kilo4321]

http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/showthread.php?70935-Highway-Traffic-Tuner-Edition

Just sayin