# This is it guys; I've had enough. **URL:** \ **Category:** SON240sx Automotive\ **Created:** [March 7, 2007, 5:13pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303 "2007-03-07T17:13:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jedi\_Car\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Jedi\_Car\_Fan](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jedi_Car_Fan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:00am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/41 "2007-03-09T09:00:37Z")
> [@WOW....what a garage](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/wow-what-a-garage/11627/4): > > also I dont think getting your car inspected with your new SR20 is a good idea > > you are lucky the cop didnt proceed to check everything, and you shouldnt wish for a cop that would, because you could potentially get screwed, although sr20’s are not illigal on paper, in the end it comes to the judges decision depending on the case’s path That has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read on SON now… please tell me how a case “could” lead down the path where a judge could rule that a SR20 swap is illegal ---
**Author:** ![spd-dmn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/spd-dmn/32/5513_2.png) [@spd-dmn](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/spd-dmn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:13am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/42 "2007-03-09T09:13:20Z")
Emissions equipment modified… $300 ticket, contrary to the EPA. ---
**Author:** ![crsbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@crsbb](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/crsbb)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/43 "2007-03-09T09:35:58Z")
oops yeah i forgot that I went in the 15 day period to go fight the ticket so i could get a court date. they said 3-4 weeks and its been 8months > [@WOW....what a garage](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/wow-what-a-garage/11627/8): > > is it me, or don’t we all have to set a court date if you get a traffic violation? > > not wait for them to send you a court date? am i missing something here? > > i always thought the receiver of the ticket must do 1 of 3 options within the speculated time (15days or 30days local). > > if you don’t file any of the options, you default your right to explain your situation therefore having to pay the set fine. > > ? > > edit: i just came back from watching ‘300’ and it was AWESOME. go see it. ---
**Author:** ![Jedi\_Car\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Jedi\_Car\_Fan](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jedi_Car_Fan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:38am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/44 "2007-03-09T09:38:59Z")
> [@OMFG Barry Bonds Rookie Card!](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/omfg-barry-bonds-rookie-card/11632/2): > > Emissions equipment modified… > > $300 ticket, contrary to the EPA. True… but if your “modifications” are made in a fashion which the vehicle still passes the emissions standards, then its perfectly legal. That law or whatever is directed at people who modify the system in a fashion where the vehicle will no longer pass emissions. ---
**Author:** ![duckJAI](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/duckjai/32/5553_2.png) [@duckJAI](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/duckJAI)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:47am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/45 "2007-03-09T09:47:54Z")
i thought most SRs can’t pass emissions. _shrugs_ and ya crsbb, i now know what you mean. just went to book a first attendence and they said they would send me my notice in the mail. if its not there in a certain period of time, it wasnt filed. ---
**Author:** ![alesserfate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f6c823/32.png) [@alesserfate](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/alesserfate)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 10:49am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/46 "2007-03-09T10:49:33Z")
> [@Jedi\_Car\_Fan"](#): > > That has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read on SON now… please tell me how a case “could” lead down the path where a judge could rule that a SR20 swap is illegal There is no law written on paper that says “SR20DET is an illigal motor, anyone who has it deserves to die motherfucker” so hence according to the amount of proof you bring that the motor is a legal, suitable motor, and the amount of evidence the inspection team bring up on the missing emissions equipment like spd-dmn said, chris might have a cat, but he doesnt have the egr system OR the charcoal canister. Use your brain buddy, its never by the book in any case, thats the whole reason people hire expensive lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![DarkForceJackal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@DarkForceJackal](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/DarkForceJackal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 10:58am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/47 "2007-03-09T10:58:20Z")
> [@Jedi\_Car\_Fan"](#): > > True… but if your “modifications” are made in a fashion which the vehicle still passes the emissions standards, then its perfectly legal. > > That law or whatever is directed at people who modify the system in a fashion where the vehicle will no longer pass emissions. Any emissions equipment that is tampered with qualifies as a violation - whether the car passes emissions testing or not at that point is irrelevant. Which sucks. Just look at breather filters, sure the car’ll pass emissions, but people still get the $300 tickets for them… ---
**Author:** ![spd-dmn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/spd-dmn/32/5513_2.png) [@spd-dmn](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/spd-dmn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 11:18am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/48 "2007-03-09T11:18:42Z")
Technically a car with a breather shouldn’t pass emissions because it would fail the visual inspection part of it… ---
**Author:** ![renman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecb155/32.png) [@renman](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/renman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/49 "2007-03-09T17:09:36Z")
Cloudzero, if you don’t mind, could you post what the officer’s EXACT writing in the offence portion of the ticket was? i.e. “speeding in a 60 contrary to HTA Section 128.” PM if you don’t feel comfortable posting it here. I’ve got some ideas for your defence. Some of you mentioned that police officers you’ve spoken to have said “this is illegal, this is not illegal, we don’t have authority… etc.” I have a few friend’s that are officers. They aren’t legal experts by any means. The system can be flexible, and precedents have been set. Some of you know this site, but for those who aren’t familiar, check out www.canlii.ca and search. It can be very interesting if you can wade through the legal mumbo jumbo. ---
**Author:** ![spd-dmn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/spd-dmn/32/5513_2.png) [@spd-dmn](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/spd-dmn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/50 "2007-03-09T17:43:30Z")
That’s an excellent link. Not only does it feature a shit ton of case law… it has all the statutes (including provincial acts) for everything you could need. I did a quick search for muffler and didn’t come up with any specific case… but I’m sure if someone searches harder they can come up with something. Funnily enough, I did find some shit about whether or not an LCD monitor hooked up to a PC constituted a television. (it did in that particular case) ---
**Author:** ![cloudzero3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/2acd7d/32.png) [@cloudzero3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/cloudzero3)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 6:00pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/51 "2007-03-09T18:00:34Z")
offense: improper muffler - motor vehicle contrary to: HTA Sect. 75(1) ---
**Author:** ![spd-dmn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/spd-dmn/32/5513_2.png) [@spd-dmn](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/spd-dmn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 6:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/52 "2007-03-09T18:43:13Z")
i just thought of something fucked… it may be dumb and lead to nowhere but… I was thinking about Cayuga (TMP) and the sound tests they do there… to go on the road course you have to be below a certain decibel level. If you can find out what that level is, and demonstrate that your car is below that level at idle/around-town cruising speeds, maybe you can make some kind of case out of it. ---
**Author:** ![cloudzero3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/2acd7d/32.png) [@cloudzero3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/cloudzero3)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 7:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/53 "2007-03-09T19:31:55Z")
110dB is the limit. on my ka i pulled an 89. my sr is quieter. factory required specs according to transport canada is 85dB (-2 for some reason) = 83dB. i can’t prove i got any of those numbers in court though. ---
**Author:** ![NoSkillz](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/noskillz/32/5606_2.png) [@NoSkillz](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/NoSkillz)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/54 "2007-03-09T19:49:57Z")
where did u find the db limit For those that would like to see what the HTA says: HTA 75(1) _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)._ Personally i think you have a chance, just present yourself in a professional manner and claim many different possibilities. State that the government doesn’t have any specific standards in place to regulate beyond an officers discretion (if that is the case, you have to look into that). Then explain that their is numerous possibilities to the situation that could be effecting the officers hearing. State why is it that one officer can pass by and not give a ticket/warning and another will. This can be a weakness to society and create misconception of officers and their ability to successfully do there jobs. ---
**Author:** ![killa\_snake](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/killa_snake/32/5588_2.png) [@killa\_snake](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/killa_snake)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/55 "2007-03-09T20:04:11Z")
Damn I never get hassled for this kinda stuff… or anything at all and im prolly the biggest prick on the road. Knock on wood. You guys should just keep an eye out for cops and get an exhuast like mine, under 3k it purrs like a kitten, \>3.5k It sounds like a damn race car. ---
**Author:** ![renman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecb155/32.png) [@renman](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/renman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/56 "2007-03-09T21:36:19Z")
Chris, you are on a roll with the transport canada regulation: [http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/schedules/1100/mvsrv.1.html#COU40H.KENORP.DHPUME.66](http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/schedules/1100/mvsrv.1.html#COU40H.KENORP.DHPUME.66) **"Exterior Sound Level** 1. Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a vehicle referred to in section 4, shall be so constructed that You should mention to the judge that you assumed your stock system measured 83 dB as per the Transport canada regulations. Then you went shopping for a new system as your old one rusted apart and it was too loud. You should mention that noice was one consideration you had in mind when shopping for a new exhaust. If you can make a video of a stock exhaust sound, and your exhaust sound, and show that yours is not substantially greater, then you should be good as per the PACER reccomendation set out by the OPP: [http://www.officermike.com/roadsafe/pacer.htm](http://www.officermike.com/roadsafe/pacer.htm) "Q. I altered my muffler and this has caused it to be quite a bit louder than stock. Is this okay? A. NO Sec 75(1) Highway Traffic Act- Improper muffler or Sec 75(4) Unnecessary Noise. If you have done anything to your vehicle that has caused it to become substantially louder, then you have violated one of the above sections and could face a fine. " Notice they use the word substantially? Basically, play as if you were trying to keep the same sound level, and you thought this new one was sufficient, as per a video clip. It’s not much, but at least you have some regulation to stand on. If you can get a video of your car exhaust loudness being measured, that’s even better. This is just an idea. I’ve never tried this, but it makes sense to me. Feel free to poke holes in my theory. As we address the holes, your argument will get tighter and more refined. ---
**Author:** ![spd-dmn](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/spd-dmn/32/5513_2.png) [@spd-dmn](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/spd-dmn)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 10:02pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/57 "2007-03-09T22:02:52Z")
Another angle you could try is to cite Cali’s 95dBA regulation… basically in Cali if you modify your exhaust, it’s legal so long as it is under 95dBA. They provide a system where, if you are ticketed for too-loud exhaust, you can take your car for a test and get a certificate that demonstrates it is below 95 decibels. The HTA wording mimics the California Vehicle Code’s almost verbatim. **Ontario HTA 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. **California Vehicle Code 27150.(a)** Every motor vehicle subject to registration shall at all times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Now, Cali also has this as one of its extra sections: California Vehicle Code 27151.(b) For the purposes of exhaust systems installed on motor vehicles with a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of less than 6,000 pounds, other than motorcycles, a sound level of 95 dbA or less, when tested in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J1169 May 1998, complies with this section. Motor vehicle exhaust systems or parts thereof include, but are not limited to, nonoriginal exhaust equipment. The entire procedure for J1169 is hidden behind some pay-site… but the jist of it is: Under this procedure (J1169 May 1998 ), a calibrated sound meter meeting industry standards (ANSI S1.4 1983) is placed 20 inches from the exhaust outlet at a 45 degree angle, the vehicle engine is revved to three quarters of maximum rated horsepower and the highest decibel reading is recorded. Either way… maybe you should try to find someone with a Sound Level Meter and check to see how loud your exhaust actually is. ---
**Author:** ![cloudzero3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/2acd7d/32.png) [@cloudzero3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/cloudzero3)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 8:50am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/58 "2007-03-10T08:50:51Z")
perfect you guys, this is coming along nicely 😃 i’ll try to find someone with a dB meter, though i wouldn’t really know where to start looking… ---
**Author:** ![NoSkillz](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/noskillz/32/5606_2.png) [@NoSkillz](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/NoSkillz)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 8:55am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/59 "2007-03-10T08:55:51Z")
> [@Modding Cars and Passing Inspection](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/modding-cars-and-passing-inspection/11639/6): > > You should mention to the judge that you **assumed** your stock system measured 83 dB as per the Transport canada regulations. Then you went shopping for a new system as your old one rusted apart and it was too loud. You should mention that noice was one consideration you had in mind when shopping for a new exhaust. > > If you can make a video of a stock exhaust sound, and your exhaust sound, and show that yours is not substantially greater, then you should be good as per the PACER reccomendation set out by the OPP: > > [http://www.officermike.com/roadsafe/pacer.htm](http://www.officermike.com/roadsafe/pacer.htm) > > Notice they use the word substantially? > > Basically, play as if you were trying to keep the same sound level, **and you thought this new one was sufficient, as per a video clip.** > > It’s not much, but at least you have some regulation to stand on. If you can get a video of your car exhaust loudness being measured, that’s even better. > > This is just an idea. I’ve never tried this, but it makes sense to me. Feel free to poke holes in my theory. As we address the holes, your argument will get tighter and more refined. You shouldn’t use “mistake a fact” for a defense… well technically you can but its the worst thing you can do. ---
**Author:** ![renman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecb155/32.png) [@renman](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/renman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303/60 "2007-03-10T19:57:18Z")
Spd-dmn, that Cali angle is something I hadn’t thought of, nice idea. NoSkillz, you make a great point. What I was trying to point out (in the section you bolded) is that you can make a fact that the second exhaust and the first exhaust sound substantially the same. If they sound the same (on tape, video, etc.) then that is a fact, and can be introduced. And you are right; I shouldn’t have said you can assume that the stock exhaust meets TC regulations. Some sort of proof should be brought up. That being said, I’ve seen the “assumption” defence be used and the JP agreed. A judge would never let that slide though. Cloudzero, I’m glad you are getting some use out of this conversation, and I’m glad to see this hasn’t gone the way of some of the other threads. 🙂 Keep us updated, I’d like to see if you can set a precedent! [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/this-is-it-guys-ive-had-enough/104303.md?page=4)