| jberger |
just wondering if you have to have mud flaps on trucks , i cant find anything on transport canadas web site ,
anyone know anythink about this
thanks |
|
|
| THUD |
| If it's a cab&chassis you have to attach mud flaps to it before you drive it so I imagine you have to have some sort of flaps on any truck. |
|
|
| jberger |
well my truck is a 1ton dually, but i just pulled the bed off , so thats y i am wondering about the mud flaps, i have to take a couple hour drive with it
thats funny if mud flaps are a must then dealers should have to sell them with the truck . mine never came with them , and it was bran new |
|
|
| Soulfly |
Put Mudflaps on it anyway.. To save yourself some Greef..
If you pulled infront of me.. and a rock flew from your tire RIGHT Into my window.. I'd be SURE to run you off the road. :lol: :lol: |
|
|
| Godzilla |
| with the box on you don't need them, with open wheels or a service body on the truck mudflaps are mandatory. |
|
|
| dc2696 |
| If you don't put mudflaps on ur truck u better not drive past me, I fucking hate it when trucks don't have mud flaps, theres no excuse. If I took my flaps off my duallie there would be some pissed off ppl driving around thats for sure. Plus if you in the oilfield (IIRC your a welder right?), the mud and shit you get in there you gotta have something man. |
|
|
| dc2696 |
quote:
Originally posted by jberger
well my truck is a 1ton dually, but i just pulled the bed off , so thats y i am wondering about the mud flaps, i have to take a couple hour drive with it
thats funny if mud flaps are a must then dealers should have to sell them with the truck . mine never came with them , and it was bran new
haha thats funny, dealers don't give a fuck if the vehicle is legal or not. Think of the tinted out cars dealers sell with ricey tips ect.:drama:
When I bought my truck the mudflaps were extra. (A Few hundred) |
|
|
| nismokutz |
| i would put mud flaps on because if u cause a rock chip in someone's windshield they can go through ur insurance to get it fixed or replaced plus u don't scratch the back of ur truck. when ur hauling somethin all the rocks bounce off it and into ur tailgate leaving lots of nice little chips |
|
|
| bluciv93 |
| just put them on and save yourself and everyone else alot of problems |
|
|
| jberger |
quote:
Originally posted by Soulfly
Put Mudflaps on it anyway.. To save yourself some Greef..
If you pulled infront of me.. and a rock flew from your tire RIGHT Into my window.. I'd be SURE to run you off the road. :lol: :lol:
with your little civic hahahahahah
kiddin kiddin |
|
|
| Soulfly |
quote:
Originally posted by jberger
with your little civic hahahahahah
kiddin kiddin
lol.. It'd still run you off the road..
It'd be like you, Hitting a jump at 110km/h!
Wanna test it? :cool: |
|
|
| jberger |
| well i am getting mud flaps on , but in order to get them i have to drive a couple of hours so i am just trying to see if i had to have make home made ones till i get the news ones with my deck |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
Straight outta the alberta regs:
quote:
Mudguards.
64 The body of a motor vehicle or trailer or a fender, mudguard or similar structure must cover the width of the tire and extend to the mid‑point of the axle when viewed from behind the vehicle.
Soo basically, the top back quarter of the tire must be covered, by fender/deck, or mud flap |
|
|
| JonJonPoPong |
| People with big ass trucks and no mud flaps deserve to get thier trucks keyed with "I *heart* cock" on the hood. |
|
|
| bluciv93 |
quote:
Originally posted by JonJonPoPong
People with big ass trucks and no mud flaps deserve to get thier trucks keyed with "I *heart* cock" on the hood.
:lol: :lol: :lol: |
|
|
| flipincanadian |
| If nothing else take a couple of squares or plywood or something similar,nail them to a 2x4 and bungy it to the frame. I hate being the one with the bigger mudflaps(sparcos) when i drive past a truck. |
|
|
| jberger |
quote:
Originally posted by JonJonPoPong
People with big ass trucks and no mud flaps deserve to get thier trucks keyed with "I *heart* cock" on the hood.
go cry on another post |
|
|
| HEWSINATOR |
But it is is true.
This is not the case of the OG poster, it seems, but there seems to be a trend of jacked up trucks taking the flaps of for aesthetic reason, and it makes me angry. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by HEWSINATOR
But it is is true.
This is not the case of the OG poster, it seems, but there seems to be a trend of jacked up trucks taking the flaps of for aesthetic reason, and it makes me angry.
Make me cranky too, we have an RC up here with a jacked super duty F350 with 20" or 22" wheels, tall rubber.... etc.. no flaps... grrr
If they actually do serious off roading, I can see how flaps can be a hinderance(backing up a steep hill/incline....
But you should be able to get flaps that come off easy... like some semi flaps... |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
whatever... i will follow people home who put rocks into my windshield (if it's because they don't have mudflaps)
driving highway 21 every day it really starts to piss you off
people who don't pay for my windshield get the cops called on them:dunno: simple as that...
if you choose to run without mud flaps just make sure you don't run into someone like me |
|
|
| oliek |
| well i don't run mud flaps on my jeep go ahead follow me home the law states that half the tire has to be coverd so if you going to follow me well that would be your fault and reverse works well on the jeep |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by oliek
well i don't run mud flaps on my jeep go ahead follow me home the law states that half the tire has to be coverd so if you going to follow me well that would be your fault and reverse works well on the jeep
And that's fine.. it's the guys with 5% or none of their tires covered that are the problem.. shoot my fifth ave the rear fender is inline perfectly with the center of my rim, before when I had air shocks, if I put 200psi in, my car was technically illegal... so I put 160-170psi in |
|
|
| oliek |
| well most of the jeeps you see out there have more than half there tires coverd but those that don't usualy run mud tired that only pick up rocks a little smaller than your fist which we don't see alot of them on the road but i know what you mean about rocks i replace my windshield twice a year and it seems to be getting worse |
|
|
| eurotrailertras |
| no one likes the asshat in a big truck ripping down the road beside them, destroying their cars as they do. be considerate of others and just get the flaps. |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by oliek
well i don't run mud flaps on my jeep go ahead follow me home the law states that half the tire has to be coverd so if you going to follow me well that would be your fault and reverse works well on the jeep
i'm glad that reverse works well in a jeep... but my one ton would crush you:thumbup: i would say 4wd works well in my truck:thumbup: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
| If someone damages your vehicle and doesn't stop, that's hit and run. Just because some jackass doesn't want to spend $40 on a pair of mudflaps doesn't mean you should have to spend hundreds on windshield repairs. It's his fault, he should pay. |
|
|
| luder |
Let's just kick all of the trucks off the road :thumbup:
Seriously though, police need to stop giving out exhaust tickets, and start giving out mudflap tickets. Exhausts may be loud and a nnoying, but the rocks these trucks fling are just dangerous. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by luder
Let's just kick all of the trucks off the road :thumbup:
Seriously though, police need to stop giving out exhaust tickets, and start giving out mudflap tickets. Exhausts may be loud and a nnoying, but the rocks these trucks fling are just dangerous.
Yeah, I got a rock to a head light yesterday.. it's cracked and I need to replace it now.
They should Nab the semi's running around with mudflaps, but no fenders.. they shoot shit straight up... I've seen one in the rain it looks like a dual engine jet boat shooting water straight up.. and landing on my car... |
|
|
| quadraphonic |
quote:
Originally posted by nismokutz
i would put mud flaps on because if u cause a rock chip in someone's windshield they can go through ur insurance to get it fixed or replaced plus u don't scratch the back of ur truck. when ur hauling somethin all the rocks bounce off it and into ur tailgate leaving lots of nice little chips
Are you sure? It seems the burden of proof on the rear driver would be high in this case. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by quadraphonic
Are you sure? It seems the burden of proof on the rear driver would be high in this case.
1 word: witnesses. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by quadraphonic
Are you sure? It seems the burden of proof on the rear driver would be high in this case.
Yeah, I agree, I was behind a semi on Highway 2 north, just south of Morinville, a semi kicked up a big rock, put a half moon crack in my window.... but how do I prove that he did it, unless I have video tape of my windshield and other traffic around. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
| Not all trucks come from the factory with mudflaps. As long as the truck remains in factory form (not jacked up) why should the truck owners have to pay a bunch extra for mudflaps + installation (if they're not mechanically inclined). Rock chips happen, even to big trucks. Do you think the truck drivers cry about it and follow little ricers home to make them pay for rock chips? |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
Not all trucks come from the factory with mudflaps. As long as the truck remains in factory form (not jacked up) why should the truck owners have to pay a bunch extra for mudflaps + installation (if they're not mechanically inclined). Rock chips happen, even to big trucks. Do you think the truck drivers cry about it and follow little ricers home to make them pay for rock chips?
It's still illegal, and they can still be fined for it, and if the cop is having a really bad day, he could impound the vehicle. When I had airshocks, and pumped them up to 200psi, a cop could nail be for the same thing.
Kinda like cars that come with fog's as DRL's are technically breaking Alberta Regulations..... I had a cop tell me out right fog's are illegal to use around traffic and must be treaed like hi-beams... I quoted the section of the regulations and shut him right up. but still, if he really wanted he coulda impounded my car. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
| So, when are you coming back to GL? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
Not all trucks come from the factory with mudflaps. As long as the truck remains in factory form (not jacked up) why should the truck owners have to pay a bunch extra for mudflaps + installation (if they're not mechanically inclined). Rock chips happen, even to big trucks. Do you think the truck drivers cry about it and follow little ricers home to make them pay for rock chips?
Trucks can usually throw bigger rocks higher up, due to the larger tires. Thus the problem.
I doubt a ricer is hitting a truck window with rocks, if he is, he probably doesn't have the prescribed amount of tire covered either. Whether or not the truck driver in question follows the ricer home or not, do you think it's fair the ricer not have to pay $40 for a set of flaps whereas that truck has to pay for a new windshield all because the ricer decided he was too special to comply with the law?
Whether or not the truck (or car, some cars are "illegal" out of the factory too) comes with flaps from the factory, you the driver/owner are responsible for ensuring it meets provincial and federal regulations. If it doesn't, you are the one held responsible. Again, you ask why the truck driver should have to pay $40 for a set of mudflaps, I ask why others who might be stuck behind him should have to pay substantially more to replace a windshield? If you can afford a new truck, you can afford the mud flaps.
And for the record, I've known many truckers who've followed people home because of damage that occured to their vehicle because of another, or even because they didn't like the way the other person drove and wanted to yell at them. So what's your point?
The law says get flaps. Don't like it? Tough, because it's not fair to those whose windows you're breaking because you're too cheap to pay $40 or think mud flaps will ruin the nice look of your fancy truck OR car. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by quadraphonic
Are you sure? It seems the burden of proof on the rear driver would be high in this case.
As another note........go to court, prove his truck doesn't have the legally required mudflaps. Maybe you get nothing out of it, but he gets a ticket for not having them and then puts them on, reducing the chance of it happening to someone else. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
So, when are you coming back to GL?
GL? Only GL I know is GarageLan |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Trucks can usually throw bigger rocks higher up, due to the larger tires. Thus the problem.
I doubt a ricer is hitting a truck window with rocks, if he is, he probably doesn't have the prescribed amount of tire covered either. Whether or not the truck driver in question follows the ricer home or not, do you think it's fair the ricer not have to pay $40 for a set of flaps whereas that truck has to pay for a new windshield all because the ricer decided he was too special to comply with the law?
Whether or not the truck (or car, some cars are "illegal" out of the factory too) comes with flaps from the factory, you the driver/owner are responsible for ensuring it meets provincial and federal regulations. If it doesn't, you are the one held responsible. Again, you ask why the truck driver should have to pay $40 for a set of mudflaps, I ask why others who might be stuck behind him should have to pay substantially more to replace a windshield? If you can afford a new truck, you can afford the mud flaps.
And for the record, I've known many truckers who've followed people home because of damage that occured to their vehicle because of another, or even because they didn't like the way the other person drove and wanted to yell at them. So what's your point?
The law says get flaps. Don't like it? Tough, because it's not fair to those whose windows you're breaking because you're too cheap to pay $40 or think mud flaps will ruin the nice look of your fancy truck OR car.
just for the record, because somebody buys a new vehicle does NOT mean they can afford to add aftermarket equipment that was not included with the vehicle. somebody has good credit, but limited cash flow can get a loan for a brand new truck, yet barely make the monthly payments. and who said you can get a set of mud flaps for $40? not for my vehicle you can't.
also, what somebody is driving around without mudflaps, and doesn't even know there is such a law stating you must have your tires covered by 50%
this is the first time i ever heard of such a thing. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
GL? Only GL I know is GarageLan
Precisely to what I was making reference, my friend. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
Oh I am a little biased on this point, I have a $600 windshield, a $300 windshield, and I just paid to have a $1250 rear window replaced due to rock damage from other cars. On my car I've gone though 4 pairs of headlight housings, 3 sets of fog lights, on the wife's car 1 pair of OEM fog lights. And my marker/singal lense on my car is cracked due to a rock...
Past 2 years worth of driving I figure I have about $4000 worth of rock damage from other vehicles.
I swear, around town and just out of town I think I'm gonna start using quads/skidoo's as my daily drivers, and where I live, I could get away with it too. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
It sounds like maybe you need to upgrade your housings, man! I just got the first crack in my windshield and I've been driving that thing for 2+ years (50,000kms).
It's ugly, and I'll probably end up replacing the 'shield, but you're either really unlucky with catching huge rocks - or somebody is shooting at you!
hehe
also, how do you get damage to a REAR window from rocks? |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
1. The law - ignorance is not an excuse, it's like the roads that just say 50 max, don't say km/h.... you can't play stupid and say, well gee I thought it ment 50 cars on the road at one time.
Kinda like the law says the top half of your tire must be completely covered by fender/mudflap.. so people with tires that stick out beyond the fender are in trouble too...
Although, I'd really like to know how the guys who custom made from ground up a 30's style roadster get away without any fenders what so ever, like if the stretch and lean back their arms rub on rubber....
GL - what's your name over there.. or what was it? |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
It sounds like maybe you need to upgrade your housings, man! I just got the first crack in my windshield and I've been driving that thing for 2+ years (50,000kms).
It's ugly, and I'll probably end up replacing the 'shield, but you're either really unlucky with catching huge rocks - or somebody is shooting at you!
hehe
also, how do you get damage to a REAR window from rocks?
I had some e-bay cheapies.. didn't last long, I have 1 pair euro lights.. 1's bust'ed... I have 1 pair Hella's they're still fine.. thank fully..
I had a pair of Hella Fog's both of those got bustd up.
I do alot of highway driving... and I mean alot.... and it doesn't help I live along the Ft. Mac 500 with all the stereotypical rig pic trucks going 140+....
Rear window - gravel road...... vehicle going the other direction - friggin 3am Christmas eve.... happily driving alone, hear this loud ass WHAM, thought I kicked a lerger rock up and it hit the floor pan... does happen some times... go to back into the inlaws driveway - rear window locked like it had some snow on it... next morning I find this:
I was supposed to have insurance coverage for my side and rear windows.. but my ins co screwed up. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
just for the record, because somebody buys a new vehicle does NOT mean they can afford to add aftermarket equipment that was not included with the vehicle. somebody has good credit, but limited cash flow can get a loan for a brand new truck, yet barely make the monthly payments. and who said you can get a set of mud flaps for $40? not for my vehicle you can't.
also, what somebody is driving around without mudflaps, and doesn't even know there is such a law stating you must have your tires covered by 50%
this is the first time i ever heard of such a thing.
If you can't afford to buy the equipment required to make your vehicle legal, you shouldn't buy the vehicle. I don't care about someone's credit and cashflow situation, those are completely irrelevant. Get an extra $40 in the loan. Can't get mudflaps for $40? Go to Walmart, they've got them for $19.99 a set. $40 will get the set plus installation. If you have some massive honking dualie and need $800 mudflaps or something, then again, perhaps you shouldn't be buying a vehicle if you can't afford it. What would you do if the tires went flat? Better yet, what would you do if your headlights burned out? "I'm sorry officer, I can't afford to replace my headlights. I have bad credit and low cashflow. I could barely afford the truck but it cost me every penny I own and my entire paycheck."
Sorry, money is a poor excuse for no mudflaps, and one neither I, nor any police officer, nor the court is likely to accept.
As for not being aware, like has been said, ignorance is not a defence of the law. I was in court once waiting to testify and one of the cases before me involved a man and his wife who were charged with many things, including anal sex. They were caught on a beach you see, and got the whole book thrown at them: from lewd contact right up. They wanted the "anal sex" charge tossed because they weren't aware it was illegal to have anal sex in Canada unless it occured between consenting adults in private (by being on the beach the breached that part), judge said tough, learn the laws before you engage in activities.
I moved here from Winnipeg, where it's legal to tint the windshield. The OOP inspection doesn't cover that factor, it checks for safety issued, not the legality of your car. As a driver, that's my job. But if I don't bother and assume a light film tint is allowed and get a ticket, the fact that I may not have known would not have been a valid reason to have it.
That's just a fact of life in our society. The reasons for it are simple: anyone could plead ignorance at any time, and unless they've been charged with this crime in the past, there's no way for courts to know the different. Lets say you go out tomorrow and kill someone. Then you get arrested, show up in court, and say "I didn't know murder was illegal." How can the court or prosecution prove you didn't? In terms of the ethics if law, it's fair that any person who receives the benefits from living in a just and lawful society, protected by rights and freedoms provided by those laws, has a RESPONIBILITY as a citizen to LEARN and ABIDE by all laws of the state which may at one time or another apply to them. That includes learning that you have to have mudflaps on your truck, you can do burn outs, you can't take action that results in an accident even if you do have right of way, you can't tint your windshield, etc. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
If you can't afford to buy the equipment required to make your vehicle legal, you shouldn't buy the vehicle. I don't care about someone's credit and cashflow situation, those are completely irrelevant. Get an extra $40 in the loan. Can't get mudflaps for $40? Go to Walmart, they've got them for $19.99 a set. $40 will get the set plus installation. If you have some massive honking dualie and need $800 mudflaps or something, then again, perhaps you shouldn't be buying a vehicle if you can't afford it. What would you do if the tires went flat? Better yet, what would you do if your headlights burned out? "I'm sorry officer, I can't afford to replace my headlights. I have bad credit and low cashflow. I could barely afford the truck but it cost me every penny I own and my entire paycheck."
Sorry, money is a poor excuse for no mudflaps, and one neither I, nor any police officer, nor the court is likely to accept.
As for not being aware, like has been said, ignorance is not a defence of the law. I was in court once waiting to testify and one of the cases before me involved a man and his wife who were charged with many things, including anal sex. They were caught on a beach you see, and got the whole book thrown at them: from lewd contact right up. They wanted the "anal sex" charge tossed because they weren't aware it was illegal to have anal sex in Canada unless it occured between consenting adults in private (by being on the beach the breached that part), judge said tough, learn the laws before you engage in activities.
I moved here from Winnipeg, where it's legal to tint the windshield. The OOP inspection doesn't cover that factor, it checks for safety issued, not the legality of your car. As a driver, that's my job. But if I don't bother and assume a light film tint is allowed and get a ticket, the fact that I may not have known would not have been a valid reason to have it.
That's just a fact of life in our society. The reasons for it are simple: anyone could plead ignorance at any time, and unless they've been charged with this crime in the past, there's no way for courts to know the different. Lets say you go out tomorrow and kill someone. Then you get arrested, show up in court, and say "I didn't know murder was illegal." How can the court or prosecution prove you didn't? In terms of the ethics if law, it's fair that any person who receives the benefits from living in a just and lawful society, protected by rights and freedoms provided by those laws, has a RESPONIBILITY as a citizen to LEARN and ABIDE by all laws of the state which may at one time or another apply to them. That includes learning that you have to have mudflaps on your truck, you can do burn outs, you can't take action that results in an accident even if you do have right of way, you can't tint your windshield, etc.
I wasn't trying to make excuses, and I've never run into any problems with the law in that respect, I guess I was just playing devils advocate. Because I seriously never heard of that mudflap law before. You say that it's my duty to learn the rules and regulations, how much time does a new/trainee officer have allowed for learning the rules of the road? And they get paid for it! Am I expected to run out and get a rule book and read the whole damn thing so I can make sure I 100% abide by said rules?
If it's so illegal, how come dealers can sell them that way? If it's so illegal, how come no mechanic or 3rd party has ever mentioned it? Why am I hearing about it right now on some forum? Obviously it's not well-known law, why should the consumer be responsible. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
I wonder if you walked into court and your defense was "Sir, I was just born here, never once did I agree to abide by the laws, nor was I formally requested to" Now I'm ex-military, so I swore an oth to the Queen, so I can't even try that... but I've always wondered......
I really wonder if a judge would take a second to think about thgat or if he'd laugh his ass out of his chair then toss you in jail.. or if somehow you'd get off on whatever charge.. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
I wasn't trying to make excuses, and I've never run into any problems with the law in that respect, I guess I was just playing devils advocate. Because I seriously never heard of that mudflap law before. You say that it's my duty to learn the rules and regulations, how much time does a new/trainee officer have allowed for learning the rules of the road? And they get paid for it! Am I expected to run out and get a rule book and read the whole damn thing so I can make sure I 100% abide by said rules?
If it's so illegal, how come dealers can sell them that way? If it's so illegal, how come no mechanic or 3rd party has ever mentioned it? Why am I hearing about it right now on some forum? Obviously it's not well-known law, why should the consumer be responsible.
Actaully I've noticed alot of new fords running around without flaps, so I wanna find a ford dealer(with a large number of offending trucks) next time I'm in the city and ask how come they're selling illegal vehicles... I really do, and probably will, if I'm in early enough I'll prolly harass the dealer owner/manager with that question...
YOu can view the regs online, but they aren't garenteed to be 100% up to date or you can go to the queens printer and pay for the regs.. thats the part that pissed me off.. I have to pay to find out what laws I have to obey? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
I'm gonna address your post in small chunks.
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
I wasn't trying to make excuses, and I've never run into any problems with the law in that respect, I guess I was just playing devils advocate. Because I seriously never heard of that mudflap law before. You say that it's my duty to learn the rules and regulations, how much time does a new/trainee officer have allowed for learning the rules of the road? And they get paid for it!
It's an ongoing thing, just like any job. The rules are constantly changing, as is the way they're interpreted. However, how long does it take a police officer to learn most of the important laws? Not very. Most of police training is in the specific laws a police officer must follow. Search procedures, arrest procedures, use of force procedures, crime scene procedures, basic investigative techniques, introduction to forensics, etc. The other big focus in training is crisis intervention. You show up at an armed robbery and the guy is still inside, but you were told he had left and walked in and now he has a gun to your head, or he's holding a hostage so you can't just back out, what do you do? You show up to a domestic violence call and the wife and husband get right back into it every time you turn your back, what do you do?
The laws themselves are pretty basic. You can't do anything that is likely to cause harm to anyone else (bodily, financially, mentally, etc), or to violate their basic right and freedoms. In this case, you can't operate a vehicle which is likely to damage to someone else. What's likely in terms of rocks kicking up tires? Not having the entire top half of the tire protected.
quote:
Am I expected to run out and get a rule book and read the whole damn thing so I can make sure I 100% abide by said rules?
I don't think the courts care how you learn about the laws, whether you buy a book, read them off the government website, read them on a forum or have a friend tell you. So I don't think you're "expected" to do anything except follow them. In school, before you turn 18, it's expected you will be aware of the Criminal Code and have a knowledge of right and wrong. Before you drive your car it's expected you will know the laws that go along with driving a car. How do you know you aren't allowed to speed? Did you go out and get a rule book and read out? How do you know you aren't allowed to drive around with your high beams on all the time? How do you know you aren't allowed to drink and drive? How do you know you have to yield right of way?
At some point before learning to drive you were told them or you learned them on your own or they're common sense. Period. Now as people grow up, less and less is explained to them. At some point we as a society assume people should be old enough and mature enough to know they need to follow the rules and no longer need to be told what those rules are. If you're going to spend all that money buying a car, you're expected to learn what rules you have to follow.
Now, at that point, you should already know the rules of driving and the rules of the state (ie don't murder or rape). So it seems reasonable that before you do that, you educate yourself on the laws you're supposed to follow that are new to you. In other words, you're expected to learn for yourself that you need to buy insurance before you can buy your car. That you need to register it. That you can't tint the front windows. That you can't put in green headlights. That you can't move your breaklights to the front. Whatever. At some point, the government needs to stop treating people like children and stop holding them by the hand.
When you buy a house, do you take a course? Nope. And yet despite that, you're expected to know that you're responsible for keeping the walkways clear from snow and ice so that public servants and whoever else may be coming to visit doesn't fall and get hurt. Among other homeowner laws. You have a responsibility, as a homeowner, to learn those laws all by yourself, without the government getting out a box of crayolas and drawing a picture. The same applies when you buy a car.
quote:
If it's so illegal, how come dealers can sell them that way? If it's so illegal, how come no mechanic or 3rd party has ever mentioned it? Why am I hearing about it right now on some forum? Obviously it's not well-known law, why should the consumer be responsible. [/B]
First off, what do you mean by "if it's so illegal"? It's no more illegal than any of the other obscure laws, but nonetheless, it's illegal. If you mean "Are you sure it's illegal?" hit this stickies at the top and read the regulations. Why is the consumer responable? Because it's YOUR car. If you take your car to a place that tints windows and say you want limo tint on your windshield, who's responsible for that? Them or you? If they don't tell you "hey, that's illegal", what do you think?
As the owner of the vehicle it is YOUR responsibility and YOUR responsibility only to ensure it's legal. Most tint places will make you sign a waiver, but that's to avoid lawsuits, not because they'd risk losing the lawsuit, but because with you having signed you'd never find a lawyer to take your case and they don't have to spend money going to court for something they already know they'll win.
No matter how the subject is spinned or what angle you try to approach it from, devil's advocate or otherwise, the fact is that under Canadian Law, as the owner of something, you're responsible for ensuring it's legal. Maybe it's a lot of work to keep it that way, maybe it's even a lot of work just finding out what those laws are, but nonetheless, that's how our system (and most systems in the world) work. |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
^^^
i agree if you're that ignorant of the laws which you drive under, maybe you shouldn't be driving...:dunno: |
|
|
| Tyangelo |
| With the tires I'm running, I wouldn't be able to properly mount mudflaps without them getting sucked into the tires. The moral of the story is, don't drive behind big trucks....? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tyangelo
With the tires I'm running, I wouldn't be able to properly mount mudflaps without them getting sucked into the tires. The moral of the story is, don't drive behind big trucks....?
Then your tires aren't the right size. The moral of the story is and always will be, obey the law. That includes you. Having big tires doesn't make you special and exempt you from the law. And I guarantee you that if I'm behind you (and bear in mind even if you leave a big gap, rocks can get chucked pretty far) and I get a rock to the windscreen, your information will be forwarded to the police as well as the fact that you're breaking the law and it resulted in damage to someone elses vehicle if I don't follow you home and ask for your insurance information. |
|
|
| Tyangelo |
| Well, sorry to hear that man. My love for my truck far overrides my respect for the law. Call me an asshole if you will, and I do drive courtious to other drivers and will be the last one to ever collect on anyone elses insurance. Do what you will, but consider it your own opinion. |
|
|
| morningla |
so my gf was driving when the trunk ahead sprayed a rock and chipped our windsheild. can i copy down their license plate and report that to the police as I am the witness (passenger)?
i thought you don't need a police report for damage under $1000.
what if i am driving alone, how can i possibly find a witness. people beside me will not know when a rock hits my car. and they will think i am crazy for waving them down asking them to be my witness for a rock chip.
additional how am i suppose to stop the driver who lifted the rock? and also stop a witness at the same time???
stop all traffic around me??? for a rock chip...
chase him down and cut him off? he'll probably laugh at me and drive off.
most of the time the chip doesn't crack your windsheild. am i doing all this for $35? and if it does crack, it could be a few days later. then is it my own fault for not having time to go fix the chip on the same day?
And OMG! we don't drive behind big trucks on purpose. some goes 80km/h+ in traffic and cuts u off. or merging onto larger roads, eg. WHITEMUD... that's most often when rocks fly into you. |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by morningla
so my gf was driving when the trunk ahead sprayed a rock and chipped our windsheild. can i copy down their license plate and report that to the police as I am the witness (passenger)?
i thought you don't need a police report for damage under $1000.
what if i am driving alone, how can i possibly find a witness. people beside me will not know when a rock hits my car. and they will think i am crazy for waving them down asking them to be my witness for a rock chip.
additional how am i suppose to stop the driver who lifted the rock? and also stop a witness at the same time???
stop all traffic around me??? for a rock chip...
chase him down and cut him off? he'll probably laugh at me and drive off.
most of the time the chip doesn't crack your windsheild. am i doing all this for $35? and if it does crack, it could be a few days later. then is it my own fault for not having time to go fix the chip on the same day?
And OMG! we don't drive behind big trucks on purpose. some goes 80km/h+ in traffic and cuts u off. or merging onto larger roads, eg. WHITEMUD... that's most often when rocks fly into you.
you have to prove that it is probable that they caused the damage on your car and you will win the case every time...
it's not beyond a reasonable doubt it's if it is probable that they caused the damage
so if you can show that the accused was breaking the law by not having mudflaps or incorrect mudflaps no judge will rule against you:thumbup: |
|
|
|
