beginers "bad" luck???

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ethanol

New member
last September I receaved my beautiful catback. Only three days later my worst fear becomes reality. Yeah I get busted by a cop that had nothing better to do than give me a ticket for installing a free flow exhaust. Get this, ever since I haven' t even a look from a cop, even when we both take off after waiting at red light.

Long story short I' m heading to court on the 9th of June.
infraction (258) code 92 or something like that I cant read his crappy writing.

I' ve got less than a month to prepare some kind of case I can defend. Im already
waiting for the cops report coming in the mail.

From what I read in these forums this is practicly a lost case. People rarely win when it comes to free flow exhaust. But i m willing to down fighting.

if anybody who has been in the same situation can shed some light on this please let me know cause im realy sick and tired of running into the one cop in city who actualy gives a shit about a supposidly loud muffler. its not that loud.

Also when I receive the cops report I will provide it is needed.
 
you cant do anything unless you can prove your original was a straight through. Or (Im looking into it now for MY muffler ticket) when article 258 came into play. I have an old model supra, and I am hoping that it came into act after 1985 so I can fight the "norm".
 
if you have it on an RSX-s like in your profile, it did not come with a free flow so its illegal, even if many cars on the road come with these "illegal" mufflers..
 
Pillpopper said:
if you have it on an RSX-s like in your profile, it did not come with a free flow so its illegal, even if many cars on the road come with these "illegal" mufflers..
Click to expand...

Free flows are NOT illegal.
What is Illegal is to install a free flow muffler on a car thats does not come out of the factory with it.

Mazda Speed 3 have free flows and its legal.

Also question for Ethanol. Didi the police officer actually examine your exhaust.
Tape mesures, pictures? Or did he simply say your not legal and hand you the ticket?
All rhe proofs should be on the Divulgation de la preuve.
 
The law doesn't state the exhaust you put has to be the same type you have from the factory. It has been interpreted this way and can be fighted.

The law states that if you repair an exhaust, it has to retain the same characteristics the exhaust manufacturer used when they made it. If you replace an exhaust with one from another manufacturer, it can have different characteristics since the law does mention exhaust manufacturer and not car manufacturer.
 
carotman said:
The law doesn't state the exhaust you put has to be the same type you have from the factory. It has been interpreted this way and can be fighted.

The law states that if you repair an exhaust, it has to retain the same characteristics the exhaust manufacturer used when they made it. If you replace an exhaust with one from another manufacturer, it can have different characteristics since the law does mention exhaust manufacturer and not car manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Thats your interpretation of the law. Some judges will say the same but some ( many ) dont.
If you go to court its a uphill battle. Specialy if they have there expert and good proof againts you.
This you dont know until you actually go to court.
 
Flagman101 said:
Thats your interpretation of the law. Some judges will say the same but some ( many ) dont.
If you go to court its a uphill battle. Specialy if they have there expert and good proof againts you.
This you dont know until you actually go to court.
Click to expand...

That's not my interpretation, that's how the law is clearly written. If you analyze it sentence by sentence, there is no mention of OEM, car manufacturer or original exhaust from the car or anything like this.

Here's the document:
Regulation respecting safety standards for road vehicles

All it says is:
91. The exhaust system shall include the following components: manifolds, pipes, muffler, brackets and fasteners.

Those components shall be securely mounted to their anchorages and no leakage of exhaust gases shall be detected through joints, cracks or holes other than those originally provided by the manufacturer of the exhaust system to evacuate condensation.

Any repair on any of the components shall be such as to preserve the original characteristics.
Click to expand...

So, if you replace your exhaust with one from another manufacturer, this is a new exhaust, not a repair. You repaired the car but you have a new exhaust.

The article states that if you repair an exhaust component it has to keep the same characteristics, which is obvious.

94. No component of the exhaust system shall be replaced, modified or removed so as to cause the system to be noisier than the one originally installed by the manufacturer on the road vehicle.
Click to expand...

This is the article that mentions vehicle manufacturer, not article 91. They can't prove it's louder so you're all good on this one.
 
carotman said:
That's not my interpretation, that's how the law is clearly written. If you analyze it sentence by sentence, there is no mention of OEM, car manufacturer or original exhaust from the car or anything like this.

.
Click to expand...


I know all that.
But the fact is it's not the way it works right now.
Tell that to the judge and i hope you win.
 
ok ... mais voit tu je suis un ''gars de char''.... je connais mon model de char par coeur ..... tu veux le part number de ma pomp a eau pas de trouble ....


mais jai conduit un 1983 ..... c pas le genre de question quon se posais dans les anné 80 ... pis retrouver une ligne dexhaust stock ... pour un toyota corolla ae86 .... c pas facile .... pis cest surement pas le dealer qui va me donner cette information sont meme pas capable de me trouver ce que jveux quand je les appeles ... imagine une information si précise
 
dun coup que .....

parce que un super camaro SS 1983 avec une ligne oem spec .... cest pas legale .....
 
Well from what I vaguely remember the cop stoped me and told me shut the engine off and remain in the car. then he proceded to check the rear of my car
(muffler) for around 20 minutes or so. I coudn t see anything so I cant tell what method he was using to prove that my exhaust is illegal.

Is it true that if the cop, that was present that gave me the ticket, is not present in court as well for the expert mr Bloin that the judge has nothing to charge me with and the case is automatically canceled and the defendent wins?

I also heard that if you dont want to go court anymore just call up the munipal court and tell you changed your mind and want to plead guilty they will instead make you pay just a portion of the ticket?

I read this stuff somewhere in these forums about a year ago and I want to know how much of this is true if any at all.
 
///ALPINELOVER said:
intuition comme ca .... chu sur que la ptite broche a passe pas mal loin ....
Click to expand...

Encore une fois.
La broche sert a établir qu'il n'y a pas de barriere interne dans le silencieux.
ensuite leur expert Bluin lui arrive en court et dit " Cette voiture viens d'origine avec un silencieux construit de cette facon. Le propriétaire a changer ce silencieux pour un model free flow ( Prouvé par la broche tape a mesuré ) Donc le silencieux ne respecte PAS les caractéristiques d'origine.

Mais si la voiture venait d'origine avec un free flow... ben ca respecte les caractéristqiues d'origine.
Camaro SS Z28. Made in Quebec, Ca avit des esti de muffler laid et c'etais pas des free flow ca je le sais.
 
Flagman101 said:
I know all that.
But the fact is it's not the way it works right now.
Tell that to the judge and i hope you win.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to inform ethanol about this :D

Pour les free flow, ya pas grand chars qui venaient avec ça d'origine. Les Corolla 83 ne l'étaient pas c'est certain

Remarque que tu tu pognes un Ford model T tout pourri et carrément irrécuparable (pour les # de série) tu pourrais faire un maudit beau hot rod et mettre ca traight au headers tout en étant légal :p
 
ethanol said:
Well from what I vaguely remember the cop stoped me and told me shut the engine off and remain in the car. then he proceded to check the rear of my car
(muffler) for around 20 minutes or so. I coudn t see anything so I cant tell what method he was using to prove that my exhaust is illegal.

Is it true that if the cop, that was present that gave me the ticket, is not present in court as well for the expert mr Bloin that the judge has nothing to charge me with and the case is automatically canceled and the defendent wins?

I also heard that if you dont want to go court anymore just call up the munipal court and tell you changed your mind and want to plead guilty they will instead make you pay just a portion of the ticket?

I read this stuff somewhere in these forums about a year ago and I want to know how much of this is true if any at all.
Click to expand...

If he was checking your rear end for 20 minutes he did a good job of it i'm sire.
Ask for the divulgation de la preuve it will say how he got the proofs.

The police officer does not need to be there. He is represented by the procureur. All the proof is in his hands. So if the police officer did a sloppy job in his report you could win but you could also loose if he did a good job.

If you plead not guilty and change your plea after you will have to pay for the ticket + some fees. They are lower then court fees but they add up to the original amount.

I think this one you should lick you wounds and pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top