skidooer Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I believe you are on the right track. Clubs do not pay rent and that allows the landowners to be covered by our insurance. Clubs do sometimes pay for things like crop damage but it is on an individual and documented basis, AFAIK. The clubs are still granted permission to use the land, just like logging crews, etc. I'm not sure that money has anything to do with it. A person who rents a home is still liable for incidents of their doing. The exchange of funds does not indemnify them from loss or liability. Besides that, permit holders do pay money to occupy the land, if money does matter. While we are searching through the legalese, we're still looking for the law that says aftermarket mufflers (note: not devices that are only mufflers in appearance) are against the law. Interesting discussion guys. It's funny how these laws are perpetuated through outlets like this press release, but are difficult to find on the books. I know some OPP and OFSC people read these forums, maybe they can help us with the missing pieces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketman Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Speed on ice. I asked last year and was told only between stakes on an offical OFSC trail Next and here we go again...can someone show me where it states that an operator of a snowmobile, on an OFSC trail must carry and produce a copy of the current year OFSC trail permit receipt.(green or yellow???) Read the last line of the requirements in the press release. It says valid permit and receipt. Some say you dont have to, but this release says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Didn't the police issue a press release during the G20 Summit? Something about a radius? Law by press release is a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Some say you dont have to, but this release says otherwise. Stating something doesn't make it true. The occupation of the land to permit holders is governed by the OFSC and its clubs. Theoretically, I suppose they could revoke the permit rights without the proper documentation. That, however, is not the same as the rules prescribed under the MSVA and would not allow them – or police – to bring legal action to violators beyond the terms of the Trespass Act. Edit: Maybe I have answered my own question. If the OFSC revokes access, you are no longer an occupant of the land, allowing the MSVA to come into play. Can someone confirm that is in line with the OFSC's charter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 The clubs are still granted permission to use the land, just like logging crews, etc. I'm not sure that money has anything to do with it. A person who rents a home is still liable for incidents of their doing. The exchange of funds does not indemnify them from loss or liability. Besides that, permit holders do pay money to occupy the land, if money does matter. While we are searching through the legalese, we're still looking for the law that says aftermarket mufflers (note: not devices that are only mufflers in appearance) are against the law. Interesting discussion guys. It's funny how these laws are perpetuated through outlets like this press release, but are difficult to find on the books. I know some OPP and OFSC people read these forums, maybe they can help us with the missing pieces? I raised the muffler issue with an OPP officer that was running a Q & A thread on another forum. While he could not find the specific wording anywhere, he assured me that the courts have upheld this interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, I think we can discuss this all day but once the courts have decided, if, in fact, they have, I think it would be very costly to try to overturn a decision. I am also disturbed that these unsubstantiated laws are being enforced and taken as gospel without any documentation. The pundits keep referring to 18(2) of the MSVA but fail to recognize that it only pertains to components that are "required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada)". That act does not contain any references to mufflers that I can find in my research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 he assured me that the courts have upheld this interpretation of the law That's fair, but where does one go to find the precedence? Ignorance is no excuse, I'm told. It is my duty as a citizen to be knowledgeable on those rulings if I am expected to act in accordance of them, but if the information is not accessible I am uncertain how to fulfill my obligation as a citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satrat Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Actual copy and paste of text from the act Equipment requirements Muffler in working order 18. (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1). Removing or modifying any component (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2). Exception in racing area (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a motorized snow vehicle while it is driven in a racing area sanctioned as such by the council of the municipality within which the racing area is located. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Actual copy and paste of text from the act Equipment requirements Muffler in working order 18. (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1). Removing or modifying any component (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2). Exception in racing area (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a motorized snow vehicle while it is driven in a racing area sanctioned as such by the council of the municipality within which the racing area is located. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Great!, but where does it say that an aftermarket muffler, in working order is illegal! Subsection 2 does NOT refer to mufflers! It refers to "any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada," In my investigation of the MVSA, there is no reference to muffler, exhaust system, etc. It does refer to lighting and brakes. Does that mean we have to buy our light bulbs from the manufacturer?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satrat Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 read closer (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) Which means looking at what is required of a vehicle under the motor vehicle act. with a little research you will find that its pretty much anything that is required to safety a vehicle is modified to be inoperable or removed you are in violation. And yes I know sleds don't need safety checks (at least legally) but from reading both acts there is nothing against after market parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 read closer (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) Which means looking at what is required of a vehicle under the motor vehicle act. with a little research you will find that its pretty much anything that is required to safety a vehicle is modified to be inoperable or removed you are in violation. And yes I know sleds don't need safety checks (at least legally) but from reading both acts there is nothing against after market parts But that is the point of the discussion! The common interpretation is that aftermarket exhausts are illegal and we are trying to determine where the law says that! The provisions of the MVSA do not mention exhaust systems for sleds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satrat Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 it doesn't from anything I have found so far and I have run aftermarket for years. would I run a Stinger without baffles on a trail passing thru private property well no cause then you are at risk of noise complaints and trail closures. and 18.1 deals directly with sled mufflers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC+YA Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I have a copy of my insuranse (not pink) and all the other originals (laminated), but I have to ask what is "PROOF OF OWNERSHIP" ??? I have always considered my Michigan Registration as such and have no other documents since there is no title for snowmobiles in Michigan. Is there something else I might be asked for in Canada? Been stopped about every 12,000 miles on average with no issues, but is there a document of "ownership" in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 I have a copy of my insuranse (not pink) and all the other originals (laminated), but I have to ask what is "PROOF OF OWNERSHIP" ??? I have always considered my Michigan Registration as such and have no other documents since there is no title for snowmobiles in Michigan. Is there something else I might be asked for in Canada? Been stopped about every 12,000 miles on average with no issues, but is there a document of "ownership" in Canada? "Ownership" in Ontario is the nickname, if you will, of the registration for the sled. A copy is fine, as long as it is a 'true' copy. Basically, both sides. You should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 As for speed, give up Canuck! There is no way you will keep up with Slomo! He has been trained by STG! AFAIK, there is no speed limit on ice, even between the stakes. And as for the green copy, it does have printed on it "Customer Receipt: Please carry this proof of purchase with you." "Please" implies to me that it is not necessary. If you are on the Lake and between the stakes isn't that considered part of the trial and subject to the same speed limit if you were in the bush!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2). Sorry to jump back but its clear in the last line. You can't modify. So replacing the stock pipe with an after market pipe is modifing the way it built. That also means however you can't rejet, upgrade your shocks, stud your track or repaint your sled. If you take the law to the letter it was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2). Sorry to jump back but its clear in the last line. You can't modify. So replacing the stock pipe with an after market pipe is modifing the way it built. That also means however you can't rejet, upgrade your shocks, stud your track or repaint your sled. If you take the law to the letter it was written. None of the items you mention are required under the provisions of the MVSA!!!! The law you are quoting is referring to another separate act to qualify which items you cannot remove, modify, or render inoperative! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreezerBurnt Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 None of the items you mention are required under the provisions of the MVSA!!!! The law you are quoting is referring to another separate act to qualify which items you cannot remove, modify, or render inoperative! Does this include sway bars? Left handed throttles, twist throttles etc The vagueness of the law makes it easy for them in court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faceman Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2). Sorry to jump back but its clear in the last line. You can't modify. So replacing the stock pipe with an after market pipe is modifing the way it built. That also means however you can't rejet, upgrade your shocks, stud your track or repaint your sled. If you take the law to the letter it was written. Read it again..."any componet or device WHICH IS REQUIRED under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act when manufactured. So, brakes, steering,lights front and rear, exhaust...things you must have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 Read it again..."any componet or device WHICH IS REQUIRED under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act when manufactured. So, brakes, steering,lights front and rear, exhaust...things you must have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yamahas Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 When I first started driving I carried copys of insurance and of ownership. When I got pulled over for the first time I was told that I can not have a copy of the insurance but I could have a copy of the ownership. You only get one insurance paper so you can photocopy it and give it to anyone who might ride or drive the vehicle in question. You just have to give your insurance company a call and they will send you more proof of insurance. I have been pulled over a few more times and have had a problem with a photocopy of the ownership papers and a original of the proof of insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Fly Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 18. (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1). If anyone can't get the intent of this section I don't know where you're from. The courts cannot itemize every variation of a law, the courts rely on intent. What is the intent of this? I have a pretty good idea! The extreme loud sounds coming from some sleds will limit the expansion of this activity and the enjoyment for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 18. (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1). If anyone can't get the intent of this section I don't know where you're from. The courts cannot itemize every variation of a law, the courts rely on intent. What is the intent of this? I have a pretty good idea! The extreme loud sounds coming from some sleds will limit the expansion of this activity and the enjoyment for all. I agree that the intent is to prevent excess exhaust noise, however, the point of the discussion is about 'aftermarket' mufflers. Â For example, the HTA has this same stipulation, almost verbatim, and yet, there is absolutely no problem buying a non-OEM muffler. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Fly Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Sledjunk, Sorry to veer off course with the thread but I had to make this point somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 When I first started driving I carried copys of insurance and of ownership. When I got pulled over for the first time I was told that I can not have a copy of the insurance but I could have a copy of the ownership. You only get one insurance paper so you can photocopy it and give it to anyone who might ride or drive the vehicle in question. You just have to give your insurance company a call and they will send you more proof of insurance. I have been pulled over a few more times and have had a problem with a photocopy of the ownership papers and a original of the proof of insurance. I believe that Yamaha's is correct regarding needing to carry an original insurance slip. I also believe that a photocopy of your vehicle registration (one side for sled as sticker is on same side) is acceptable.You do require an original driver's license. I have for years and know many other vehicle owners that never carry their original registration and I have had too many police accept that photocopy as proof of registration. You do need to carry the green copy (customer receipt) of your trail permit forms. The yellow copy is not required and states " Please retain for your records". A photocopy of the green customer receipt has always been accepted by police officers when I've been checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Sledjunk, Sorry to veer off course with the thread but I had to make this point somewhere. No problem! It is a VERY valid point. Trails have been lost for exactly that reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.