Exhausts - Most stupid law ever

[archaeic_bloke]

yea i have article 258 as well, ill keep this thread updated with how the court preceedings go.

noo? whats a peace free exhaust?

[JNS Performance]

Just state the exhaust is stock to Canada. It shouldn't have to meet any characteristics cause they have no idea what system actually came on the car. The vehicle was never sold to the north american market so there is no circumstantial evidence to prove if the vehicle came with that system or not.

Fought a couple of them, easy as pie

[ruckusx2]

ya i got my ticket dropped when i took mine to court .i said my exaust was stock and come like that built.and that was it thay dismissed it on the spot.
this is messed up.you know how many exaust i see
(on oldcars/honda/acura/mazda/vw...ect)
you just got a police officer i think that was jelous of your car so he give you a B.S. ticket.

[archaeic_bloke]

yep you guys are entirely right! the cop was a kid, younger than me... his main argument was "it can't be original exhaust because it has no rust on it".. im like "listen u fool, its STAINLESS STEEL".... he wasnt pleased with me explanation .lol...

unfortunatley for me, i got my proof/evidence in the case against me yesterday, and it specifically says "HKS HI POWER MUFFLER" on the muffler tip.. lol so i won't be able to claim its the OEM exhaust.

how ever i plan to argue that HKS is a JASMA certified supplier of parts, and that the HKS system meets the exact samerequirements as the oem

[ruckusx2]

my exaust is a Katimoto Racing N1 3 1/2 inch
& mine also says it on the tip too.
but some skylines come with 3inch exausts stock so dose it really matter what kind is on it.
isnt this why there are aftermarket parts for all kinds of cars(and totaly leagle to be on car or that wouldn't be making them) man i could go on & on about this stuff lol
but i think that cop just needed to get his quotas in for the month.

[cobrAA]

Yup, the cop that got me. I'm sure he was on his quota. We are 8 days before 31 octobre where 75% of summer car go to storage. An ass..

[AndreP]

Salut je reste sur la rive-sud de montréal et jai aussi le ticket de article 258... J'ai un systeme dechappement avec un catalyseur, resonateur et muffler (straight through). Jai un cat back BLITZ NUR spec. Jattends toujours la preuve de divulgation et jai eu ce ticket au mois d'aout. Je crois pouvoir gagner ma cause si cest bien vrai que la piece d'origine est straight through... mais au pire des pire ils ne doivent pas savoir les caracteristiques de la piece d'origine !

[archaeic_bloke]

je comprends tous que vous dits, sauf que le dernier phrase:

"mais au pire des pire ils ne doivent pas savoir les caracteristiques de la piece d'origine !"

lol, contesté ca, c`est qu'est-ce que je va faire....

je va continué de faire des updates ici pour tout le monde savoir quoi peut passe dans le courts, et quel est passe pas.

desole pour le francais d'enfant, je suis un anglo, mais j'essaye.

ENGLISH
i understood everything you said except for that one phrase:

"mais au pire des pire ils ne doivent pas savoir les caracteristiques de la piece d'origine !"

which undoubtely was the most important part of your post ...lol

contest your ticket, its what i will do.

im going to go to court and try my proof and theories, and ill post back here to let everyone know what worked and what didnt.

[cozmosland]

i think that sentence says something to the effect of " if worst come to worst they dont know the actual specs of the original exhaust".
in the sentence before its saying that the original exhaust is straight through.

so i take it if you argue the fact that the exhaust is built under oem specs disregarding it's a straight through design, that you could win the ticket.

[DarkCaporaL]

Yo darkcaporal,

I got the 258 article ticket and I don't know what to do.

First, because you work in law and you didn't want to fight your ticket, how can I think of winning my ticket then?

I payed it off because mine fell under the "original characteristic" regulation, not the sound one. I *would* of lost (I never went to court, I didnt want to go out with a 600$ fine vs 150$).

My exhaust was a double tip, and the OEM is not, so the *caracteristics* were not the same.

I would of won my case on the sound part though, which is what everyone of you guys who posted in the last days have.

Just state the exhaust is stock to Canada. It shouldn't have to meet any characteristics cause they have no idea what system actually came on the car. The vehicle was never sold to the north american market so there is no circumstantial evidence to prove if the vehicle came with that system or not.

Fought a couple of them, easy as pie

It doesn't work here. They have an "expert" who researches every vehicule before the court appearance (hence why ALL the muffler cases are on the same day, same time). The law here (in Quebec), is VERY vague, and is based on OEM, whichever country it came from.

Yup, the cop that got me. I'm sure he was on his quota. We are 8 days before 31 octobre where 75% of summer car go to storage. An ass..

Haha, it was the same for me. One week before storage last year.

yes that picture of the OEM gtr exhaust was mine, i have a lot of those pictures.. i even have a videos of them oem exhaust sound...

on top of that i have 3 experts, (autoworx mechanics) who were with me when i sold that oem exhaust, we all confirmed it is a FREE FLOWING muffler.

I will believe it when I see the pictures. On that note send then to me by email (if you still have it), or PM me!

But if you have Autoworx mechanics on your side who are willing to testify, then that's a +.

I suggest you guys get together, and send your pics to the other guys Josh. When I said up top they have an *expert*, they actually do. And YOU end up paying for him if you lose. If I remember he actually had the specs for the Skyline. They had a bunch of mufflers lined up in court.

Beware if you lose. You will have to pay 150$ + 85$ court fees + Expert fees. Expert fees vary between 150$ to whichever. It depends on the number of cases who actually LOSE that day. If they pay lets say 2000$ for the expert, they split the cost with everyone who lost. Get the picture? lol. If everyone wins but you, you have the pay that price completely by yourself (odds of that happening are low, but it *could* still happen).

how ever i plan to argue that HKS is a JASMA certified supplier of parts, and that the HKS system meets the exact samerequirements as the oem

You are on the right track. However, JASMA does not have any legal value in Canada. Keep that in mind. You can use it to make a point, but dont rely on it.

In order to WIN this, you have to be able to show that:

1. The system currently installed is NOT louder than the OEM one.

In this perspective, if your exhaust is JASMA certified, the argument can be made that this regulation is made to ensure that JASMA aftermarket exhausts aren't louder. You will need evidence of this (The judge will not take your word for it. Always have something to back up your statements).

Now there will be two testimonies against you.

1. The Police Officer: he is the one who heard your car. He has the SUBJECTIVE perspective of thinking you car is louder than OEM. You have to quash his testimony. You can possibly do this by asking him a single question (yes you have the right to ask him questions in court when the time comes). Has he ever heard a Skyline GTR with a stock exhaust before? (chances are no, unless he comes from Japan). Emphasize that the car is NOT from Canada, and that the chances of him actually having heard a stock one are 1 in a million. You have to make the judge doubt his testimony.

2. The *Expert* Witness: this dude will have researched the cars OEM exhaust specs. He will also testify on exhaust specs (straight through, resonators, etc), and how the sound levels are modified in a broad sense. So on this part, if you would normally a non straight through muffler, you would lose, because it is reasonable to believe that a straight through vs restricted does sound louder. This is where your pictures of OEM and witness testimonies come in. You have to show that the stock exhaust was indeed straight through, and the fact that your exhaust is also straight through, the sound levels are not changed. You can also use the JASMA argument.

[archaeic_bloke]

EXCELLENT:

i just got off the phone with the lawyer for the prosecution, heres what went down.

1) in the description of what took place that day by the officer, it says "Photographies prises"... theres not photos in my "Prevue de divulgation" package.. the lawyer was furious and said he`s calling the officer right away. and admitted to me if the pictures dont exist, i win because the testimony is false from the officer.

also, here is the exact law description:

"§9. Exhaust system
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.
O.C. 1483-98, s. 91.
92. No component of the exhaust system shall run, closer than 50 mm from another element, such as a part made of combustible materials, an electric wire, a fuel or brake line or fuel tank, that is not protected by an appropriate heat shield. In the case of pressurized fuel lines, of the GNC and GPL types, that minimum distance shall be 150 mm.
Furthermore, no flammable material shall leak on a component of the exhaust system.
O.C. 1483-98, s. 92.
93. Where a component of the exhaust system is located near a passenger compartment door, it shall be covered with a guard if persons using the door risk being burned.
O.C. 1483-98, s. 93.
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.
O.C. 1483-98, s. 94.
95. No component of the exhaust system shall cross the passenger compartment. The outlet of the exhaust pipe shall not be located under the space occupied by the passengers and luggage. The outlet shall be located behind any openable side window and it shall not extend moe than 15 cm horizontally from the road vehicle.
O.C. 1483-98, s. 95."


i meet all those regulations by just showing photographs of my currently installed exhaust system, like you said the only one is the sound.

thankfully i took a video of my OEM exhaust sound.. and now ill take a video of my current exhaust and it will sound the same. just on idle of course.


finally, i will argue the jasma point and also that my exhaust meets OEM requirements as oem was straight through flow, confirmed by autoworx mechanics and photos of the original system.


im gonna get this judges ruling framed and hang it in my car, when it says "not guilty" ...

[DarkCaporaL]

i just got off the phone with the lawyer for the prosecution, heres what went down.

1) in the description of what took place that day by the officer, it says "Photographies prises"... theres not photos in my "Prevue de divulgation" package.. the lawyer was furious and said he`s calling the officer right away. and admitted to me if the pictures dont exist, i win because the testimony is false from the officer.

Are you kidding me? Any material that can be used as evidence in court has to be provided to you before trial so you can build your defence.

Not provided = not admissible to court as evidence.

Always remember this when you go to court. It goes hand in hand with the classic line "whatever you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". FYI- not that it's relevant here - but if an officer asks you questions without reading you this right in advance, anything you say CANNOT be used in court as evidence for the prosecution.

And as you said, if there are indeed no pictures, the whole report's credibility and therefore the officers credibility just fell down a black hole.

Here are a couple Court cases (with juicy quotes) you might like to read to get some Jurisprudence background on article 258 (they're in french though):

1.Tremblay vs Haute Gaspesie (2006) Won.
2. Quebec vs Dube (2006) Won.
3.Beloeil vs McKay (2009) Lost. Imported FairLady.
4.Matane vs Tremblay (2009) Won. Imported Nissan Silvia. (in this case, the prosecution obtained OEM specs from the dealership)

Or, faut-il que la preuve démontre que les policiers qui font ces constatations quant au bruit, démontrent un minimum de connaissances pour témoigner avec crédibilité sur les niveaux sonores, tant ceux du système d’échappement d’origine que ceux provenant d’un système de remplacement..

Aussi, l’absence de déflecteur dans un silencieux ne signifie rien, faute de preuve démontrant que cela diffère des silencieux installés par le fabricant et qu’il en résulte une augmentation du bruit. Le Tribunal n’a pas une connaissance judiciaire de ces choses.

Par ailleurs, comme le mentionne la Cour d’appel, au paragraphe 48 :
« La partie qui poursuit a l’obligation d’établir, dans un premier temps, ce niveau (de bruit)[3] et, dans un deuxième temps, qu’il y a eu augmentation de celui-ci. »

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE BEST QUOTE (from case #4):
[13] Le défendeur produit le certificat de vérification mécanique que lui a délivré la SAAQ aux termes de celle-ci. Il importe de citer textuellement l’attestation signée par le mécanicien autorisé de la SAAQ :

« Je certifie que les documents et l’ensemble de l’équipement du véhicule routier ont été vérifiés et qu’ils sont conformes au Code de la sécurité routière et à sa réglementation. »

[14] Ayant passé l’inspection de la SAAQ, le défendeur indique que son véhicule était selon lui conforme.

[17] Force est de conclure qu’en l’espèce, il ne pouvait y avoir meilleure autorité que la SAAQ pour se prononcer sur la conformité d’un véhicule aux normes du Code de la sécurité routière et de ses règlements. Comment peut-on objectivement reprocher à un justiciable de s’en remettre à la décision, on ne peut plus claire, du mécanicien mandaté par la SAAQ qui, faut-il le rappeler, a aussi le mandat d’élaborer les normes réglementaires du Code de la sécurité routière ?

[18] Dans les circonstances, tenant compte de la large portée de l’attestation du mécanicien de la SAAQ, une personne raisonnable, placée dans une situation semblable à celle du défendeur, aurait comme lui conclu que son véhicule répondait à toutes les normes, y compris celles portant sur les caractéristiques du système d’échappement.

This case basically shows that since the SAAQ (which is the ultimate authority in determining if your car meets standards) said your car met the requirements of the legislation, than any reasonable person would of though their vehicule was "conforme".

aka if you haven't changed your exhaust system between the time your car was inspected by the SAAQ, and the time you received a ticket, THERE IS NO WAY THE PROSECUTION CAN WIN.

If this is not the case, then you have to build your case based on sound levels vs OEM specs.

God I wish I had found this court decision last year (which wasn't out lol!)

[cobrAA]

i think that sentence says something to the effect of " if worst come to worst they dont know the actual specs of the original exhaust".
in the sentence before its saying that the original exhaust is straight through.

so i take it if you argue the fact that the exhaust is built under oem specs disregarding it's a straight through design, that you could win the ticket.

Good job, you know, at least, a bit of french

[cobrAA]

DarkCaporal:

1. The Police Officer: he is the one who heard your car. He has the SUBJECTIVE perspective of thinking you car is louder than OEM.
We didn't get arrested for #94, We all got arrested for #258 because he did ''le test de la broche'' and realise that we are straight-pipe.

So we have to prove that the OEM GTR is free-flow. And if we do, their is no reason we wouldn't win no?

As for the experts: Is there a way to get our hand on the ''technical spec of the Skyline GTR'' selon le droit à l'information peut-être??

[cobrAA]

Here's my proof:



And to prove that this exhaust is the OEM one, take a look at the Nissan Skyline GTR owner manual: Exact same thing