Contesting an exhaust ticket - possibly a bad idea?

[nelsonmxmarc]

When i first bought my Skyline, i had absolutely no idea what i was getting myself into. Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge car enthusiast, but the rules and regulations that seemingly apply to Quebec police is a different ball game altogether..

The first day i had my car, not 6 hours later, i was pulled over for;

"A muffler system that is not of the norm"
ie. an "aftermarket" exhaust..

I was not issued an inspection, nor was i told to change the exhaust, quite simply i was given a 148$ ticket and told to "eff" off.

The cops were rude, and being that i explain myself better in English, i was given no leeway. I was basically told, "Get out of Quebec if you can't speak French, or deal with it"

My point is; as i was not issued an inspection, and seeing as my car's exhaust system wasn't "changed" (ill get to this), i'm also missing my charcoal canister, have Goodridge s/s brake lines (which i THINK are dot approved), and a few other doodads that are probably not legal but surpassable - if i contest my ticket, will i be putting myself deeper into the sh*t being issued an inspection on behalf of the judge at my hearing?

Or should i pleed my case, as i know i'll escape the cost of the ticket (6 hours gives me no headtime to change any car parts, and seeing as i had no idea...) and give these douche's who treated me like garbage a run for their money?

As for the exhaust not being 'changed'. I have a photo of my car jacked up with an OEM HONDA Muffler attached to the rear hanger - yes, a 1" tip muffler .. Looks horrid, but i have a picture to justify this being done, as well as my licence plate in the photo for evidence that it is in fact my car..

My court date is feb 16th..

Thanks guys! Any personal anecdotes or anything would be great!

[archaeic_bloke]

give this a read... and look at each individual point and make a solid argument.. then you're good to go.. win!

"Exhaust system.

258. Every motor vehicle must be equipped with an exhaust system that conforms to the standards established by regulation.

1986, c. 91, s. 258.
§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.

[cobrAA]

Archaeic, I know you said you have already built your defence. Would you mind sending me the documents to see your proof? I don't mind giving my document but it's in french.

We should, all quebecer on this forum, find something to fight this stupid law that seems only a problem here in Quebec.

Nelson@ you should look at my numerous exhaust question over the past 2-3 month. I have a couple info. By the way, don't worry the judge will not ask for an inspection so your safe with your SS brake line, In fact not a single police officer will give you a ticket for that!!! lol

[DarkCaporaL]

They dont give out inspection notices for exhausts, because the SAAQ doesn't check exhausts during inspections...you'd think WTF right? Well yeah....

This is where the government bends over and takes it up the ***. If you could get a copy of the inspection paper from whomever sold you the car, this would make your life easier. You can just say your car was inspected and certified to meet all the norms (what the paper says), which INCLUDES exhausts norms.

Everything you need to know should be covered in this thread:

http://forums.gtrcanada.com/legalese/t-exhausts-most-stupid-law-ever-44854.html

Check near the end.

[nelsonmxmarc]

Well unfortunately i can't get a hold of those papers, however there must be a copy of it elsewhere that i may dig up before then.. Anyone know where i can get that?

In the mean time, my argument is quite simple. For one, i had not had the car for more than 6 hours, so for me to have installed that exhaust myself or had put a new one on in the time being is simply impossible.

Next, the oem exhaust on the GTST is free flowing, and there are pictures (on your post) as well as images in the manual that state the same..

As well, the exhaust on my car now which turns out to be a Hi-power HKS is LEGAL as rated by JASMA and is acceptable to US State law, even in California where emissions are strict, if not as strict as JASMA. Not to mention, California state law prohibts noise levels above 95 db, thus in turn, my exhaust is also lower than the recommended noise limit here in QC (98 i believe).

My car tested at 95-96, so they can't bag me on noise, simply their only argument is that it's free flowing, but with evidence to back up the car came here with a free flowing exhaust and that this exhaust is JASMA approved (Meets and superceedes SAE/DOT regulations) then they have no absolutely no means to prosecute.

They could also argue that it's not the OEM exhaust. My reply to that is quite simple; HKS offers this exhaust as an OEM replacement. Cat and resonator are still all in place, however the end pipe has a different shape / size. I have the measurements of the elliptical OEM tip, and length wise is about the same diameter of my current tip..


Thanks guys.

[FunnyGas]

the way i see it. you dont have much way around this:
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.

in BC it is different. our law states that an exhaust system must have a cat, a baffled muffler, and the outlet of a muffler cannot be modified (that reads, you cannot physically modify the outlet of a muffler. you can install what ever aftermarket muffler), as well be under the max noise requirement.
exhaust tickets are grey area because there is usually not much saying what you can and cannot use.. just fuzzy guidelines.

[nelsonmxmarc]

However HKS hi-power exhaust is in accordance to California state law, stating anything over 95 db is illegal.

My exhaust may not be OEM, however they do not know that, nor know what constitutes an OEM RB20det muffler, thus their argument is quite shaded.

I can easily draw the line at, "This car came with a free flowing muffler, here are pictures to prove it. If you say otherwise, i'd be happy to set another date when the proper information has been evaluated."

They can't pin me on false pretence, not to mention pin me for something as obscure as;

"Proprietaire d'un vehicule non muni d'un systeme d'echappement conforme au norme"

Translates to;

"Owner of vehicle does not have an exhaust system which conforms to the norm"

Now tell me.. what do these guys know of the "norm" in terms of Skyline exhaust? If they have no data to prove otherwise, i get off scott free. However unfortunately for them, i have picture evidence of a free flowing RB muffler, as well as the schematics straight from the manual that state that my exhaust meet and conform to the regulatory exhaust from the manufacturer..

[NismoS-tune]

Only in Quebec. Everything is so weird there. I remember learning that my Journeyman Red seal ticket is good ANYWHERE in the world, except for Quebec lol. I heard they passed a law that every vehicle must have winter tires in winter now. If they didn't run around trying to make up so much crazy stuff like chasing exhaust tickets and banning RHD cars, they could create more jobs, pay off some debt and maybe one day kill off the PST. Who knows, maybe they'll accept my ticket lol.

Anyways, have you heard the latest? Search up how much money that province got from the federal government to help with they're crazy laws and ideas!!

good ol Charest... A good reason I live in Alberta is that there is no debt here, oh and no provincial tax

http://www.vigile.net/Quebec-to-Ottawa-Give-us-money

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/economics/budgets/que_2009_budget_EN.aspx

[cobrAA]

Well unfortunately i can't get a hold of those papers, however there must be a copy of it elsewhere that i may dig up before then.. Anyone know where i can get that?

In the mean time, my argument is quite simple. For one, i had not had the car for more than 6 hours, so for me to have installed that exhaust myself or had put a new one on in the time being is simply impossible.

Next, the oem exhaust on the GTST is free flowing, and there are pictures (on your post) as well as images in the manual that state the same..

Wrong! the pictue is from a GTR exhaust, the GTS cat-back is NOT free-flowing, unfortunaly.

As well, the exhaust on my car now which turns out to be a Hi-power HKS is LEGAL as rated by JASMA and is acceptable to US State law, even in California where emissions are strict, if not as strict as JASMA. Not to mention, California state law prohibts noise levels above 95 db, thus in turn, my exhaust is also lower than the recommended noise limit here in QC (98 i believe).

In all the research I did, I never saw QC had a DB limits, where did you see this?

My car tested at 95-96, so they can't bag me on noise, simply their only argument is that it's free flowing, but with evidence to back up the car came here with a free flowing exhaust and that this exhaust is JASMA approved (Meets and superceedes SAE/DOT regulations) then they have no absolutely no means to prosecute.

They could also argue that it's not the OEM exhaust. My reply to that is quite simple; HKS offers this exhaust as an OEM replacement. Cat and resonator are still all in place, however the end pipe has a different shape / size. I have the measurements of the elliptical OEM tip, and length wise is about the same diameter of my current tip..


Thanks guys.

replied

[nelsonmxmarc]

Searching for a report i stumbled on about 3 years ago when i had my straight pipe'd Impala SS... It was approx 95 db's. I'd assume a lot of movements took place across north america after Cali decided to cap a limit as to reduce noise in urban and rural areas.. It would be rather draining if all people ran straight exhausts; there had to be a cut off at some point..

Anyways i'll keep looking.

And regards to the gtst exhaust, is there any proof of it not being free flowing like that of the GTR? I can't imagine they're very different.

Let me know what you find.. From what i remember seeing from a stock GTST at a jdm shop downtown, there are no baffles.

[DarkCaporaL]

In the mean time, my argument is quite simple. For one, i had not had the car for more than 6 hours, so for me to have installed that exhaust myself or had put a new one on in the time being is simply impossible.

That would actually not be a bad argument. Although by law claiming ignorance is not an accepted defense, it is when it's considered reasonable. In french it's called "defense de diligence raisonable ou defense d'ignorance raisonable de fait". You might like to read paragraph 29 of this decision, it explains the requirements for claiming ignorance: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...nlii58818.html

Note that if you do win claiming ignorance, you will probably have to change the exhaust after, since they can still stop you and say "well you knew when you lost that your exhaust was not legal, but you didnt change it after". It only works once.

As well, the exhaust on my car now which turns out to be a Hi-power HKS is LEGAL as rated by JASMA and is acceptable to US State law, even in California where emissions are strict, if not as strict as JASMA. Not to mention, California state law prohibts noise levels above 95 db, thus in turn, my exhaust is also lower than the recommended noise limit here in QC (98 i believe).

Although it is legal elsewhere, we are not in those places, and the judge would not care. Our law states you cannot modify the exhaust to be louder. Period. We also do not have any dB requirements. This is why this law is VERY subjective, and can be VERY easy to defend in court, and VERY easy to lose also.

You can use the JASMA argument as a means to prove a point, but BY NO MEANS rely on it.

They could also argue that it's not the OEM exhaust. My reply to that is quite simple; HKS offers this exhaust as an OEM replacement. Cat and resonator are still all in place, however the end pipe has a different shape / size. I have the measurements of the elliptical OEM tip, and length wise is about the same diameter of my current tip.

That is a good argument to try and show that the exhaust is not louder, since it has a similar configuration to the OEM one. Although note that the strongest argument has to be made on internals. That is why they do a baffle test.

My exhaust may not be OEM, however they do not know that, nor know what constitutes an OEM RB20det muffler, thus their argument is quite shaded.

They pay "experts" to do research on OEM configuration before court dates. If you lose, you have to pay for their service on top of your ticket and your court fees. It racks up pretty quickly.

Now tell me.. what do these guys know of the "norm" in terms of Skyline exhaust? If they have no data to prove otherwise, i get off scott free. However unfortunately for them, i have picture evidence of a free flowing RB muffler, as well as the schematics straight from the manual that state that my exhaust meet and conform to the regulatory exhaust from the manufacturer..

There is the summary of what you have to prove. The free flowing picture evidence is to prove that the exhaust is not louder than OEM, since OEM was free flowing. Since their wire test doesn't reach the mid muffler (I'm pretty sure 33" doesn't reach, maybe it does), you can easily say that the mid one ahs baffles. And since the officer probably has never seen/heard a stock Skyline, his testimony, which is normally a BIG part of the prosecution's evidence, is pointless and can easily be crushed.

[nelsonmxmarc]

Thanks for the lengthy response.
I'll reply more indepthly once I'm on the computer; iPhone is too aggrevating for replying on gtrc lol

just curious as to why "baffles" are their main issue?

Baffles create resistance in airflow typically resulting in higher pitch/frequency of sound am I not correct?

An open exhaust will produce an audible tone but that lesser than 90 db depending on diameter of pipe being examined..

90% of motorcycles are baffle-less, not to mention cat-less, and they're pressing the issue of whether or not the secondary (discounting cat) noise suppression system, muffler tip, has baffles?..

Porsche cayenne is a similar system whereas the exhaust is 3 part, resonators are much further foreward and under the body of the truck. Same
as Mazda speed and sti I believe as well.

At any rate, I'll pull these vehicles up, check specs on their exhaust systems and see how they compare to mine.

I plan to argue my case that I had not had the car 6 hours and a warning would have been sufficient. As well as raise the issue of a variety of motor vehicles running baffleless systems and that noise suppression isn't a measure of baffles, but more so in terms of exhaust diameter. Also that emissions are not affected. Finally, the tip of my exhaust and it's size does not fall under characteristic of any code mentioned under article 258 in that it is in approximate size of oem, and conforms to oem standards in more than one respect..

[nelsonmxmarc]

Ps
no wire test was performed on my car. They simply stuck a one foot baton, night stick I assume, in my muffler and wiggled it around. Disproving their baffle theory at the resonator

[DarkCaporaL]

just curious as to why "baffles" are their main issue?

Baffles create resistance in airflow typically resulting in higher pitch/frequency of sound am I not correct?

An open exhaust will produce an audible tone but that lesser than 90 db depending on diameter of pipe being examined..

On legal terms, baffles have nothing to do with it. They use them as an INDICATION that your system MIGHT be louder, because it has no baffles. When comparing a stock baffled system vs an aftermarket unbaffled system, that logic is "reasonable". But when comparing a stock unbaffled system to an aftermarket unbaffled system, or a stock baffled system to an aftermarket baffled system, it just plainly fails.

I'm no sound expert, but some people argue in court cases that it's not because it sounds deeper that it's necessarily louder. I dont remember what the judge decided on that one, but I'm pretty sure he didn't buy it (you can probably find that decision on CanLII). At least I wouldn't rely only on that argument.

90% of motorcycles are baffle-less, not to mention cat-less, and they're pressing the issue of whether or not the secondary (discounting cat) noise suppression system, muffler tip, has baffles?..

Motorcycles are a complete different story. Most of them are getting harassed as well, and a case was brought up to the Supreme Court in 2006 on this issue (I dont know if they rendered a verdict yet).

Porsche cayenne is a similar system whereas the exhaust is 3 part, resonators are much further foreward and under the body of the truck. Same
as Mazda speed and sti I believe as well.

A lot of stock cars with straight through mufflers (Mazda Speed, SRT4) had the same problem: they were getting ticketed with stock mufflers. Police officers were told to be diligent and be very careful on who they ticket. That is why one of the requirements they have to show is that the system has been modified.

I plan to argue my case that I had not had the car 6 hours and a warning would have been sufficient. As well as raise the issue of a variety of motor vehicles running baffleless systems and that noise suppression isn't a measure of baffles, but more so in terms of exhaust diameter. Also that emissions are not affected. Finally, the tip of my exhaust and it's size does not fall under characteristic of any code mentioned under article 258 in that it is in approximate size of oem, and conforms to oem standards in more than one respect..

Did you buy the car from a shop or an individual? The fact that you had it for only 6 hours is a plus for you. If you bought it from a shop and you were the first owner in Canada, then that's even better, since the car would of had been inspected not long ago by the SAAQ, and thus rendering it conform to all norms (including exhaust). This is why I said if you had inspection sheets then it would be easy.

I wouldn't personally get into the whole baffleless system and noise suppression argument. They usually use judges that have only dealt with these cases, and have heard these arguments which would not pass. Stick to the legal issue with your car only.

The tip size is only used as another INDICATOR that your car's exhaust has been changed, and MIGHT be louder. If you can show that's it's pretty close to the OEM size, then that indicator is easily crushed.
Actual piping size is also another good route to go. Usually the tip is always more massize on aftermarket then the actual piping size. If you can show that the piping from you exhaust is near OEM size, then that's a plus for you.

Ps
no wire test was performed on my car. They simply stuck a one foot baton, night stick I assume, in my muffler and wiggled it around. Disproving their baffle theory at the resonator

Did the cop take pictures?

FIRST thing to do is ask for the prosecution's evidence or "divulgation de la preuve".

Your court date in February is probably only the preliminary one to make sure you received the evidence if you requested it, guide you, and set an actual court date which will be like 8 months later. At least that's how it worked when I went.

Does your car have another muffler/resonator then the end muffler? If that's the case, then your case is already won.

1. You show the stock exhaust configuration sheet, and picture showing that the end muffler is straight through. The officer having only checked the end muffler with his stick, only showed that it has the same caracteristics has the stock one.

2. Show pictures of your whole exhaust with license plate, so that it's obvious its not a picture from a different car. In these pictures the judge will need to see both muffler and end resonator. Then you can easily say that your exhaust has a mid muffler like the stock configuration, and that to the best of your knowledge, this mid muffler has the same caracteristics as the stock one.

3. The officer will probably testify that your car was loud or something like that. That's the last thing you need to discredit. You can either pull out the imported car card, and say that we dont have Skylines here in Canada, and that the police officer has probably never heard a stock Skyline before, OR I always liked asking the police officer one simple question (you can ask him questions in court during his testimony). "Have you ever seen a stock Skyline in Japan?". Most likely his answer will be no, and that simple question destroys the cops testimony. If he says yes, you ask more questions, like where? when?, etc. Either he's lying, and you have to show it to the judge that he's not credible, or your sh*t out of luck.

But like I said, get your hands on the prosecution's evidence, so you know exactly what to expect.

[nelsonmxmarc]

You sir, are amazing!

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain everything. I wasn't sure what to expect going into this, but i now have a pretty clear idea of what i need to raise as an issue and bring to the table in my testimony.

1. You show the stock exhaust configuration sheet, and picture showing that the end muffler is straight through. The officer having only checked the end muffler with his stick, only showed that it has the same caracteristics has the stock one.

2. Show pictures of your whole exhaust with license plate, so that it's obvious its not a picture from a different car. In these pictures the judge will need to see both muffler and end resonator. Then you can easily say that your exhaust has a mid muffler like the stock configuration, and that to the best of your knowledge, this mid muffler has the same caracteristics as the stock one.

3. The officer will probably testify that your car was loud or something like that. That's the last thing you need to discredit. You can either pull out the imported car card, and say that we dont have Skylines here in Canada, and that the police officer has probably never heard a stock Skyline before, OR I always liked asking the police officer one simple question (you can ask him questions in court during his testimony). "Have you ever seen a stock Skyline in Japan?". Most likely his answer will be no, and that simple question destroys the cops testimony. If he says yes, you ask more questions, like where? when?, etc. Either he's lying, and you have to show it to the judge that he's not credible, or your sh*t out of luck.

This was my exact case in the end.
Picture evidence of my exhaust on and off the car, as it is now removed, with licence plate in the photo as evidence. Shows both muffler and resonator, as well as cat, intact and installed appropriately.

Raise the issue that, my exhaust was only checked by officers at the tip and that his measurement device did not hit the baffles in the resonator is the setup of the OEM and OEM-like systems.

Then of course the argument of stock vs modified skyline and noise variance. Good call on catching him in a lie, if in that he is truly willing to test those boundaries i'll come up with a few good rebuttals to put him in his place. Even myself along the likes of many of us have NEVER heard a stock skyline, so the likes of him being one of those few is very unlikely.

The main point i guess you're trying to make is to avoid pleading ignorance (i didnt know), and stay on subject (OEM VS A/M and like qualities between both). As long as i can prove to them that my A/m exhaust corresponds to the same standards of to that of OEM, then i'm in the clear..
I'll stay away from comparison to other vehicles (mazda, srt) however i can use it in my argument to propose that other vehicle's withhold the same characteristic exhaust, and not just skylines, to prove that i'm not BS'ing the fact that my OEM exhaust came free flowing, stock.

Again, i really truly appreciate the help here. These points are well noted and i'll definitely take everything into account before my court appearance.

I'll let you know how it goes