Improper Mudguards?

Good evening everyone,

I need some help here. So today I was on my way to get my tires changed from my winter tires to my regular summer staggered set of tires. I was driving in mississauga on my way to my destination, I got pulled over by an officer where I was given a ticket for having improper mudguards. For some context, I drive a stock 2013 C63 AMG with winter tires at the time. I was never made aware by my dealership that I require mudguards and I have spoken to the division's supervisor who said this ticket was a "chincy ticket" which he personally would not give himself. I didnt get a warning ever for such a violation and I've been dealing with the same unit of police for other issues not traffic related to having my property stolen in which all three instances cops checked out my car gave me compliments but never ever gave me a ticket for improper mudguards. How would you guys recommend I go to fight this as I can not get convicted for another ticket because last summer I was already convicted for one ticket where I was going 15 over and being a young driver, even with 0 demerit points, I feel that two convictions under HTA would kill me on insurance?

Any Recommendations?

Plead NOT GUILTY and request a Trial with the officer present. Once you get your Notice of Trial, you can request disclosure (officers notes). Once you get the disclosure, scan and post here so we can advise further.

Yes Sir! I will plead not guilty and request early resolution and go to trial if need be. I have posted in a mercedes benz group with over 1600 members where i received a lot of support and provided the ticket, photos of my car, and members who own tireshops and ex cops have reached out to me saying this ticket should not stand. The car is entirely stock and is a 2013 C63 AMG with performance package plus with winter tires on. I was en route to get my summers put on when I got this ticket. The supervisor of his division advised me that this ticket was a chincy one that he personally would not give himself and was just surprised that I got one in the first place.

Anyone with prior experience with tickets like this if convicted does a ticket like this affect my insurance?

This is probably what you'd consider an "officer discretion" ticket. There's no guideline to say what is and isn't effective enough in reducing spray back. At that point it's up to the officer following behind to make that call, similar to a loud exhaust ticket.

The section regarding mudguards doesn't require you to be equipped with the add on bolted mudguards/splashguards or traditional mudflaps. Anything reducing wheel spray is sufficient, whether it's your fenders or rear bumper. You'll have to request disclosure and find out what the exact gripe is here. I'm just guessing, but possibly the officer didn't feel like the rear bumper was doing enough to cover a wide tire. Not that i'm justifying the charge, i'm simply speculating.

As for the dealership, their hands are clean. It's your problem to deal with so I wouldn't waste too much time going back and forth with them.

Regarding insurance, I don't see anything that would indicate this particular charge would impact your rates. You can check with your insurance provider to make sure.

You could request a trial or an early resolution meeting. It's quite possible you'll show up to an early resolution and they decide there isn't enough here to proceed. If not, you can go forward with a trial and they'll mail you a date.

Based on what I have seen and read from other people, early resolution is a waste of time. The reason I say this is because at the early resolution meeting you are expected to take a plea deal, which is basically pleading guilty to a lesser charge, which in turn affects your insurance no matter how you slice or dice it.

In some cases the prosecution uses the time prior to the early resolution meeting as neutral delay/defense delay to cut down on the amount of time you had to wait for your trial, in case you decide to file 11b motion. So if you choose to go for ER, be careful.

One way you can argue this ticket is, you purchased a vehicle from a dealer, you made no modifications to it, so if the manufacturer is selling vehicles that do not meet HTA requirements, it is not your problem and the province should be dealing with these substandard cars at the source, not penalize unaware consumers. You did not remove the mod guards, did you?

As a consumer you expect a car being sold to you to be in regulation compliance 100% and if you decide to modify it, then the responsibility is on your shoulders to make sure you are not violating any laws.

I'm curious...What were the weather conditions when you got stopped? If it was raining at the time, the officer will have good evidence as to the amount of spray coming up from your tires. Were you stopped for a different reason but the officer cut you a break giving this charge which is no points? When stopped, were you polite or did you talk yourself into the ticket?

Observer135 wrote:

Based on what I have seen and read from other people, early resolution is a waste of time. The reason I say this is because at the early resolution meeting you are expected to take a plea deal, which is basically pleading guilty to a lesser charge,

This is not a speeding ticket. With speeding, you are speeding or you're not. This is a ticket where the offense is largely based off the opinions of an officer. If you give them the chance to look over this ticket, take into account the vehicle involved, they may decide there isn't enough to proceed with the charge. Rather than dealing with this ticket for the next year, you could possibly be done with it in a couple weeks. It's possible they just let this one go.

Observer135 wrote:

which in turn affects your insurance no matter how you slice or dice it.

I couldn't find anything stating improper mudguards or anything related to fall under any portion of your standard insurance conviction definition bracket.

Observer135 wrote:

In some cases the prosecution uses the time prior to the early resolution meeting as neutral delay/defense delay to cut down on the amount of time you had to wait for your trial, in case you decide to file 11b motion. So if you choose to go for ER, be careful.

You have to wait for your Notice of Trial either way, so there's no difference.

Observer135 wrote:

One way you can argue this ticket is, you purchased a vehicle from a dealer, you made no modifications to it, so if the manufacturer is selling vehicles that do not meet HTA requirements, it is not your problem and the province should be dealing with these substandard cars at the source, not penalize unaware consumers.

Ignorance is not a defense. At the end of the day, you're responsible. Manufactures aren't building their cars to meet each individual provinces HTA or equivalent requirements, they build them according to Canadian safety standards, crash standards, etc which may or may not coincide with the HTA. Dealers sell cars every day with possible HTA violations and it's not their problem.

Observer135 wrote:

You did not remove the mod guards, did you?

Doesn't sound like he's touched them, but they aren't a requirement either way.

It was a sunny day, clear skies, on a clean paved road with no spray what so ever. We saw each other turn on to the road and i was driving extremely cautiously maintaining a distance and I was pulled over for solely the mudguards. The car is factory stock and I am in the process of getting a letter from Mercedes Benz Canada saying the car is factory stock and under professional opinion the bumper provides adequate reduction. The car also sits fairly low to the ground and it sits exactly at its legal requirement. I am going to try to go for an early resolution and see how the prosecutor reacts. I have found a way I can cross examine the officer and potentially discredit his testimony. I wasnt spraying anything and he pulled me over for nothing else but the mudguards. I dont want to bring this up to my insurance and them possibly increasing it. I know ill get through this renewal prior to being convicted but I would like to see this resolved. Im hoping the JP or prosecutor will look at this and be like its such bullshit. I can attach some photos of my car that will show the tires sit properly and don't extend out at all. His supervisor said according to his opinion this is a bs ticket and he wouldnt have given it himself to me. He advised he was going to speak to his officer regarding this but im unsure what hes going to say. The stop was short, i advised i was on my way to get my tires changed from my dealership from winters back to summers. He said okay i handed my license ownership and insurance and he wrote up the ticket. I was on the phone while pulled over with the dealership and the dealership advised him it wasnt required. He said okay well go option 3 then court and threw the ticket in my car and drove off. That was the entire interaction. I never raised my voice at him or anything I was scared to get another ticket so i complied I was honest and i was literally hoping for a warning for such a minor offence which in my opinion was not even an offence.

Im hoping the ER goes well. This is a BS ticket and even MB Canada Corporate feels that way.

I wouldnt mind taking a plea such as drop the charge to a parking ticket of a similar amount or even more. I just do not want this to go against my driving abstract because this is entirely bs. It was a clear sunny day no rain no wet roads nothing. I took screenshots of the weather for that day that can justify that it indeed was a clean day. The officers dash cam video from his car can do the same.

something really does stink on this one,

your just driving along, good weather, not speeding and you get pulled over for mudflaps.... serious?

cmon, getting pulled for mudguards, thats just wrong, considering the crime that's happening in the t.

your saying no rain, so whats the issue? how can LEO say that no or wrong mudgaurds are going to or are causing a problem.

if this is true, it's no wonder people are getting anti-LEO

you also mentioned you had other issues, are the LEO's targeting you? is it a race thing? age thing ? you don't mention, but in some circumstances it may be relevant.

nice car, too young, complexion? you don't say so I'm just guessing, I can't otherwise think of any sane reason, why somone would just stop you for that reason

there are a lot of good LEO's and a lot of bad ones, just check the news.

I've been stopped for being in the wrong car, in the wrong part of town, too young and wrong complexion. SO I've been there, it happen's.

(but that was back home - UK) the only times I've been stopped here are for tickets (twice) and running a red light , latter I just got a warning.

zra wrote:

I wouldnt mind taking a plea such as drop the charge to a parking ticket of a similar amount or even more. I just do not want this to go against my driving abstract because this is entirely bs. It was a clear sunny day no rain no wet roads nothing. I took screenshots of the weather for that day that can justify that it indeed was a clean day. The officers dash cam video from his car can do the same.

Can you post a picture of the rear view of the car ? (black out the plate obviously)

bend wrote:

This is not a speeding ticket. With speeding, you are speeding or you're not. This is a ticket where the offense is largely based off the opinions of an officer. If you give them the chance to look over this ticket, take into account the vehicle involved, they may decide there isn't enough to proceed with the charge. Rather than dealing with this ticket for the next year, you could possibly be done with it in a couple weeks. It's possible they just let this one go.

Good point, you might be right, but based on what I have experienced with some prosecutors, that would not be the case.

I was fighting a ticket with no chance of conviction and prosecutor knew it, yet she tried to get me to plead guilty even though I had filed a motion.

She decided to withdraw at the last second just so I would not bring forward my charter motion.

bend wrote:

I couldn't find anything stating improper mudguards or anything related to fall under any portion of your standard insurance conviction definition bracket.

Recently I was checking out how insurance companies price their policies, they have added "other minor conviction" to the list, there is no clear explanation what it includes/excludes, so they could hike your rate for something like this, after all it would sort of fall under a moving violation since the car would have to be moving for a back spray to exist.

bend wrote:

You have to wait for your Notice of Trial either way, so there's no difference.

I don't know how the people I was reading their stories went about it, but basically they had not requested trial before early resolution meeting, so there was several months of wasted time, once they did not come to an agreement and asked for trial, the court date was set within a few months.

When they tried to file 11b the argument was that they did not ask for trial when they got the ticket, they only requested a trial after ER meeting which was several months later.

bend wrote:

Ignorance is not a defense.

True, but that is not the case here... He did not make changes to the car, therefor he was not required to look up HTA to make sure he is not violating it by the changes he is making. You can not expect every single consumer to go read the HTA cover to cover before buying a car to make sure he/she does not get in trouble on the road. The province and the MTO must bear some responsibility not allowing such cars to be sold.

bend wrote:

At the end of the day, you're responsible. Manufactures aren't building their cars to meet each individual provinces HTA or equivalent requirements, they build them according to Canadian safety standards, crash standards, etc which may or may not coincide with the HTA. Dealers sell cars every day with possible HTA violations and it's not their problem.

OK, so can you give an example of such a scenario where a new car being sold by the dealer is in violation of HTA? I am in the market for a new car and I really like to avoid cars that don't cut it. And I am not talking about the plastic license plate frames that the dealers add on, we all know about the issue with those, I am talking about violations that would be due to manufacturer design.

Observer135 wrote:

Recently I was checking out how insurance companies price their policies, they have added "other minor conviction" to the list, there is no clear explanation what it includes/excludes, so they could hike your rate for something like this, after all it would sort of fall under a moving violation since the car would have to be moving for a back spray to exist.

I haven't seen an insurance company that uses anything other than the 3 bracket conviction definition system. All licensed insurance providers in the province are required to pool together into the Facility Association and use that same system. Each type of conviction is clearly labelled within a bracket. If you are convicted, there's no mistaking where your conviction falls under. It's hard to argue a 4th bracket with unknown violations. We'll agree to disagree.

Observer135 wrote:

True, but that is not the case here... He did not make changes to the car, therefor he was not required to look up HTA to make sure he is not violating it by the changes he is making. You can not expect every single consumer to go read the HTA cover to cover before buying a car to make sure he/she does not get in trouble on the road. The province and the MTO must bear some responsibility not allowing such cars to be sold.

Unfortunately, that's the case. If you're behind the wheel, it becomes your problem. Is it unrealistic to know the HTA front to back? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a defense. In all likelihood, there may be some consideration on how the vehicle came from the factory, but the interpretation of the section is the be all and end all. You'd just hope it never gets that far and someone uses their noggin to say "this charge is grasping at straws, we're not pursuing it any further".

Observer135 wrote:

OK, so can you give an example of such a scenario where a new car being sold by the dealer is in violation of HTA? I am in the market for a new car and I really like to avoid cars that don't cut it. And I am not talking about the plastic license plate frames that the dealers add on, we all know about the issue with those, I am talking about violations that would be due to manufacturer design.

If we're talking examples of vehicles that came straight from the factory, the Neon SRT4. It didn't have a conventional muffler past the catalytic converters resulting in owners across the province receiving no muffler tickets. In theory the turbo is the muffler, but at the end of the day it all depends on someone's interpretation. First generation Nissan Pathfinders came factory with a rear spare tire rack that would stick over over the plate and block it from cameras. You can get factory tinted windows and get a ticket. You can add an oem bike rack from the accessories list and end up blocking your plate and taillights with bikes.

Most of the time, officers are pretty good at using their judgment. You can probably make a case for improper mudguards for some new truck or jeeps (although in my personal opinion it's still grasping at straws). At the end of the day there's no clear cut guideline telling you what is or isn't legal for this particular charge. Neither is there one for window tints.

But this is all probably drifting away a bit from the original topic.

bend wrote:

[

But this is all probably drifting away a bit from the original topic.

Yes, very true, but I was simply trying to learn, that is the fundamental purpose of this forum, isn't it? For people to exchange information and get educated?

Thanks for the info, although I am not sure what "3 bracket conviction definition system" is and I need to do some research on that to educate myself further.

Once again, thanks for the explanation.