Boy, ask a question here and it really gets attention. I'm learning. I'll have to be really careful with my wording too.
I should mention that I had another neighbour drop in last week and said he has a mechanic friend who would certify my ride sight unseen for $200. So it is true they are still out there. I thanked my neighbour for trying to assist but passed on the offer. I want to be safe so I'll buy (or probably build) fenders and a bumper ( I already made a rear bumper) and rip them off later if I don't like the look.
I'm getting a lot of advice to go to Chrome on the Canal but I think I'll just stay home and work on my ride. I wanted to go with my ride so I guess I'll go next year. Besides, it isn't the destination, it's the journey and it all starts in the garage. Right? Thank you everyone !

One concession to the as originally manufactured clause that must be adhered to for todays standards is the replacement of plate glass for safety glass,
anyone with half a brain can figure this one out anyway. Same stuff we have to comply with on Model T cars for certification.

I will probably be shot for this, but, I would take the cheap safety check and get the paperwork done. On paper you would have a fit car before the rules change again. Finish it up and make sure it is legal and safe before you ever leave the driveway . 

 

I was an MTO officer for 23 years and specialized in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Station program where Regulation 611 was king. If you want to know what a 1929 Ford needs to pass a safety, first you need to answer one simple question – do you want the legal answer or the “nudge nudge, wink wink” answer? The legal answer is easy. According to the previous comments, this car doesn’t meet the legal definition of “historic vehicle” in Reg. 611 (“substantially unchanged or unmodified from OEM”) so it doesn’t get the exemptions in Section 12 of the Regulation for things like door handles, mirrors, fenders, bumpers, lights, and all those other things that some have claimed a 1929 Ford didn’t have.

As a result, it must meet the standards in the new Reference Handbook, same as for any modern car. For example, bumpers and fenders will be required – there’s no mention of “if originally equipped” here: that’s only for vehicles that truly meet the “historic vehicle” definition in the Regulation and this one doesn’t.

Now, if you can find a technician in a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station who believes in the “nudge nudge, wink wink” method of safety inspections, well, the sky’s the limit and good luck. The tech and the licensee of the station are taking a big chance but if they’re willing, and the customer has the cash, well, there’s nothing that won’t pass. Not to say any of this is legal because of course it isn’t but hey, we’re hot rodders and we’re rebels and we’re supposed to think like that, right? Bull. All of this has nothing to do with anyone’s macho approach to the law or their passion for hot rods. Cuddles asked a legitimate question and he deserves an accurate answer, not a lot of BS and urban myths. He says that safety is important – good, that’s what safety inspections are for after all (and good on him for passing on the $200 phoney certificate). Pete Moss tried to answer him but got slammed, and that’s not right. There is no such thing as a “rainy day” law in Ontario, stated or otherwise. A court’s decision or a cop’s discretion doesn’t create a “law” where none exists. Fenderless rods are technically illegal when on the road but enforcement depends entirely on the driver’s behaviour and attitude, and the attitude of the officer. Many fenderless rods have survived in Ontario for years while others can’t roll a wheel without getting a ticket – Kharma counts!

Incidentally, in the new Handbook, fenders must cover the full width of the tire, can’t be loose or holed, and must cover the tire to the wheel’s horizontal centre line. Does this car pass?

Ed, MTO’s prime focus is road safety, nothing else. They use accident statistics to determine their next moves, and to be honest, public opinion does play a part. Hot rods, or specialty vehicles in general, are not usually a big concern unless there’s an accident involving one, and then look out. Remember all the fuss about street racing on the news that lead to “stunting” laws? None of this involved real hot rods (usually Mom or Pop’s BMW or the like) but the public was steered towards rods by the constant media attention from videos of midnight drag racing and crashes, usually involving tuners. The same thing happens when there’s an accident involving a rod or other kind of specialty vehicle. There’s only been a couple of these over the years but the attention from the media and the public is immediate and brutal – “get rid of them”! That’s why I constantly stress safe rods and warm brains.

As for recalls, this is strictly a Federal matter, Transport Canada in fact. MTO doesn’t get involved.

There’s one other concern to Ontario rodders. Because of problems with some requirements in the Reference Handbook raised by the Specialty Vehicle Association of Ontario (SVAO), and other issues, MTO is reviewing the entire Handbook right now, sort of a do-over which is a good thing. According to my contacts, the revised version was supposed to be ready last fall but there’s nothing so far. That’s par for the course from my experience but at least they’re working on it.

However, several years ago they proposed a separate section just for “modified” vehicles, and their engineers were promoting a process that would require a modified vehicle to be inspected and certified by someone with engineering qualifications, much like Nova Scotia does. Just trying to define a “modified” vehicle is no easy task and they know it, and nothing has happened with this so far, thankfully. I understand there may be a new wording added to the Handbook that simply requires that any modifications do not affect other systems or parts on the vehicle (eg: lowered suspensions causing tire rub). That’s a reasonable approach but I’m keeping a close watch on it anyway.

speaking of gp i havent heard his side of things  in awhile  my thoughts are the mechanic will gauge the car in whole    doors open and close with ease    lights can be seen easily       tires have a good amount of tread     headlights are aimed properly   steering column very secure  yes it should have safety belts    and the most important and always missing safety component the nut behind the wheel / also known as common sense   how many people on this forum have had problems insuring a car with a roll cage in it  thats my next step  

I don’t agree that s.66(3) exempts a vehicle from having fenders unless it’s raining or wet. While it can be interpreted that way, that’s not any guarantee you won’t get charged, because some officers interpret it to mean that fenders are required IF it rains, whether it’s raining at the time or not. There are fenderless rods on Ontario’s roads that have gone many miles without problems, and more power to them, and if you want to use that section as a “rainy day” exemption, go for it. But, there are cops who think otherwise so good luck. Clearer wording in the Act might be better but as I said earlier, a good attitude and driving style will give a driver more benefits than arguing about the fine points of the law.

This happened to me years ago with a T Bucket. Officer laid the charge, went to court, with HTA book, judge asked officer if it was raining, answered no, case thrown out!!!

My son just got a safety for his Model A.....