In Ontario, load security for commercial vehicles is in Regulation 363 under the Highway Traffic Act. Part 2 applies to commercial motor vehicles of 4,500 kilograms or less gross vehicle weight, registered gross weight, manufacturer’s gross weight rating or gross combination weight rating (truck and trailer), and Part 3 is for over 4500kg. Basically, any load, no matter how small, must be secured so that it can't move, period, and that includes plywood, spare tires, tools boxes, etc. This kind of enforcement might seem extreme but in the MTO yard I used to work from it was quite common for the road crews to bring in complete BBQ’s, pickup caps, entire bed liners, bicycles, lumber of all sizes and shapes, spare tires, tools, and all kinds of stuff that most people would never think of tying or fastening down on their way to the cottage or just driving around. I’ve been hit by crap like that, luckily without serious damage, and there have been fatalities from little stuff falling out of light duty trucks, usually from drivers trying to avoid the debris. I’m always conscious of the airflow over plywood sheets when I’m carrying them in my box trailer, and tie cargo straps across them. This is something few people take seriously until they hit something that some driver thought "could never fall out".

www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040363

I watched a fella get dumped off his bike by a couch pillow that flew from a preceding pick-up box. Dude was doubly lucky he wasn't run over by the clowns tailgating him. I hope he bought a Lottery ticket that night. I totally agree Time Traveller.

No problem with this either. I walk the side of the highway above us and I am simply amazed at all the crap that litters the road. Amazing more people are not hurt or killed.

When I was in California, 1968, I saw a coffin on the freeway.
What would the cops say about a small load of gravel in a pickup truck?

I know of a guy near where I live that was in an accident and got a tool box in the back of his head. The tool box was sitting loose in the pick up truck box . He never was right after that.

John Clapham, an outstanding stock and supermodified race car driver lost his life in a road accident. He was struck by a loose tool box that was in his truck.

Even an 80 pound tire and wheel assembly can be tossed out of a trailer, their suspension systems are not exactly sophisticated. When you hit a bump/railway crossing/curb or whatever something is going to move. If you are using plywood as a base surely you can run a couple of screws into to hold it place. We are car people we have tools!!

123pugsy wrote:

---

MScott wrote:

---

A number of years back, a friend who also hunted in our gang, was transporting a new fibreglass tub/shower enclosure to the house he was in the process of building. He had forgotten to secure it into the back of his pickup and it, of course, flew out, damaging one corner when it landed on the road. Not wanting to be out the several hundred dollars it had cost him, he called his insurance company who advised him to report it to the police.
The LEO charged him with having an unsecured load and, as well, the insurance company refused to reimburse him. He lost out both ways. All was not lost however, as he repaired the tub and brought it in to our hunting camp where we enjoyed showering in it for several years.

---

 

 

And this fella is walking around your camp with a gun??

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.....

---

 Fortunately he is a lot safer with a gun than with a truck load. LOL

Patio stones are nothing compared to the Dodge Van I towed in with my Tow Truck.   After the guy put it in the ditch the big limestone rocks he was using for weight came crashing ahead smashing the dash.  I have never seen a Dodge Van with so many dents from the inside out.  Six 18 x 18 rocks weigh  up . 

DJD wrote:

his father put some patio stones in the trunk for winter traction
he ran into something and the patio stone went right through the back seat taking out whoever was in the car

---

 substitute patio stones = snowmobile....

guy put snowmobile in the truck box
he ran into something and the snowmobile went right through the back window

 

I saw an asphalt roller in the box of a truck roll thru the back window and pinch the driver against the steering wheel... he knew it was coming for about 300ft.... as did I, hearing his tires squeal all the way to the point of impact....

I've been a born again "tie it down! " guy since high school ,, I was delivering some 16ft scaffold planks to a job site for the rental company.. and when I got there... the planks were not in the truck ....  I couldn't imagine the looks on the people behind me when they flew out...

While travelling in the us  I-81 south.. the CB radio went off .. very loud ... must be someone close by... they notify a truck box CAMPER is in the middle lane south bound.... .. phew... we are on north bound!   .. an instant later ... another announcement that the camper is in the NORTH BOUND side.. and a trucker has pulled over.. and run out into the road and is trying to pull it off the road!!

My daughter jumps up,, grabs her camera off the dash , just as the traffic parts in front of us... there appears to be a tractor FACING US ! and Chaos! .. knowing that the commotion was on the right... I pushed hard to slow and head to the left side asap!! ...

sure enough.. trucker had just enough strength to pull the camper over to the guard rail ... and that tractor facing us was on the back of a tow truck.... but it was QUITE a panic show for a few seconds...

 

 

TIME TRAVELLER wrote:

---

In Ontario, load security for commercial vehicles is in Regulation 363 under the Highway Traffic Act. Part 2 applies to commercial motor vehicles of 4,500 kilograms or less gross vehicle weight, registered gross weight, manufacturer’s gross weight rating or gross combination weight rating (truck and trailer), and Part 3 is for over 4500kg.

www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040363

---

 

Ive been beside a MTO officer roadside stop.. commercial vehicle.. and had others pass by with trailer load of lawn maintenance equipment...

he commented if that truck had of looked a little more commercial.. he would have went after him. 

at the time . he didn't really have  a mandate to go after non commercial vehicles......  but with Cam Wooley circus showing the amount of insecure loads etc travelling the 400 hwys... I think they have tightened that up a bit..

 

ME... I kind of like the guys heading to the lake with all the stuff in the the boat........ I find NEW life jackets.. paddles,,, coolers...lawn chairs along the ditch all the time! ... a little road rash ...but still cool finds!!

meester_jamie wrote:

---

 

he commented if that truck had of looked a little more commercial.. he would have went after him. 

 

---

 What do they classify as commercial. All pickups regardless if they are for personal use or business are classified as "commercial".

meester_jamie wrote:

---

---

 

some "pick up trucks" have blue plates,, as they have back seats... not all "people" think they are commercial.

some have black plates....   i dont know what makes the difference tho....

---

 Actually, all pickups should have black plates. If a pickup has blue plates it's most likely a mistake made by the licensing office when the truck was registered. Vehicles like suburbans, Broncos etc should have blue plates because they are seen as MPVs (multi purpose vehicles)

Regardless, the system is very confusing, and is designed this way to keep everyone in a "gray" area. I'm sure 99.9% of the cars going down the road could be fined for some technicality should they ever be pulled over because this is big business ( $$$ ) for the Government.

-- Edited by Petebil on Friday 9th of December 2016 08:54:21 AM

My last six trucks since 1995 have all been club cab, quad cab or crew cab, always with five seating and belted positions. They have always had black plates and when I inquired about blue plates, was told at my particular Service Ontario office that I couldn't have them and in fact, until I retired, I had to put a commercial sticker on the front plate opposite the annual sticker. I don't know but it seems there are different rules at different offices. But I have never been hassled about unsecured loads, only about dust caps on my trailer wheels.

Warren

It's not so much the number of belts but the number of passengers. I have a Ford Sport Trac Pick-up with 4 doors and a 4 ft box , it has blue plates. A regular pick-up has 3 belts on the seat. That's why an Astro Van with windows and seats could have blue plates while the working version with 2 bucket seats had black plates.  I also believe the truck must 4500 KGs or less for blue plates

From another site.

"If you buy a regular pickup, or a cargo van, it MUST plated as a commercial vehicle. (BLACK lettering on the plate)
If you buy a window van or a pickup with a back seat, you can plate it as a commercial vehicle OR as a passenger vehicle. You get to choose when the vehicle is FIRST registered in Ontario.
The deciding factor is if the light truck has "a" (as in any) seat belt BEHIND the driver's seat. No seatbelt, it MUST be plated commercially. One the digits in the VIN tell them if it has that seat belt."

-- Edited by RWW on Friday 9th of December 2016 09:13:29 PM

RWW wrote:

---

poncho62 wrote:

---

Have never seen a pickup with passenger (blue) plates. Even my el Camino had commercial plates. The 3 Blazers I have had all had passenger plates.
I have had a few vans and noticed that ones with windows get passenger plates and windowless vans get commercial plates.

---

 Your El Camino had only 3 belts (or 2 belts with bucket seats) while your Blazer probably had 5 belts .  The belts determine the passengers allowed in the vehicle

---

 My extra cab GMC pickup has 6 belts.....has commercial plates. It does have the red personal use sticker on the plate too, although I have seen many standard cab pickups also with this sticker, so I dont think that means anything

 

A 2 seater sports car has commercial plates....Dont think so

I have a '68 pickup ish. In the last 4 years has gone from black plate, to historical plate, to blue plate. 
TMJ

30-S6 wrote:

---

I have blue personalized plates on my '02 silverado which had black plates on it before I owned it.

Anyone have an answer for this? wondering if my truck is classified as a commercial or personal. It is an extended cab so it has 6 seat belts. 

and to stay on topic I have a toneau cover that covers all the loose crap....

on that note my buddy is getting straps for x-mas so I don't have to keep fixing his trucks from motors and transmissions sliding around back there.

last winter he had a transfer case smash through the bottom of his tailgate when he spun out into a snowbank. Good thing the gate was still latched...

-- Edited by 30-S6 on Saturday 10th of December 2016 08:45:05 AM

---

 Anyone have an answer for this? wondering if my truck is classified as a commercial or personal =

 

No one knows this!! It is unwritten...By choosing personal plates an paying the extortion fee's for them...You are pulling said vechicle out of Commerce an out of their jurisdiction.

Telling those who know not 2 F@@k with you.

You can even put blue plates on an AZ truck!

 

Also to bring awareness!!!

This is written...

"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression household effects, Matter of Winburn's Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).

 

 

 

[139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).
"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

 

 

 

"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

 

 

Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).

 

"The term ``household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed there with and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App. 75"

 

"Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514.
"All household goods owned by the user there of and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2

 

Automobiles classified as vehicles
"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).
"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In re
Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.
"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.
"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).

 

 

CONCLUSION
Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)? No.
This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial). While the presumption of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use.

 

 

Ok just so you all know vehicles fall under "FEDERAL JUSTDICTION" not Provincial.So why do you allow them to extort you're hard learn liberties through illegal taxation?http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_without_representation.asp?lgl=no-infinite

By pulling you over an fabricating evidence then presiding over their own case in court?

 

Code of conduct section 2.11 States there is no power to stop or detain a ”person”

In order to find grounds for a search.

 

Simply asking you for ownership /insurance/license ...when they know damwell you do or do not have such through plate readers..

 

Remember ANYTHING YOU DO OR SAY WILL be used against you in court.are you going to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voluntarily SUBMIT through intimidation?

 

Fraud

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Marginal note:Minimum punishment

(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Marginal note:Affecting public market

(2) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 380; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 54; 1994, c. 44, s. 25; 1997, c. 18, s. 26; 2004, c. 3, s. 2; 2011, c. 6, s. 2.

 

Criminal breach of contract

422 (1) Every one who wilfully breaks a contract, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of doing so, whether alone or in combination with others, will be

(a) to endanger human life,

(b) to cause serious bodily injury,

(c) to expose valuable property, real or personal, to destruction or serious injury,

(d) TO DEPRIVE the INHABITANTS of a city or place, or part thereof, wholly or to a great extent, of THEIR supply of LIGHT, POWER,GAS, or

(e) to delay or prevent the running of any locomotive engine, tender, freight or passenger train or car, on a railway that is a common carrier,

is guilty of

(f) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or

(g) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Saving

(2) No person wilfully breaks a contract within the meaning of subsection (1) by reason only that

(a) being the employee of an employer, he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and himself to agree on any matter relating to his employment, or,

(b) being a member of an organization of employees formed for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees, he stops work as a result of the failure of the employer and a bargaining agent acting on behalf of the organization to agree on any matter relating to the employment of members of the organization,

if, before the stoppage of work occurs, all steps provided by law with respect to the settlement of industrial disputes are taken and any provision for the final settlement of differences, without stoppage of work, contained in or by law deemed to be contained in a collective agreement is complied with and effect given thereto.
Marginal note:Consent required

(3) No proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.[YEAH WE DON'T NEED THE A/G'S CONSENT]

R.S., c. C-34, s. 380.

 

Every Cop is guilty of this:

Intimidation

423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

(c) persistently follows that person;

(d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;

(e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;

(f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(g) blocks or obstructs a highway.
Marginal note:Exception

(2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 423; 2000, c. 12, s. 95; 2001, c. 32, s. 10.

 

 

So why do you allow a provincial public servant to violate you're federal rights an pull you over..Then chose to do nothing about it.??

 

An to stay on topic if anyone chooses not to tie down any load...You are you're own FOOL...

Merry Christmas to all without prejudice!  :)

 

 

 

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Saturday 10th of December 2016 05:05:16 PM

meester_jamie wrote:

---

poncho62 wrote:

---

This from this website

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/commercial-vehicle-faq.shtml#a15

"Q15: Is my pickup truck a commercial motor vehicle and does it need a CVOR?

The Highway Traffic Act considers all pickup trucks to be commercial motor vehicles,  SNIP ...

---

 poncho..what you copied is great for CVOR,,,, but it doesn't say a commerical vehicle SHALL have black plates

Well,,, all pick up trucks are considered commercial... but some SUV's look like  "pick up trucks"

sooo.. it seems if you have seats behind the driver, then you might have an SUV ... with a box... or a pick up... seems you can pick what you want to call it.. I guess...  pick suv.. put blue plates... call it a pick up.. put black plates on it

also.. it seems that the HTA doesn't always have clear definitions,, and service canada clerks don't like to argue all them.. so they seem to let you put what ever plate you want on your vehicle..  and let the cops or the MTO pull you over and inform you of the law ..

there are lots of CVOR vehicles with Blue personalized plates on them...i am not sure that is correct.. but maybe that is a different thread all together,,,  similar to putting historic plates on a commercial vehicle

 

getting back to a secure load...

toomuchjunk wrote:

---

I always figured I'd rather look foolish spending a half an hour tying the load down then look real foolish picking up my load that's all over the roadway
TMJ

---

 

also.. I am pretty sure "insecure load" doesn't just apply to commercial vehicles........ I know a painter who had a station wagon... carried his paint in open cans sometimes... and when he stopped real quick one day... he wore alot of that paint! lol  ... and then the cops gave him a ticket for careless.. and insecure load..

there was a pick up pull off side rd onto the main road with no tail lights.. and a speeder heading his way... so after he got rear ended there was everything all over the road..... it was in the box with a cap on it... but the cap got knocked into the ditch... his boxes of nails ripped open ,, skill saws, drills, hammer etc were everywhere!! ... he got a ticket for insecure load.. 

 

 

---

 Look on the ownership where you're alleged drivers license number is it will say RIN number.

If you read the first page of a cvor application it states if you have an rin number or dealer number you are not required to have a cvor [ application in law means to beg an no one is obliged to beg]

 

On the forth page of the cvor it states it is "voluntarily

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Saturday 10th of December 2016 05:10:54 PM