:suspicious::suspicious: That statement makes me cringe....


I replied on this thread a few days ago and came back to see this. OP, you will get nowhere by arguing with everyone on here. Your perception of a legal steering wheel and the LEO's perception is not on the same page. And the best part is it doesn't matter!

Police are designated as inspectors, which isn't the best thing in the world because most police officers are not familiar with the 2010 Vehicle Inspection Manual to begin with, but they do have enough common sense to see something is wrong usually. Are cops wrong sometimes? YES, but so are inspectors.

At the end of the day, nobody gives a fuck what you were pulled over for, you had a inspection done and failed for reflectors not the steering wheel, so although many people haven't taken your side, the mechanic who had to go through hell to get his inspector permit from CVSE told you (indirectly) that you were right.

Go tape on DOT/SAE marked reflectors, go pass your inspection and remove them afterwards and get on with your day. Judging by the responses you've made on this thread I can bet my next paycheck that you started arguing with the cop on the side of the road about the things he noticed were wrong.

Actually I never once argued with the officer, I took the tickets and left. If I argued I probably wouldn't have my car right now. Also "The fact that your car is imported, for me, is enough to issue a VI" really? Thank god you're not a cop. And also its not a lexus, Just saying the badges were put on in japan before it came to me :)

Yea, thank god I am not a cop... :ilied:


I have been in the import scene for over a decade and have owned a modified car in the past. I know that JDM vehicles are not constructed under the same regulations as USDM. So if the RO cannot provide papers to prove to me that the vehicle is up to MVA standards, that does give me GROUNDS TO BELIEVE the vehicle will not pass an inspection.

"Go tape on DOT/SAE marked reflectors, go pass your inspection and remove them afterwards and get on with your day"

See my post above about "fail to maintain to standards"...if you want to take that chance............

Papers mean nothing, I cant count number of cars I've seen that are legal on paper, but on further inspection don't meet MVA.

Look at the posts he's made here, do you seriously believe he'd keep them on anyways? Fully aware about the legality though...

Great, leave it up to a peace officer to determine whether your wheel is legal based on what you look like, what you drive, how you looked at him, or how his lunch was served that day.

The fact that the inspection facility passed the wheel based on their opinion shows how vague the guidelines are for the vehicle owner.

Just keep handing out VIs, one after another, eh?

Would you do the same thing if someone imported a brand new VW, GM and left it completely stock? Or are you just picking on drivers of older "tuner" cars?

Thanks for putting words into my mouth. Can I have another, kind sir?

It doesn't matter if it is stock or not. The issue is that if it is imported, it is up to the owner to prove to me that it will meet MVA regulations.

Yea, I hand out VI's like candy during Halloween... You'd probably wish I was the cop pulling you over if you had the slightest clue about me.

So where do you draw the line if the inspection it is required to pass before being licenced/insured in BC isn't good enough for you?

How do YOU guarantee that that inspection was done properly? Or the pass wasn't "paid for"? Or that illegal mods were made AFTER it was passed?

If you look long and hard enough you could fail almost any vehicle for something. Sorry but as a long-time voice of reason in this forum I feel obligated to admit that sebberry is on to something here. I didn't like the verbiage of Spidey's initial post either but I didn't feel compelled to comment until now.

"The fact that your car is imported, for me, is enough to issue a VI." That statement does tend to imply 'if I see a RHD vehicle driving on the road I will pull it over even if I don't notice anything specifically wrong with it and probably issue them a N&O on the spot'. I would hope that that comment is actually "upon closer inspection of an imported vehicle that I have pulled over for a violation of the MVA (including perhaps noticing a VIable issue while it drives past...), I noticed one or more inconsistencies with the vehicle and feel that further inspection is warranted". I know it's easy to become jaded when the inspection process is so broken but I suppose I would simply like to think that the majority of members would not pull over say Zulu visiting friends in the Lower Mainland simply because he was driving a RHD vehicle. That may not have been the intention of Spidey's statement but that is certainly how it could be read...

As you may or may not know, it isn't that difficult to obtain insurance for a vehicle through ICBC, but that is another topic for another day (that day is not today, or in the near future).

However you perceive it, that is up to you. The fact remains that it is enough for me to issue a VI. It gives me my grounds. I never said I would do it, but I have the authority. Police have discretion, believe it or not.

And like what happened with the OP, it is usually something that is done by the driver that caused them to be pulled over, rather than merely driving a vehicle that was imported.

Or, in his case, there were several external problems, in addition to speeding, that turned on his "stop my JDM vehicle" neon sign? :heckno:

I will echo Spidey's experience is an much as that a high percentage (60% plus) of imported JDM vehicles (NOT all) I encountered that displayed a VI passed sticker, had violations that should have prevented them passing an inspection legally. This was way more than non-JDM vehicles I checked. Was it because the inspector deliberately ignored the defects, didn't know they were defects...or the owner changed the vehicle after it had passed in the first place? The defects were there, the owner had the sticker & passed inspection sheet but the vehicle was "defective".

My own investigations showed that deliberately ignoring defects or the RO "failing to maintain to standards" were the major causes. In only 1 inspection station did I find an inspector who was literally ignorant of the standards required...but passed the vehicles anyway. He didn't even know where they were in the inspection manual he had unopened on the shelf. HE lost his licence to inspect after I reported what I had found.

The fact that you said it the way you did is concerning.

Someone tries to save a few thousand on a vehicle, imports one from the US and they're forever targeted by the local constabulary for VIs.

As I asked before, at what point do you draw the line, or do you continue to target a vehicle absent of obvious deficiencies simply because it's imported?


On another note, assuming all late model police vehicles are wired up the same they'd all fail for deactivated DRLs. The number of police cars I see without some sort of forward lighting in conditions that would warrant it is astonishing.

We both know that US cars aren't targeted by Police because there really isn't anything about a vehicle imported from the US that screams "inspect me". If the same car was heavily modified, then sure. You are asking questions for the sake of being Sebberry, and it's no surprise to me. The vehicles that are forever targeted by cops are those with the careless driver's who operate them.

And all I have to say is LOL at someone saying the reason they would import a car that is JDM is to "save money". Good one. US, sure, and I already touched on that. But JDM, ha!

Police vehicles are wired to have their DRL operating. There is an option to have them deactivated (via a button), so technically they don't "fail".

I can understand that there are circumstances where you might not want the lights on, but it would be really nice if more officers would follow the same standard they hold us mere civilians to and leave the lights on unless they specifically need to be off.

And if it was warm enough, it would really be nice if snow would fall as rain...

We have no way of knowing why the DRL's were not operating on the PCs' you saw..nor will we ever. Now...you say black and I'll say white. :accepted:

Sorry to hijack thread, but since we are on the topic of DRL's...

I recently purchased a 1986 vehicle that was imported from the US by the previous owner. It is a Corolla GTS, which does not have DRL's. How/where would I get them installed into my vehicle, short of having the "pop-up" headlights on all the time? A friend of mine said that because the vehicle was made before 1990, that it was exempt from the DRL law but I'm pretty sure he is misinformed. Would like to drive this vehicle in the day time, been somewhat hesitant as I just shelled out a good sum of money for the car and would rather not pay more for a violation ticket and/or inspection for the car.

You are not required to have DRL. Prior to December 1, 1989 is what Transport Canada says is okay. I will find my BC inspection manual and see what that says but I wouldn't worry about it.

And a DRL switch is not enough to pass an inspection, it should be ignition based. Police cars are exempted from some of the MVA:suspicious:

I drive a 2nd gen rx7 as my daily and never once have I been pulled over or issued a VT for not having my headlights up during the day. I do however make sure to flip them up during bad weather or during dusk so I am more easily seen, my car is silver >.<

i actually met the nicest and funniest cop in richmond. i had yellow low beams on years ago and i got busted on garden city and westminster hwy.

cop : do you know why i pulled you over?
me : nope.
cop : seriously? you have no idea? step out of the car and turn your lowbeams on.
** i step outside the car **
cop: now put your face in front of your headlight. what color is it
me : **i chuckle** , its yellow sir
cop : i see
me : god dammit, okay i fucked up, im sorry.** i laugh while saying it**
cop : tell you what, go home right now, take them off and we'll call it even. turn right on the next intersection and take XXXXXXXXXXX , another officer is 2 blocks up.
me : sweet jesus. thanks man.

funniest cop i've ever met. i wish i could say thanks again

thank you mister officer.
:thumbs:

You should be good to go. Like ririggi said, I wouldn't worry about it.

If not, you can just install fog lights or something and run it off something that gets power when ignition is on.

Does that surprise you? Would you like to drive a vehicle equipped with lights and sirens, drive above the speed limit, talk on the radio while driving, and attend murders, domestic assaults, robberies in progress?

Those who complain about the Police being exempt from certain things while on duty need to use their common sense. There is a reason the Police are exempt under certain circumstances. You want to be able to do the above things, join the force. It isn't as if off duty officers are driving around in a Police cruiser for fun.

Well its obvious isnt it:devil:

Anyways, confirmed that no DRL is required for anything prior to 1990. You do need a 3rd brake light though.

To touch back on the steering wheel sizes, my cars have wheels that were OEM options in Japan and they're both smaller sizes than the basic wheel. They're made by MOMO and the horn buttons say "MOMO for Toyota" but there's nothing on the wheels indicating what they are. Now there's no way in hell I could ever find the paperwork to prove these wheels are an OEM option so am I basically screwed if I ever got a VI for them (even though I think they're legal)?