You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
My theory would be that the traffic enforcement would be the task force handling all the noisy vehicles since it would perfectly fit under their duties to enforce the VI rules in ensuring that vehicles on the road are safe and MVA compliant as opposed to your everyday officer who would be handling other more important calls.
I wish they would've tasked the CVSE instead as they have the proper equipment and are properly trained to determine what vehicles are compliant
I wish the CVSE would investigate my employer.
My work van has had an ignition coil failure all year, that the mechanic can't fix, and he keeps making me take it back to him.
The car feels like it's rattling apart at 70, the alignment is off, none of my power locks work, the fire extinguisher is expired, my first aid kit is empty and he wont replace it.
The VPD said it doesn’t want to speculate why the numbers have spiked.
It said the notice and order is a way for officers to keeping Vancouver roads safe.
“Our officers are dedicated to making our city roadways as safe as possible,” said Sgt. Jason Robillard.
“If our officers are noticing an increase in unsafe vehicles after education and enforcement efforts, then we may choose to issue a notice and order, ensuring that the unsafe vehicle is inspected by a licensed mechanic.”
As someone who has spent a bit of time into the issue, I find the comments from Sgt Robillard to be rather insulting. When there is concrete and irrefutable evidence that VPD officer(s) are mis-interpreting and mis-enforcing the MVA, it boils me up to see the VPD spokesperson mention "education" and "vehicle safety" when it is the VPD officer(s) that are un-educated about vehicle safety laws, and yet they are the ones enforcing it.
Cho's video, a clip of which made it into the CTV news story, has one blatant example of how a VPD officer has mis-interpreted the MVA, and is mis-enforced the MVA. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the camber clause in the MVA (second clause of Section 18) specifically says that the amount of camber present needs to be out of adjustment, and not just visually apparent.
From Sproadicmotion's video, there is again concrete and irrefutable evidence that the VPD officer in it (likely Cain?) has mis-interpreted and mis-enforced the MVA. The below are two excerpts from my OPCC complaint:
Quote:
As a concrete example of a VPD officer mis-interpreting and mis-enforcing Section 18 of the MVA / Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual (regarding camber), we can refer to the following video clip:
In the video clip between 1:08 to 4:38, a local Vancouver driver has been stopped for a number of MVA violations by a police officer. From 2:52 to 2:56, the police officer can be identified as a member of the VPD through the badges on his jacket.
Among the allegations made by the VPD officer, excessive camber is one of the MVA violations. This is discussed during the exchange between 2:32 to 2:46. Please note that I am not questioning the validity of the excessive camber allegations here. Instead, the item that catches my attention is the mis-interpretation of Section 18 of the MVA, the complete disregard for Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual, and the subsequent enforcement of this mis-representation / complete disregard. In the verbal exchange between 2:32 to 2:46, the VPD officer can be heard saying:
“Naked eye… camber… tires… your wheels… you can’t have any… that is visible to the naked eye, alright? So I don’t even need to get a tool to measure the camber.”
Clearly, this is not what Section 18 of the MVA nor Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual has stated. It is obvious that the VPD officer’s interpretation of MVA Section 18 does not allow for *any* visible wheel camber, and he is ignoring the requirements described by the CVSE inspection manual. Based on the actual wording of the legislation / regulations, I find it impossible to agree with the VPD officer’s version of the law. To me, this suggests poor and inadequate training on the VPD’s part, as well as an incorrect personal interpretation of the MVA / CVSE requirements and its enforcement by the VPD officer.
Quote:
To make matters worse, certain VPD officers are enforcing their own personal and arbitrary interpretations of the MVA / CVSE inspection standards when the officer’s interpretation is clearly at odds with what can be found in those legislations and regulations. Referring back to the same video clip as I have previously mentioned:
you can see from 2:47 to 2:58 that the VPD officer is obviously referring to the CVSE inspection requirement Section 4, item 2b as I have indicated previously. As you may recall, the regulation is only applicable to the front wheels. However, in the video, the VPD officer is clearly motioning and referring to the rear wheels of the vehicle where the steering mechanisms are nowhere to be found. As such, I think the example shows the VPD officer is either misunderstanding the application of the inspection requirement, or intentionally mis-interpreting the inspection requirements to suit his needs at the moment. But regardless of what his intentions might be, he is mis-enforcing a legal requirement when that requirement is clearly not applicable to the situation at hand. In my opinion, that is a highly unprofessional behaviour coming from the field officer.
Then people complained and it was over after 14 years. Half of the wins on this circuit were by Lola (RIP).
We went from watching some of the most skilled drivers on this planet to retards on two wheels who can't keep in their own brightly marked, green-as-money lanes.
Times have changed and unfortunately these changes are usually spearheaded by a vocal minority who scream "I'm offended and complaining' which leads to sapping the existence out of something which the vocal majority had enjoyed for years.
"The VPD said it doesn’t want to speculate why the numbers have spiked.
It said the notice and order is a way for officers to keeping Vancouver roads safe."
How can VPD justify VI'ing stock sportcars "not safe"?...
I want to ask VPD about the few cars that passed VI with their aftermarket exhaust systems unchanged, since when did our law make our citizens guilty until proven innocent?
Sounds like VPD is trying to sway the public onto their side by using the word "safe".
Edit: Sorry, had to re-word it since I was typing it out in frustration haha.
With that being said, I think the CTV article could use more visual components.
For example, a stock sports car that's subject to a VI verses that super rusted out Honda CRV that was on sale on Craigslist
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_AK
Or you meet some girl at the club, cum inside of her, find out shes only in grade 12, so you buy a Prada bag for her to make things right, she finds out the bag is a fake and decides to have the kid
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX_Renesis
wtf did she get some bolt-on titties or what?
they look sooooooooooo much bigger than they were 2ish years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nns
I can't stand the sound of Mandarin either. Boo yow nee bey nee shing bo now noong gey shee mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo mayo.
I went to high school with Angela. She's come a long way.
In related news - my dad must've encountered Cain last weekend. He came home with a ticket and 2 dings from driving my car, that I can barely read.
The item that I could make out was loud exhaust - which in fact is afermarket and audibly louder than normal, but there was no measurement of proof Handed out a ticket and was on his merry way.
The other I think because my 03 impreza (the vehicle in question) didn't have plastic coverings for the fog lights? Not sure what my dad meant - His English isn't the greatest.
Holy fuck 234 people on this thread. The traction a news piece brings is crazy.
I think we hit 198 or smt prior to the news piece. You can quote me on that cause I'm here every day LOOOOL
-
Whenever someone gets an invalid VI, please direct them to post in this thread with a photo/video and description of what happened. When it's posted across Facebook, it can get lost. At least here, we can do a quick search.
Then people complained and it was over after 14 years. Half of the wins on this circuit were by Lola (RIP).
We went from watching some of the most skilled drivers on this planet to retards on two wheels who can't keep in their own brightly marked, green-as-money lanes.
Times have changed and unfortunately these changes are usually spearheaded by a vocal minority who scream "I'm offended and complaining' which leads to sapping the existence out of something which the vocal majority had enjoyed for years.
It's so cool to see BC place through the onboard view
The simple solution is just to file a complaint if you feel you were VI without just cause. This will be a way to make an impact in terms of stats.
The CTV article showed Sept to Dec VI count were 485. If just 20% were issued without cause, that is 97 complaints. These 97 complaints would surly raise a review.
Make your voice heard. These road Nazis think they have a final solution to us car enthusiasts. They may say things like we are dangerous and this and that is illegal. But remember, in 1939, Hitler said the same thing about the JEWS.
The simple solution is just to file a complaint if you feel you were VI without just cause. This will be a way to make an impact in terms of stats.
The CTV article showed Sept to Dec VI count were 485. If just 20% were issued without cause, that is 97 complaints. These 97 complaints would surly raise a review.
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
The complaints need to be warranted. If there is no clear basis for a complaint, then it's worthless.
If VPD is issuing notices with orders that state you must go to a dealer or other nonsense like that, that's an issue a judge should weigh in on.
The problem here is that we have laws that are unclear or unreasonable, and we have the police making up their own laws.
For example, having a car with "visible camber" or being ordered to have the vehicle dealer inspected when there is no dealer that does inspections. These guys are using the rules in ways that were never intended.
The only way to really get this straightened out is through a judicial review. This is what the lawyer in the CTV story was explaining. Once a Judge weighs in, that actually becomes part of the law.
For example, if a Judge ruled that you can take your car to any designated inspection facility despite being ordered to the dealer, the police would have to abide by that. If they didn't, that would be a very clear basis for a complaint and the VPD would need to take it seriously or they could face legal consequences.
I've been actively commenting on the Reddit thread.... the following 3 messages seem to be working pretty well
1) There are definitely some modded cars that were given legitimate VIs
2) The concern is around VIs that are being given to stock bars based on a misguided and misinformed understanding of the rules
3) There seem to be vehicles with legitimate safety issues that don't seem to get VIs
Would the guys from MM (supercar only imaginable) or other well off members be able to fund/crowdsource the money needed to hire a lawyer to help with this case?
I'm sure there are car enthusiast lawyers who would want to step in, cause their high-end sports car might be affected too from Mr.Cain and co!
2) The concern is around VIs that are being given to stock bars based on a misguided and misinformed understanding of the rules
The cops aren't misguided at all. They know exactly what they are doing. They are using a creative interpretation of the law to target vehicles with louder than average exhaust and they are forcing inspections at specific facilities to shop for an outcome. This isn't ignorance. This is a well thought out, planned and coordinated effort to target modified vehicles.
The issue at hand is that the law isn't specific here. There are no rulings or regulations that say a cop can't write a notice and order that says "take it to the dealer only". Things like "visible camber" aren't defined and the issue of cars designed with visible camber hasn't been reviewed.
Just a quick google on BC VI's - widespread provincial
Ticket revenue/points all are paid directly to ICBC
Sporty cars are highly visible, which are easy targets of potential modded tickets and MVA.
Motor Vehicle Act section
Description
Fine
Point level
3.02
Improper display of plate
$230
0
3.03
Illegible plate
$230
0
7A.01
Unnecessary noise
$109
3
30.10(2)
Fail to display "L" sign in violation of driver's licence condition
$109
0
30.10(4)
Fail to display "N" sign in violation of driver's licence condition
$109
0
47.02
Fail to slow down or move over near stopped official vehicle
$173
3
Not questioning your numbers here, but we gotta keep the facts straight.
VI's do not generate revenue to the prov gov, ICBC, or the police, since the inspection fees are all collected by the inspection facilities, and those are private businesses.
Revenue from traffic violation tickets, on the other hand, goes towards the province.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carguru
Just a quick google on BC VI's - widespread provincial
Ticket revenue/points all are paid directly to ICBC
Sporty cars are highly visible, which are easy targets of potential modded tickets and MVA.
Thank you for this BC Law and fellow members, I am now going to try to get my case to re-open given now there is evidence that sports car are being targeted based on the statistic.
Not questioning your numbers here, but we gotta keep the facts straight.
VI's do not generate revenue to the prov gov, ICBC, or the police, since the inspection fees are all collected by the inspection facilities, and those are private businesses.
Revenue from traffic violation tickets, on the other hand, goes towards the province.
I thought some people were both getting a ticket and a notice. No?
Make your voice heard. These road Nazis think they have a final solution to us car enthusiasts. They may say things like we are dangerous and this and that is illegal. But remember, in 1939, Hitler said the same thing about the JEWS.
What the ****?
If you're not trolling, you are truly a sad individual... equating the wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc. with a handful of police officers acting like dicks.
I'm going to assume you're trolling because no one is this stupid.
Make your voice heard. These road Nazis think they have a final solution to us car enthusiasts. They may say things like we are dangerous and this and that is illegal. But remember, in 1939, Hitler said the same thing about the JEWS.
You are bat shit insane if you are comparing 2019 VPD VI to 1940's Germany.
You are fucking nuts, trying to be edgy or both. That's highly offensive. Something tells me you read 2 pages of a WW2 book if you think this is ever a close comparison.
A lot of your posts in here are pretty stupid or direct insults to Cain & co or VPD with some kind of sexual reference. Considering this forum is being viewed by a larger public mass now, chill out. It's only making this thread look worse.
__________________ __________________________________________________ Last edited by AzNightmare; Today at 10:09 AM
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
.png "Y U NO...?")
