There a picture on VCC that the whole squad of VPD pulled over a bunch of bikers.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...east-end-biker it was most likely thia

Was in Washington for 2 weeks. It was glorious. Clock struck midnight and it had to be removed... but it was fun for a minute.

Hi guys, i have been pulled over and i received a box 2 20 days ago because i didn't have 1 inch clearance. I removed the spacer, now waiting for a vehicle inspection at Audi Langley. It's $450 for VI and it will take 3- 4 hours lol. It's so annoying to go to the dealership.

Pictures of vehicle at the time of VI?

https://scontent.fyvr4-1.fna.fbcdn.n...4d&oe=5CACC60D

The picture is dark, it's just a basic A4 with S4 suspensions and 19 inch wheels

This is stock B6 S4 ride height FYI...

I know, i put the OEM springs on the back, it was a nightmare. Now i have a monster truck.

Maybe I missed it but have many higher end vehicles like Porsches been getting VI's? I can't believe this garbage is still going on.

Basically if you have less than 1 inch clearance and loud exhaust RIP.

Also there is no dealership able to do a VI for Porsche. I went to many places to do my VI they said they can't because the cop said at Audi. So in Kelowna, Victoria, Langley and it's $450.

i wonder how the FType R got his VI passed. If the ticket says Jaguar Dealer then there aren't any that does the inspection other than MCL but it's considered a luxury car dealership and not a "jaguar/land rover dealership" since they sell aston and bentley. I ask because i have a Jag with less than a finger gap and an aftermarket exhaust.

Does anyone know if it’s actually legal for an officer to state where you have to go for a VI? Just thinking about all the independent shops that are licensed to do so. Who goes to them now?

I spoke with a random Cop he said you can go to a dealership from the same group like Land Rover or Tata. The cops don't want you to go to an indepedant one because they "don't trust them".

Basically (and someone can give you the actual code section), but the cops are using some BS section of the MVA that is supposed to be meant for them to be able to direct traffic to a parking lot in order to look at it, to bend the meaning of the rule to say that you have to go to "X" spot to have your car inspected. I'm 100% sure this isn't how the rule is intended to be used, and it's an abuse of power. Full stop.

And anyone who wants to say otherwise, I'll give a perfect example of the cops doing this just recently:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ones-1.5064378

Cops handed out 10's of thousands of tickets for people having their phone on the passenger seat or in a cup holder, and when someone finally managed to get their case into supreme court, and the judge ruled that's non-sense, the law applies to "USING" the device, it sitting in your cupholder is not "USING".

So now everyone can appeal the cell phone tickets they have gotten in the last like 3 years.

I can point to atleast 5 threads on RS alone that people said "well that's just how it is". No this isn't how it is, these cops are ridiculous, and those that chose to give out the tickets and now judges have to spend time re-reviewing 10's of thousands of cases should lose their jobs. This system of ours is one broken piece of shit.

The system is meant to be enforced by people who understand the laws which they are enforcing, and can interpret and enforce them without bias. The VPD and many other officers in this province, have proven and continue to prove they can't do this. And us as Tax payers, paying the wages of these people need to demand more accountability.

I'd say all the money required to re-review all those cases (which could be in the millions of dollars) should be stripped from the bonuses of Police in this province. I know if I fucked up at my job like they have, I wouldn't be getting a bonus...

So happy to take one day off to do the VI in Langley ... i bought the car like that and ICBC saw the car and fixed my rims after an accident. They said nothing about the clearance etc. Also where is the detailed list of the equipment you can check.

Section 25.08, items (1) to (3) from the MVAR are the sections you are referring to:

My personal and literal interpretation of these 3 items are:

a) If the vehicle in question already has an inspection certificate in force (ie. it has previously required an inspection already), then the police can direct you to whichever facility of the police's choosing.

b) If the vehicle in question has no inspection certificate (ie. never required one / never been VI-ed?), then then police is supposed to seize the vehicle licence or number plates, or both.

In light of that, if the vehicle does not have an inspection certificate and the police issues you a Box 2 VI, it seems to me that it doesn't actually follow the letter of the MVAR. But if the alternative to receiving a Box 2 VI is to immediately surrender the vehicle licence / number plates, I guess it's preferable to "just get a Box 2 VI" instead?
:badpokerface:

Yeah... well, apparently they also don't trust Metrotown Mazda.
:pokerface:

This was mentioned earlier the in the thread. The section of the MVA being used is improperly being applied.

7.08 MVAR which they love to write on the Notice and Order says:

The owner or the person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer operated, or about to be operated, on any highway shall, upon the request of any peace officer, forthwith take the motor vehicle or trailer to the place designated by the peace officer and submit the motor vehicle or trailer there for inspection and testing.

So, if the peace officer doesn't want to do an inspection on the side of the road, then move to X location where it safer. The "place" is not specified as a "designated inspection facility"

The correct section of the MVAR is 25.08 in regards to Notifications and orders

25.08 (1) Despite an inspection certificate being in force, the director or a peace officer may, on having reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle may not comply with the standards, notify the owner or operator of a vehicle to present it for inspection to a designated inspection facility within the period set out in the notification.

(2) The director or a peace officer may order the owner or operator of a vehicle, in respect of which no inspection certificate is in force, to surrender to either of them the vehicle licence or the number plates, or both, for that vehicle.

(3) The owner or operator must comply with a notification under subsection (1) and an order under subsection (2).

(4) After examining a vehicle presented to the designated inspection facility following a notification under subsection (1), an authorized person must revoke any unexpired certificate, issue an inspection report in the manner set out in section 25.13 and

(a) issue a new inspection certificate of approval under section 25.13 (2), or

(b) issue an interim inspection certificate under section 25.13 (3)

on being satisfied that the conditions for issuing those certificates have been met.

(5) A notification under subsection (1) may require the owner or operator to notify the director or peace officer of the result of the required inspection.

[en. B.C. Reg. 304/2001; am. B.C. Reg. 135/2003, s. 3.]

And as we know, a designated inspection facility is one that is listed on the CVSE website.

Someone basically needs to get a VI, inspect it as they would normally, get a ticket for failure to comply with order, then dispute that in court.

Out of the now 50+ VI's ive heard about, there is only 1 person I know who got that failure to comply ticket, and they are not interested in chasing it in court. If it gets overturned in court, provincial or supreme, then.......

This system is so annoying, in Europe we have to go for VI every 2 years and if you sell a vehicle it has to be done 6 months before the sale. Here everything is messed up and not clear. VI in France are done by independents corporations, they are not going to play game to make extra money with unnecessary repairs.

MVAR
25.01 (1) In this Part:

"designated inspection facility" means a facility designated by the director as an inspection facility under section 217 of the Act;

https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/jI...%20facility%22

So there. Police cannot "direct which designated inspection facility" that you go to. The term is defined in MVAR. The word "designated" is interpreted as a facility that is designated by the Director to perform inspection as per MVAR.

NOT a particular inspection facility (i.e. dealer) "designated" (defined as in directed) by the police officer

Notwithstanding, if the (same) police officer stopped you again and realised you did not perform the inspection at their choice of shops............THEN they can invoke MVAR 25.08(1) to make you do an inspection again, as long as the police officer has probable and reasonable grounds to do so.

Exactly.

But someone needs to properly fight with this information, and if a judge agrees that the MVAR actually makes a distinction between "place" and "designated inspection facility" it would change the game entirely, you'd be able to inspect at a shop of choice, and dispute the failure to comply with order in court.

Crowdfund for a legal opinion from a reputable law firm to confirm and make ensure the opinion could be shared widely. Share the legal opinion in this thread and print a copy in the car. If unfortunate event that you are flagged for VI and are directed to go to a specific shop then pull out the legal opinion and say "ha ha you can't do that".

This is why parents wants you to be lawyer, doctor or an accountant, especially Chinese parents. Chicken feather sticks for the motivation!

Goes beyond legal opinion, police are currently misinterpreting it if what I said previously turns out to be true.

It would need a judge to rule on it at this point, just like the cell phone issue from before..

My immigrant parents wished I became a lawyer

You dont need to crowd fund anything, I have a lawyer (Barrister) who handles business matters for me. Despite not being a traffic lawyer, he's still incredibly smart, and he's done a bit of digging just on the side for me and says there is nothing in his opinion that gives the cops any right to tell you to go to a particular DIF. His main defense to his position was actually that the AI (authorized inspectors) can freely move within to any other DIF and start working there and doing inspections. The problem he said, is that just like the cell phone case, someone needs to take it to supreme court in order to make a ruling against the cops, and then they can't do that anymore. Until then, there isn't a legal precedence and essentially the cops can continue to interpret however they like. The other option is to convince a lawmaker to clarify the law itself.

The problem with that second point is that lawmakers are stupid by nature, dumb civil servants that fail to realize how things will shake out. AKA zero foresight into how their actions impact the citizens. Typical shit public sector plebs. Again using the cell phone case as an example:

"Part of the reason people make errors is that the general description in the law leaves a lot of room for interpretation, which, officials say, was done to cut down on distraction-caused accidents."

Source of the above:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...laws-1.4120627

That's how dumb these people are. "we left it vague so that we could enforce bullshit". How fucking retarded is that.

/Rant

If anyone has a legitimate question they want answered by a lawyer feel free to ask or PM me, like I said not a traffic lawyer, but he's smart.

in UK we had to do MOT every year. I couldn't put on rear tints or xenons