REVscene Automotive Forum - PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)

- - PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715383-psa-vpd-handing-out-vis-like-candy.html)

"I need to open the door to reach into my pocket."

Is there literally no interior space, or is he just a large dude?

i like how he's so calm and respectful compared to the dde youtube channel, he seems like a nice guy.

The only reason the cops are so nice to that dude is because they realize he’s some next level rich as fuck and will literally rain hell down on them if they cause him any grief whatsoever.

Hmm... Pulled the vehicle over thinking he was on the phone (of course they used that as an excuse) and then try to poke around the idea of issuing a citation about his loud exhaust...

This car is a straight up menace. If you've seen Alex Choi's lambo breaking wine glasses with the backfire this car is on that level. Straight pipped with backfire tune that will knock the air out of your lungs. I've seen this guy going up and down Alberni making people jump.
I am used to backfires and exhausts but the rest of us that have no were near this level of loud exhaust will be forced to submit to officer Cain. What a world we live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yray (Post 8947216)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYz2Qh_lFo

cain got assigned onto a bike?

LOL

Can't figure out how to directly link it but this is cool.

Stop Being Poor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalis (Post 8947307)

You completely missed the point.
If you were had a trillion dollars as a Canadian you still couldn't get this exemption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb4srv (Post 8947316)

Can't figure out how to directly link it but this is cool.

Stop Being Poor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalis (Post 8947331)

You completely missed the point.
If you were had a trillion dollars as a Canadian you still couldn't get this exemption.

...

this applies to literally any tourist that comes to canada, regardless of income...

Visitors, tourists and temporary residents entering Canada with foreign owned vehicles - Transport Canada

it doesn't apply to canadian citizens or PR holders because you are not a "vistor, tourist, temporary resident"...

tbh, any car visiting BC is pretty much exempted, i mean, you could VI a AB or WA car for exhaust, but thats going to only go so far.... let alone UAE vehicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokyoteleport (Post 8947359)

tbh, any car visiting BC is pretty much exempted, i mean, you could VI a AB or WA car for exhaust, but thats going to only go so far.... let alone UAE vehicles

Incorrect. They can V.I an AB car. I asked the same question earlier in the thread. The cop would have to be some sort of a cunt to do it though.

they can VI, but what good is it when AB will ignore it anyways?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokyoteleport (Post 8947427)

they can VI, but what good is it when AB will ignore it anyways?

I believe they can ding you on it if you do come back to BC though after the 30 days, or however long it is that you have for the inspection.

So, I guess if you don't think you'll ever drive that car with that license plate back to BC, then it wouldn't matter.

Any word of what happened in court with Cain?

last I heard it was starting April 4th

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzNightmare (Post 8946436)

I find EV's super dangerous as a pedestrian... Just can never hear those damn things sneaking up on you. Sometimes I'll be walking down the alley and then take a quick look before I cross to the other side and I see an EV right there behind me.

As a road cyclist, I find these things scary. Albeit, EV cars make a fair amount of road noise by virtue of tire noise and movement though air, which I you can hear,( this is why you never ride with earbuds). The worst are those electric scooters/bikes, which are almost silent while moving, and as they can't ride in regular traffic, they're confined to bike lanes. These things can fly up from behind, with no sounds. Only once past, you hear the faint electric motor whine, and wind noise. They're heavy, certainly for something in a bike lane, and if they hit you, it's a significant impact.

shoulder check + 2ch dash cam
probably more dangerous for them than you in a cage

VPD-TU was behind me briefly this morning, only threw on the cherries to double back after we approached Boundary

Everything is chilled out or everybody tired from this topic?

^^ no just saw two bike cop pulled 2 modified cars over and probably got vied too over the weekend

Quote:

Originally Posted by nexusxv (Post 8947909)

Everything is chilled out or everybody tired from this topic?

No, hasn’t chilled out yet

Quote:

I write further to your FOI request dated March 27th to the Vancouver Police. In that request you referenced two VPD members Cain and Xxxxx and requested the ‘notes’ of these two officers ‘regarding the incident’ which, according to your email, occurred on March 18, 2019 between 11am-12pm. Please be advised that these members do not have notes related to the incident you have referenced and there are therefore no records responsive to your request.

On March 18th you made a request for statistics about these two officers. Specifically you indicated that you “… would like to obtain the number of vehicle inspection notices & orders that he has issued each month from January 2018 to February 2019”. As this information pertains to the work related activities of the two members you have identified, the VPD is required to withhold this information in accordance with section 22(3)(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). This section requires the VPD to withhold third party personal information where “… the personal information relates to employment, occupational, or educational history”. The VPD has considered the factors as set out at 22(2) of FIPPA however it is the VPD’s position that section 22(3)(d) requires the VPD to withhold this information.

If you are not satisfied with the VPD’s response to your FOI requests you may write to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC and request a review of the VPD’s decision. Information about the Review process can be found at www.oipc.bc.ca

In my FOI request, I have very specifically indicated that I am not at all interested in any of the personal information that is collected in the VIs -- ie. I am not asking for information about the vehicle owners. I am also not interested in any person information regarding the officers. I purely only wanted to find out the total number of VI's that have been issued by the 2 said officers, so that I can compare it the same numbers from all members of the VPD. This will allow me to tell whether the said officiers have been disportionately taking on this VI intitiative, and potentially build a case there to have the situation changed, or at least examined. To have the VPD hide behind a facade of personal employment and occupational info is a farce and a sham -- honestly, I should really just say it is horseshit. If VPD can use this lamea$$ excuse to hide behind information release pertaining to the behaviour of their officers, they might as well disallow any conduct and ethics complaints on VPD officers since they can just hide behind the same wall and not release any information they may have on it.

Will have to sit down and think this one through. Really not sure where I can go from here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8947928)

This is really very disappointing, but I am not at all surprised by the outcome. I've just heard back from the VPD Information and Privacy Unit regarding 2 FOI requests that I've sent.

The back story is, after the CTV (or was it CBC) news article came out regarding the spike in VI's, I submitted a FOI request asking for the number of VI's issued by our fav cop and a potential partner of his over roughly the same period as the CTV reporter has reported on. My goal was to compare and see whether our fav officer has been disportionately issuing VI's compared to his colleagues. If that is the case, that could be a potential problem right there.

Additionally, after the Metrotown Mazda visit incident in March, I submitted another FOI request asking for any notes Mr. Fav Officer & partner might have gathered from the incident. The motivation behind that was to see whether there has been any interference from the enforcement / executive branch (ie. the VPD) to the inspection / judicial branch (CVSE inspectors), which IMO, is unacceptable.

Here are the replies from the VPD IPU:

In my FOI request, I have very specifically indicated that I am not at all interested in any of the personal information that is collected in the VIs -- ie. I am not asking for information about the vehicle owners. I am also not interested in any person information regarding the officers. I purely only wanted to find out the total number of VI's that have been issued by the 2 said officers, so that I can compare it the same numbers from all members of the VPD. This will allow me to tell whether the said officiers have been disportionately taking on this VI intitiative, and potentially build a case there to have the situation changed, or at least examined. To have the VPD hide behind a facade of personal employment and occupational info is a farce and a sham -- honestly, I should really just say it is horseshit. If VPD can use this lamea$$ excuse to hide behind information release pertaining to the behaviour of their officers, they might as well disallow any conduct and ethics complaints on VPD officers since they can just hide behind the same wall and not release any information they may have on it.

Will have to sit down and think this one through. Really not sure where I can go from here.

I think we can try to take VPD's suggestion to take it to the "Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC and request a review of the VPD’s decision". Even if nothing comes out of that, at the very least another department will be involved and will at least know about it. It helps to leave more paper / document trails regarding this "potential" misconduct on our fav officer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8947928)

Also it might be a good idea to get in contact with the CBC reporter about this. VPD's reply to this can still be reported in the news from an objective stance. As long as it is clearly stated (with proof) that the FOI request specifically stated that it did NOT want any personal information and only wanted the number of VIs by the officers, then I think it would be a good example of VPD "possibly" trying to hide information. It's one thing to not release information to an individual filing an FOI, but it can become a bigger problem if such non-personal information is withheld from the press filing an FOI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8947928)

In my FOI request, ... I purely only wanted to find out the total number of VI's that have been issued by the 2 said officers, so that I can compare it the same numbers from all members of the VPD. This will allow me to tell whether the said officiers have been disportionately taking on this VI intitiative, and potentially build a case there to have the situation changed.

Scenario 1 - Cain is completely out of line with what the VPD is trying to achieve, there are probably babies being murdered right now and Cain is ignoring those calls on the radio so that he can focus on issuing VI's to fucbois. Cain has a personal vendetta against those whom modify their vehicles and prioritizes VI's over all else. Cain is also upset that his name has been dragged through the mud by a bunch of geeks on the internet and he will do anything to stick it to them!

Scenario 2 - VPD Management made an executive decision to increase enforcement of the MVA, targeting modified vehicle, Cain was specifically tasked with leading this charge and educating other members on the force regarding the MVA and related enforcement. He's just doing his job.

Yeah, I know it's a long shot but I'm going to stick with scenario 2...

Speaking of whether or not this is still happening, my buddy has a car which he uses for business. He's not a car guy or in the scene or even cares. But he happened to buy a lowered Jetta, because it was cheap. He got a box 2 and asked me what it was LOL.

FOI doesn't work this way. You cannot request VPD to tabulate the "stats" as per your FOI request. W/o seeing how you word your request, I am presuming to satisfy your FOI, each one of those VI would need to be disclosed, hence the denial based on personal information.

If you know there is a report that outline the statistics you are looking for, then sure FOI that document.

can you actually make a FOI request on specific personnel?

that seems...very personal

it's like when your clients ask your boss on your stats but they're not not interested in obtaining sensitive information, just want numbers

uhh, of course they ain't getting that

i would be pissed if my employers gave those kind of internal material out willy-nilly, regardless of private/public sector