PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy

[Manic!]

About 30 minutes ago I was driving over Granville street bridge. (not 100% sure) Saw a cop with a scope. A grey Subaru? pulled over 3 motorcycle cops and police van.

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Saw a cop with a scope a grey Subaru? pulled over 3 motorcycle cops and police van.

this post gave me mania

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

not even VPD nor in/around CoV so i dont see the big deal

at least this is more appropriate

RESIST THE RACE

I used to love having that decal on my windows in mexico.

Berz out.

[68style]

Holy 15 years ago, how'd you get a pic with so many megapixels from back then lol

[Gh0stRider]

At least Delta knows how to do it.

[Berzerker]

Wait. So are they saying if you DON'T get the repairs done in 30 days you get a fine? Or is that worded incorrectly.

If caught driving after 30 days without a valid inspection he will get a $598 dollar fine. Fucking Scare Tactics

You can't give someone a time limit to get repairs done especially if they are costly.

Berz out.

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

Wait. So are they saying if you DON'T get the repairs done in 30 days you get a fine? Or is that worded incorrectly.

If caught driving after 30 days without a valid inspection he will get a $598 dollar fine. Fucking Scare Tactics

You can't give someone a time limit to get repairs done especially if they are costly.

Berz out.

i don't think it's a fine on the driver. i think all box 2's come with a "you must comply within 30 days or the car is uninsurable" so the fine would be driving around with no insurance? or something related to the car itself.

if he/she were to drive a different car after 30 days of not getting the inspection done then there would be no fine issued to the driver.

[Berzerker]

Originally Posted by Indy

i don't think it's a fine on the driver. i think all box 2's come with a "you must comply within 30 days or the car is uninsurable" so the fine would be driving around with no insurance? or something related to the car itself.

if he/she were to drive a different car after 30 days of not getting the inspection done then there would be no fine issued to the driver.

Exactly. The way they word the tweet though is "get it fixed in 30 days or else" when in actual fact you can take as long as you need but driving the car after 30 days without a valid inspection is the fine and you'll get towed and impounded.

Berz out.

[jing]

Originally Posted by Berzerker

Wait. So are they saying if you DON'T get the repairs done in 30 days you get a fine? Or is that worded incorrectly.

If caught driving after 30 days without a valid inspection he will get a $598 dollar fine. Fucking Scare Tactics

You can't give someone a time limit to get repairs done especially if they are costly.

Berz out.

$598 failure to comply. Plus instant upgrade to box 1. Happened to me in 2010. Did not get impounded but the car must be taken immediately off public roads.

[radioman]

https://livestream.com/accounts/7707...032BhP0BHm9h0A

Tune in folks!

[bcedhk]

the board who are voting seems to have zero clue on what they are saying yay or nay for (just look at the half-ass hand raises).

[Dbone]

At least one guy asked questions.

If another one or two come up then they might take notice.

[nexusxv]

Originally Posted by radioman

https://livestream.com/accounts/7707...032BhP0BHm9h0A

Tune in folks!

The main part is 10 last minutes. In summary cops are using the MVA only, however the mva is waaaay more loose then cvsa. For example MVA does not mandate the side reflectors for most passenger vehicles, while cvsa does.

Unfortunately no one knows what Cain and co is enforcing right now....

[bcedhk]

Can someone explain then (maybe it's been answered before?) why a VI cannot be challenged in court if they are basing it on the MVA under their "best judgement?"

When you get a speeding ticket, it's also under a violation of the MVA, but at least you get to challenge it in court. And even with little evidence, you usually get a reduced fine.

[mb_]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

Can someone explain then (maybe it's been answered before?) why a VI cannot be challenged in court if they are basing it on the MVA under their "best judgement?"

When you get a speeding ticket, it's also under a violation of the MVA, but at least you get to challenge it in court. And even with little evidence, you usually get a reduced fine.

I'm thinking it's because things you get VI'd for is a regulation and not an act

[Sprayed]

http://ow.ly/Av1I30oWi4V

News article on the profiling and Chief Palmer's response.

[SpeedStars]

I like how they stress safety and the chiefs' wording of essentially officers using "common sense" to determine whether vehicles require a VI or not. Funny thing is, there were vehicles that were given VIs that if common sense was used, it would seem apparent that those vehicles were 100% perfectly legal to be on the road. I'm specifically referring to Badhobz' maz and the Abarth 124.

[Traum]

Hello RS. This is Rick here. Sorry I haven't been able to post an update until now.

First of all and more important than anything else, I want to thank Connor, Gabe, and anyone and everyone who has come to, or live stream watched the Police Board meeting today. Thank you for your support.

As you already know, my service and policy complaint to the OPCC / Vancouver Police Board regarding VI's has been dismissed at today's Police Board meeting. This is unfortunate, but at the same time, I'd say it is entirely within my expectation.

The dismissal means that as far as the Vancouver Police Board is concerned, the actions taken as a result of the VPD investigation is satisfactory to the Police Board, and no further action is required. As a quick recap, and only actual action that has resulted from the investigation is a soon-to-be-ready supplemental in-service training that will be delivered (presumably to the traffic unit) by June 30. Personally, I have very little faith that this supplemental in-service training will ease our VI woes. If any different outcome were to be expected, I'd actually think that the supplemental training material will remind the VPD officers to be more careful when issuing VI's, making sure that they would commit fewer careless errors that would create chances for us to catch on and complaint about.

From the OPCC side, I believe I'd still have an opportunity to ask the OPCC for a review on the complaint's dismissal. My expectations to achieve any positive and meaningful outcomes from this is very low. Nevertheless, I would, at a minimum, like to explore this possibility further. If I manage to come up with a number of counter-arguments that I feel would be strong enough rebuttals to the investigation report's findings, I will ask for a review. I believe I have 28 to 30 business days to proceed with this (depending on what day we use to start counting).

I've talked to the secretary lady from the Police Board after the meeting, and according to her, in theory I can request to have "something" with the Police Board on the same topic at a future date. At a minimum, I can request to speak at another Police Board meeting. But since the Board has already previously heard my complaint -- both through the formal documents as well as my 5-min speech from today -- they are unlikely to recommend anything different than the current outcome. My gut feeling on this one is, the secretary lady is being truthful with me here, instead of just trying to brush me off or dissuade me from continuing. Additionally, given the level of response from the board members today, I see little point in continuing with the Vancouver Police Board route unless something drastically new or different has come up.

The single best thing that came out of today's board meeting is that the veteran report, Marcella Bernardo from News 1130 / City News, has picked up on our complaint while she was there to provide media coverage on the meeting. From what I can tell, she threw some tough questions at the VPD chief regarding this topic, and has subsequently produced a well and thoroughly written news article about it:

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/06...based-on-race/

I am obviously disappointed by today's outcome, but I can't say I am dejected. I'm gonna try to step away from this for a couple of days just to catch my breath, digest the outcome, and re-collect my thoughts.

Thank you for your interest on this matter, and thank you for your support.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

Can someone explain then (maybe it's been answered before?) why a VI cannot be challenged in court if they are basing it on the MVA under their "best judgement?"

When you get a speeding ticket, it's also under a violation of the MVA, but at least you get to challenge it in court. And even with little evidence, you usually get a reduced fine.

In a previous CTV article about the VI issue, a traffic lawyer has recommended that a challenge to have the VI dismissed will likely have to begin at the BC Supreme Court level. The registration fee alone starts at $200. And then there are lawyer fees. Nobody is gonna do that.

The VPD investigation report to my complaint has also indicated that should a driver believe he has been wronfully issued an N&O, the appropriate recourse is civil litigation. It is not obvious to me whether that means you sue at the provincial court level, the Supreme Court level, or whether it would just be a small claims court / Civil Resolution Tribunal type of thing.

The point is, there is no dispute mechanism like there is on a speeding ticket. This is why the VI mechanism is such BS.

[- kT]

I get continually discouraged by the lack of results, but it's the valiant and seriously respectable efforts of people like Traum and Bic Baws that remind me that it's never over until you throw in the towel. we all owe you guys our thanks. keep fighting the good fight - you have the support of the entire car community

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by Traum

In a previous CTV article about the VI issue, a traffic lawyer has recommended that a challenge to have the VI dismissed will likely have to begin at the BC Supreme Court level. The registration fee alone starts at $200. And then there are lawyer fees. Nobody is gonna do that.

The VPD investigation report to my complaint has also indicated that should a driver believe he has been wronfully issued an N&O, the appropriate recourse is civil litigation. It is not obvious to me whether that means you sue at the provincial court level, the Supreme Court level, or whether it would just be a small claims court / Civil Resolution Tribunal type of thing.

The point is, there is no dispute mechanism like there is on a speeding ticket. This is why the VI mechanism is such BS.

Thanks, I guess we will have to wait for a driver with deep pockets to spend the money and time to put this issue on the VDP spotlight again. I'm sure the traffic cops higher-ups will be pissed to have to deal with all the paperwork and interviews if this goes through.

[nexusxv]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

Thanks, I guess we will have to wait for a driver with deep pockets to spend the money and time to put this issue on the VDP spotlight again. I'm sure the traffic cops higher-ups will be pissed to have to deal with all the paperwork and interviews if this goes through.

Well, this is where group action law suits works best. But before we need to see what happens after their training. It is hard to get statistics on amount of VI, but main issue - it is impossible to get how many passed without changes. The only right thing, is bombard them with complaints, here quantity over quality would work only (IMHO).

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by nexusxv

Well, this is where group action law suits works best. But before we need to see what happens after their training. It is hard to get statistics on amount of VI, but main issue - it is impossible to get how many passed without changes. The only right thing, is bombard them with complaints, here quantity over quality would work only (IMHO).

I'm surprised there hasn't been a lobbying group amongst car tuning shops to pressure for a review on this issue. From just speaking with my local tuner, he already told me these VI's have impacted his business.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by Traum

In a previous CTV article about the VI issue, a traffic lawyer has recommended that a challenge to have the VI dismissed will likely have to begin at the BC Supreme Court level. The registration fee alone starts at $200. And then there are lawyer fees. Nobody is gonna do that.

The VPD investigation report to my complaint has also indicated that should a driver believe he has been wronfully issued an N&O, the appropriate recourse is civil litigation. It is not obvious to me whether that means you sue at the provincial court level, the Supreme Court level, or whether it would just be a small claims court / Civil Resolution Tribunal type of thing.

The point is, there is no dispute mechanism like there is on a speeding ticket. This is why the VI mechanism is such BS.

The appropriate court for the case (At least for civil litigation) is largely determined by the dollar value of the claim.



My suspicion is that despite the dollar value of a VI related claim likely being < $5,001 the CRT would not hear the case and would direct the claimant to file with Small Claims court.

Although the CRT or Small Claims court would potentially provide you with a favorable outcome (Assuming you've been wrongfully VI'd), it would likely do very little in terms of establishing meaningful case law that would potentially benefit others.

Assuming the a case of being "wrongful VI'd" made it to the Supreme Court of BC, and assuming that the court ruled in favor of the claimant, the decision would generate meaningful case law. However, the Province has the ability to amend or revise legislation (IE: The MVA) at any time, and a SC decision that is viewed as unfavorable to legislators would likely stimulate unfavorable revisions or amendments to the MVA to address what would essentially be viewed as existing flawed legislation.

The above is a gross simplification, and there are really two separate types of cases being discussed in this thread;

1. Where vehicles have not been modified (IE: 100% OEM vehicles with loud factory exhausts, this is what I've referred to as "wrongfully VI'd")
2. Where vehicles have been modified (IE: Modified vehicles with aftermarket exhausts)

My assumption is the example 1 would likely be successful with a civil claim and would be awarded damages... example 2 would not be successful with a civil claim and would not be awarded damages.

Having said all that, some people in this thread really enjoy "muddying the waters" attempting to confuse examples 1 and 2 for their benefit. Even if the VPD have "wrongfully" issued one N&O for VI to a 100% OEM vehicle it does not render their issuance of N&Os for VI to all vehicles as invalid (Especially those that are modified, even just a little...).

[nexusxv]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

I'm surprised there hasn't been a lobbying group amongst car tuning shops to pressure for a review on this issue. From just speaking with my local tuner, he already told me these VI's have impacted his business.

Everybody confused. Hard to tell what the scale is , hard to proof abuse of power, because it is done with the name of safety. Unfortunately law is similar to cellphone in the cup holder or asset forfeiture laws (that our almighty personkind prime minister is pushing, take the sht and proof on you part). The only thing would work, is amount of buzz from media and complains. That is why what Traum and other did is important - now it is a record of that mess. Before it was a bunch of losers with "unsafe cars".