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.
Cops know nothing more than "sport mode". Told me the same bullshit and threatened me with a VI when I got my excessive noise. He's like you have it in sport mode. Im like I don't have a sport mode that controls the exhaust.
I've said it before how it went down.
He thought I had an F30 (Regular 3 series), then he thought it was an F80 (M3 - inline 6 TT), I had to tell him it was the older generation E90 with the V8 that's why its louder than other 3 Series. He looked at my muffler from behind and saw nothing lol.
First time being pulled over by TRAFFIC VPD while driving my STI. I was taking the side streets since 12th was blocked off between Kingsway and Fraser. The traffic cop was parked right after a turn where you can't see him. The cop tells me I was speeding over 30km/h on the side street which I can't be because I was pacing a cyclist from behind. He also mentioned I did a rolling stop at the stop sign and I'll admit to that. He gave me a warning for both.
He asked me if my exhaust was stock. I answered: "I wasn't sure because I bought it as is at a dealership". He mentions the tips were changed and started to do a sound test on me. He asked me what my max RPMs were in the vehicle and I said 6500 RPMs. He looks into my dash and says no it is 8000 RPMs to correct me. I have no clue to why he needs to know that?
He starts the test by asking me to rev to 3000 RPM and to hold it there for him to measure. It measured 89 and gave me a warning. He told me to change the exhaust tips of my car to reduce the noise.
The kicker to all of this was he was smoking a cigarette the whole time. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think smoking while on duty is very professional. I don't smoke while I'm working and I don't think many jobs allow you to.
Last thought, the amount of car knowledge these traffic cops have is very limited. They need to be educated better or at least present it more clear to the drivers they are pulling over. The cop kept mumbling about exhaust sound is too loud because of your exhaust tips.
I wonder if it was really a traffic cop that you came across?
As far as I know, it is still BC law that side streets are still 50km/h unless it has been marked otherwise with a speed limit sign. The province is contemplating to change the law and impose a 30km/h speed limit on side streets, but it was only supposed to be in the pilot testing phase for now (or maybe not even). Still, none of that really matters because the police can still issue you a "speed too fast for condition" type of BS ticket.
Assuming that he let you off with just warnings on the 2 items, I wouldn't sweat or care too much about how much or how little the cop knows.
He starts the test by asking me to rev to 3000 RPM and to hold it there for him to measure. It measured 89 and gave me a warning. He told me to change the exhaust tips of my car to reduce the noise.
I couldn't see unfortunately because I was in the vehicle holding the revs.
And you really don't want to get out of the car in that situation.
Many years ago, I was pulled over by Guildford RCMP. The bigest indo-Canadian cop that I've ever seen comes up to my window and tells me that my car is too low. As he's down on one knee measuring the road clearance, I get out of the car to see what he's doing.
The next thing I know, I have a pistol in my face and he's yelling at me to get back in the car.
Now, I could tell you that I went hero mode on him reminding him that this was, in fact, still Canada and I have rights, yo.
But no, instead I shat myself and promptly went back into the car. He gave a box1 inspection that night. That was the first of many negative experiences with the police.
This is why I've been such a negative prick in this thread. Because we fought the police and lost. Many times over! We had RS folks interviewed by the media, and we learned quickly about how they edit stories to fit their own narrative. As we've seen here, whether it's stock Lambos or riced out 240's, the cops are the cops and they have the power. It sucks, but like they told Harvey Specter, if you don't like it? Stay out of downtown. They're a glorified gang and we're the enemy.
Unless something dramatically beyond my expectations happen, I think this post will mark the conclusion of my attempt to fight the VPD regarding their N&O practices.
As you may recall, after the Police Board Meeting about a month ago where the Police Board dismissed my complaint based on the VPD's recommendation, I have a 20 business day window to submit a response to the OPCC to ask for a review of the police board's decision. I have just finished writing up my rebuttal last night / this morning, and it was submitted to the OPCC this morning. If you are interested in what I have written, the 11 page letter is available here. IMO, this rebuttal is more hastily and more poorly put together, esp when compared against my original complaint. Unfortunately, this is how the circumstances have caused things to pan out despite my best efforts.
As I have probably stated here in the thread more than a few times, I continue to believe that the current VI system is severely flawed and unfair. I continue to stand by what I have written and said in both my original complaint, as well as the most recent rebuttal. Disappointingly, I think Chief Palmer's dismissive attitude as seen in the June Police Board meeting is indicative of how the VPD will view my complaint -- they do not fully understand where or how this is unjust, and quite frankly, they probably don't care. As such, I expect the VPD to more or less continue with their flawed "enforcement" of N&O as before, but as suggested by Jasonturbo, they will probably have smarted up a bit, and cleaned up their practices a bit so that any flaws in their enforcement practices wouldn't be as obvious, thereby giving us fewers excuses to pick on those flaws.
And in the end, maybe that is all my complaint can achieve. To have the VPD clean up their act a bit so that they will be more careful with their word choices when they try to pick on our rides. And for us, now that we are more aware of their practices of picking on us, we'll be more careful to maintain a lower profile so as to not draw as much attention to ourselves.
Lastly, I want to thank everyone who have helped me throughout this complaint process. Whether it was providing me with information and suggestions, or sharing your stories or your friends' stories of how they have been unfairly picked on, I appreciate all the interactions that have come out of this. Especially in regards to the rebuttal report, I want to thank Aria Auto Service for their time and the research work that they have put into to help me put one of the rebuttal arguments together.
Rick, thank you again for all your hard work and diligence approaching this topic from the beginning to the now.
For many of those who have criticized all 136 pages of this thread, let it be known that Rick had followed all the proper procedures in pursuing this case. We have went the media route, with the help of Angela Jung, CTV. We have went the legal route in a formal complaint to the VPD and OPCC.
For all the naysayers, come up with a better idea and follow through with it. This thread started out as a PSA, which later turned into creating plans and carrying out actionable items. As shown in this thread, the community here will help where they can.
The cop tells me I was speeding over 30km/h on the side street which I can't be because I was pacing a cyclist from behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum
As far as I know, it is still BC law that side streets are still 50km/h unless it has been marked otherwise with a speed limit sign.
Rules changed awhile ago. Any street without a center line is 30km or less. Cop prob meant you were speeding over 30km which is now against the law.
__________________
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture
My girlfriend's next period should be any day now, maybe I can drug her into letting me near her vagina. Apparently Nyquil fucks her up really good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsNoobAsItGets
I'm capable of many many many things. You may see me as a some guy on the internet but you don't know the half of it. I don't talk tough just for sh*ts & giggles but I do do tough things, bet my life on that!!
texas law requires two mirrors...
At least put the side mirror on the driver side, not the passenger side you dimwit. That's gotta be the biggest blind spot ever.
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Delta
Posts: 171
Thanked 140 Times in 47 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
As someone who's is about to take my motorcycle road test next week I'm quite familiar with the laws as I just took a practice test with my riding school last week.
The law for side streets is 50km unless marked otherwise, regardless if there's a painted center line or not.
I failed my practice road test for doing 30km on side street which was littered with parked cars on both sides and barely enough room for a mid-sized car to drive thru. My riding school said you fail unless you are doing proper speed (ie 50km), I explained, I slowed down as I couldn't see if a kid wasn't gonna run out or something, and he explained it doesn't matter to ICBC, they want you doing the speed limit.
As someone who's is about to take my motorcycle road test next week I'm quite familiar with the laws as I just took a practice test with my riding school last week.
The law for side streets is 50km unless marked otherwise, regardless if there's a painted center line or not.
I failed my practice road test for doing 30km on side street which was littered with parked cars on both sides and barely enough room for a mid-sized car to drive thru. My riding school said you fail unless you are doing proper speed (ie 50km), I explained, I slowed down as I couldn't see if a kid wasn't gonna run out or something, and he explained it doesn't matter to ICBC, they want you doing the speed limit.
I disagree with your driving school - ICBC always wants you to drive safely to 'road conditions', and police can ticket you for doing the speed limit in a torrential downpour if the road is 'unsafe' at higher speeds. Concern for pedestrian safety is near the top of their list.
I dated a lawyer in Whistler for years that worked ICBC cases, and ICBC would always try to marginalize pay-outs due to people not travelling the 'suggested' slower speeds (yellow signs) on the corners versus those that were travelling the speed limit. They would argue that the driver was not driving safely to road conditions and therefore failed to mitigate their damages.
Maybe the laws have changed, but I think your driving school is incorrect on this one.
I haven’t taken a drivers test in 17 years. But the licensing agent is looking for you to follow the rules. If it seems unsafe to do the posted limit, I’d make a vocal remark of the actual rule, and the reasoning why you are not doing so. But that’s just me. Otherwise your just knowingly (or unknowingly) breaking the rules.
As someone who's is about to take my motorcycle road test next week I'm quite familiar with the laws as I just took a practice test with my riding school last week.
The law for side streets is 50km unless marked otherwise, regardless if there's a painted center line or not.
I failed my practice road test for doing 30km on side street which was littered with parked cars on both sides and barely enough room for a mid-sized car to drive thru. My riding school said you fail unless you are doing proper speed (ie 50km), I explained, I slowed down as I couldn't see if a kid wasn't gonna run out or something, and he explained it doesn't matter to ICBC, they want you doing the speed limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedbra
I disagree with your driving school - ICBC always wants you to drive safely to 'road conditions', and police can ticket you for doing the speed limit in a torrential downpour if the road is 'unsafe' at higher speeds. Concern for pedestrian safety is near the top of their list.
I dated a lawyer in Whistler for years that worked ICBC cases, and ICBC would always try to marginalize pay-outs due to people not travelling the 'suggested' slower speeds (yellow signs) on the corners versus those that were travelling the speed limit. They would argue that the driver was not driving safely to road conditions and therefore failed to mitigate their damages.
Maybe the laws have changed, but I think your driving school is incorrect on this one.
I went through the same troubles as J.Bell. There was kids playing on the street during my N test and I slowed it down. I got nicked for going to slow in those sections. I still passed at the end but the lady noted I was going to slow in 50km sections. I let her know I can alternatively risk killing a kid instead if you like; she went very quiet and just got out. This was roughly 7 years ago.
I would say getting your license and being in court is very different situations. The only similarity would be ICBC will try to screw you one way or another which appears to be the case for us all here.
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Delta
Posts: 171
Thanked 140 Times in 47 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedbra
I disagree with your driving school - ICBC always wants you to drive safely to 'road conditions', and police can ticket you for doing the speed limit in a torrential downpour if the road is 'unsafe' at higher speeds. Concern for pedestrian safety is near the top of their list.
I dated a lawyer in Whistler for years that worked ICBC cases, and ICBC would always try to marginalize pay-outs due to people not travelling the 'suggested' slower speeds (yellow signs) on the corners versus those that were travelling the speed limit. They would argue that the driver was not driving safely to road conditions and therefore failed to mitigate their damages.
Maybe the laws have changed, but I think your driving school is incorrect on this one.
I also disagreed with my driving school, and explained I would never drive 50km down a street like that, as it doesn't seem safe to me, but they do this everyday and explained ICBC wants you to drive as per the rules regardless of the situation. If the sign says 50km, you drive 50km and if there is no sign always drive 50km. He said you can easily fail for driving to slow, and that's the #1 reason people fail motorcycle drivers tests, driving too slow.
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!
