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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollface (Post 8975010)

Does traffic even matter?

I don't think traffic "adds" to noise. It's not like if your car is 60db and a 60db car drives buy it's going to read 120db.

What I meant by what I said was, at any given time at that particular location you could easily read higher than the 83-84db limit just from truck/vehicle/bike/train traffic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollface (Post 8975010)

Does traffic even matter?

I don't think traffic "adds" to noise. It's not like if your car is 60db and a 60db car drives buy it's going to read 120db.

Of course ambient, background noise affects dB readings.

Nice troll though.

Still waiting for your 2018 statement of this all blowing over soon to come through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkunkWorks (Post 8975015)

Of course ambient, background noise affects dB readings.

Nice troll though.

Still waiting for your 2018 statement of this all blowing over soon to come through.

It doesn't help when you got guys like the widebody cayman guy screaming they're a victim of a VI on Instagram when that thing violates every single section of the MVA and rips around like Ken Block driving to Walmart.

^
Nobody has a problem with that guy getting a VI. Go ahead, nail the outliers... give speeding tickets to the guys driving 90 in a 50 weaving through traffic. VI that crazy ass Cayman. Give a ticket to the guy talking with his phone to his ear or texting someone while driving.

Go after the people who deserve to be gone after. That's proper policing.

But instead they're savaging students, low>middle class people just trying to personalize their ride a little bit and have something to be proud of in this materialistic overpriced shantyville we all live in, people with phones sitting in cupholders and everyone that just happens to be going 70 in a 50 with flow of traffic. Is that still policing? I don't think so.

lol cain messed with the porsche club

probably the only club you don't want to mess with

rich folks with couple law firms

If anybody wants to do some reading on the noise issue, here's some links:

Noise Emissions (Standard 1106)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....html#h-481094

Test Method for Standard 1106
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents..._2005R-eng.pdf

And this tidbit from the testing method which should void any roadside tests:

3.2 Test Site Requirements
3.2.1 The test site shall be such that the vehicle radiates sound into a free field over a
reflecting plane. This condition may be considered fulfilled if the test site consists of
an open space free of large reflecting surfaces such as parked vehicles, signboards,
buildings, or hillsides, located within 30.5 m (100 ft.) of either the vehicle path or the
microphone (see Figure 1).

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollface (Post 8975010)

Does traffic even matter?

I don't think traffic "adds" to noise. It's not like if your car is 60db and a 60db car drives buy it's going to read 120db.

Actually... it does. Decibel levels measures sound waves, which behave very similarly to waves in water. if you drop a pebble into a pond, it creates ripples. if you drop two pebbles and the ripples intersect, the waves become higher. save thing happens with sound waves. they can also bounce off other surfaces and amplify itself without any other source of sound like driving through a tunnel.

i don't doubt that some cars are too loud, but testing decibel levels on the side of a street is completely inaccurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8975031)

https://www.facebook.com/pcacanadawe...lcQ&__tn__=K-R

Porsche Club of America: Canada West Region
·

VANCOUVER AUTO ENTHUSIAST TRAFFIC VIOLATION ALERT: PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS AS AFFECTS YOU - THE AUTO ENTHUSIAST!

PLEASE SHARE TO OTHER VANCOUVER CAR CLUBS!

#VPD

With spring around the corner, many of our Porsche Club members are getting ready to enjoy nice drives. However, we need to caution you about the possibility of receiving undeserved traffic violation tickets because you are driving a Porsche.
Our member has commuted daily in his completely stock and unmodified 911 Targa 4S for the past 4 years (purchased new from Porsche Vancouver). His attention to safety is reflected on his clean driving record and by not having a single incident in his Porsches.
Our member was crossing the Burrard Bridge, driving in traffic safely within the speed limits when he was stopped by a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) officer. After he was pulled over, the VPD officer ordered him to reverse his car directly into oncoming traffic for over 50 feet across 3 lanes to park on the right shoulder of the bridge. Once parked the VPD officer performed a noise test using his handheld decibel reader which he held directly into our member’s exhaust system. The VPD officer instructed our member to rev his car to 3,500 rpm (why so high) in both normal and in sports mode. (As you can see from the video the Burrard Bridge is a noisy area that consistently produces loud background ambient noises that exceed 75 decibels.
The VPD officer issued him a ticket EA00038512 for excessive noise. What we all need to know is that this ticket carries 3 demerit points which will adversely affect your ICBC drivers insurance premiums on all your vehicles (this member has 5 vehicles). The officer also issued him with Notice and Order 3526080 and instructed him to get a full vehicle inspection on his car at a Porsche Dealership.
Our member promptly brought his car to Porsche Vancouver first thing the following morning. They directed him to BC inspection facility S13850 to get his car inspected. The vehicle inspection facility confirmed that his 911 Targa 4S was completely stock and completely unmodified and the noises emitted in both regular and sports mode were safely within the legal limits.
Watch the video the video of Todd Coupal - Porsche Club Safety Chairman driving our member’s 911 Targa 4S at the same speed at the same location to recreate what happened). You must ask why this Porsche was targeted? This car is NOT loud in any way. Joel Parker - Porsche Club’s former Chairman who also drove our member’s car affirmed that this stock 911 Targa 4S isn’t a loud vehicle.
On behalf of our members, we request to have a candid meeting and conversation with Deputy Chief Howard Chow and Superintendent Steve Eely and Inspector Earl Andersen to understand the VPD’s reasoning behind what happened to our member. As importantly we need to learn directly from them what our 800+ members can do to avoid a similar situation.
We believe it is a matter of public trust. Trust between drivers and the Police are important. While nobody should pity Porsche owners, nobody should ever be targeted and unfairly punished because they drive a sports car.
Please comment and forward this notice to friends from other automotive clubs and groups.
Together we can work productively with the VPD to help make driving safe and also free from undeserved harassment. We sincerely look forward to hearing from officers Chow, Eely and Andersen and the VPD. This conversation is important and frankly long overdue.

A little late to the show ;)

From what I am gathering, road side decibel readings aren't even valid then?

However, at the officer's discretion, only needs to BELIEVE there is something with the vehicle that doesn't comply and can issue a VI anyway, isn't that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRSky88 (Post 8975038)

It's my interpretation that it could be under the officer's discretion unfortunately. I believe that's what happened in my traffic stop. I believe I successfully proved my exhaust was indeed OEM from factory, but because he didn't like how loud it was he gave me the noise ticket and not a VI.

I am NOT a lawyer or have any training in law, but the 2012 case of R v. Tootill that went to the Supreme Court had a line in it that stood out to me:
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/SC/1...12BCSC1015.htm

[15] The thrust of the defence evidence in this case was whether or not the officer used his sound level meter correctly or not in accordance to some standards that have been prescribed. I note that officer did not charge pursuant to s. 219, therefore we are not dealing with the objective standard which would involve the meter, in this case, whether or not the officer used his sound level meter accurately or not is not of relevance. The officer decided to charge under s. 7A.01 of the Regulations. That is the subjective section.

[22] Mr. Tootill also suggests that Judicial Justice Lim ought to have rejected Constable Bercic’s subjective evidence on the basis that his sound level metre was not accurate or not prescribed. I agree with the conclusion of Judicial Justice Lim that the charge was not under s. 219 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, it did not involve an objective standard of whether or not the officer used the sound level metre accurately. Judicial Justice Lim correctly considered the evidence relevant to the charge under s. 7A.01 of the Regulations which prescribes a subjective test.

-----

And here's Section 219 for your reference:
Motor Vehicle Act

Equipment of motor vehicles
219 (1)A person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway or rent a motor vehicle or trailer unless it is equipped in all respects in compliance with this Act and the regulations.

(2)A peace officer

(a)may require a person who carries on the business of renting vehicles or who is the owner or person in charge of a vehicle

(i)to allow the peace officer to inspect a vehicle offered by the person for rental or owned by or in charge of the person, or

(ii)to move a vehicle described in subparagraph (i) to a place designated by the peace officer and to allow the vehicle to be inspected there by the peace officer, or, at the expense of the person required, to present the vehicle for inspection by a person authorized under section 217, and

(b)must remove any inspection certificate of approval affixed to the vehicle if, in the opinion of the peace officer or a person authorized under section 217, the vehicle is unsafe for use on a highway.

(3)An owner of a motor vehicle or trailer must not permit it to be driven or operated on a highway unless it is equipped in all respects in compliance with this Act and the regulations.

(4)In subsection (3), "owner" means

(a)the owner, or

(b)in the case of a vehicle that is leased for a term of 30 days or more, the person who leases the vehicle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8975019)

100%, but for sure we get lumped into the same group in the eyes of the general public. Not to go off-topic but look at all the gun rights groups etc, the guys that go to the extremessssssssss are always used as the poster child for the opposition. The real kicker is these guys that go to the extremes are always the loudest and most public.

If anything happens from that Porsche movement, VPD may at best just decide to leave pcars alone that's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expresso (Post 8975116)

If anything happens from that Porsche movement, VPD may at best just decide to leave pcars alone that's it.

Seriously, if I were VPD upper management, that's exactly what I'd do. And it is stupid to target stock Porsches in the first place since they are not loud unless it is a GT car with the driver really getting on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8975123)

That would be a big problem in itself. Unfair and prejudice targetting, I mean they've already snooped down so low anyways, I guess it wouldn't matter to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snip3r (Post 8975027)

These documents are from 1977(revised 15 years ago, lol). CVSE only asks inspectors to compare to a similiar car with DB meter when exhaust is aftermarket, and instructs them to assess that the DB is similiar and reasonable for the engine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coupelove (Post 8975139)

Great, can you link me the new updated documents? (seriously, I need them for my dispute).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expresso (Post 8975116)

If anything happens from that Porsche movement, VPD may at best just decide to leave pcars alone that's it.

I'm ok with this.

PCA decals will be the new PBA decals up here :lol

Saw this post on VPD's Facebook and thought to myself... Hmmm... Who's bullying who now?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaJo (Post 8975183)

Saw this post on VPD's Facebook and thought to myself... Hmmm... Who's bullying who now?...

My favourite is the guy calling out people for being "whiney" when they're posting about being bullied by the VPD for their cars - which they're doing in an appropriate way.

*edit*

I think he deleted his comments lol

Hi everyone, I'm usually a lurker on here, but today I saw a comment on Reddit of this guy's experience with the VPD. It's not VI-related, but it seems like the VPD has started to act like they're above the law not only with us car enthusiasts but with the general public as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comm...ed_at/fgwi716/

Quote:

I’m from Vancouver. I got my car hit on the side. It was a green light for me and a red light for them. We pull over and I ask to exchange licenses. The passenger gives his license while the driver refuses. He turns it around and yells at me saying I’m the one that hit his car. His speech was slurred and it was obvious he was drunk. His alcohol stench was strong.

He calls me racist slurs and threatens to beat me up. I pull out my phone and record. The guy said he’s calling the cops on me. I call the police too and tell him let’s wait. He tells the police that he was hit by a drunk driver all while his friend starts trash talking me. The idiot friend legit says he’s going to get his lawyer to sue me and bankrupt me all the way back to China. While on the phone, the driver was wobbly and his face noticeably red. While this was happening another driver who I don’t know but saw the crash stopped by and said he’d be a witness. He was an Indian taxi driver.

I’m a Chinese male in my early 20s and the two of them were caucasians in their early 30s. Police come and I try to explain the situation and they tell me to step back and wait. They talk to them first and come back to talk to me. They were laughing and making small talk with the driver and his friend who crashed into me.

Without hearing my side of the story, they started talking to me in an accusatory tone. Asking if I drank or if I’m under the influence. I firmly deny it. They accuse me and say they can smell it off me and they see kids like me all the time. One of the cops said the other is a “specialist,” in matters like this and had lots of experience.

I do a breathalyzer and it comes out fine. They then said it’s fine and I should go home. “Stop starting drama.” Just admit I’m a reckless driver. They said I’m sober but ran a red light, which doesn’t change the situation. I’m flabbergasted and tell him to take a breathalyzer of the other driver because he’s obviously drunk. The officer says no because he has no reason to test him because the driver shows no obvious signs of impairment. The taxi driver argues for me and the police simply ignore his pleas and tells him to go home. My phone was still on and one police officer grabs it and the other grabs me and aggressively pushes me against my car. They take my phone and delete the video. They tell the other two who ran into my car to go home and they’ll take care of everything.

The police start calling me a smartass and saying if I don’t go home they’ll charge me. An argument ensues. I agree to their terms and get my phone back but I try writing down their id numbers.

One gets mad and snaps my phone out of my hand. He says, you know what, I’m impounding your car for an immediate roadside prevention because I pissed him off and now it’s too late. He’s also ticketing me for failure to display an “N” sign. My N sign was clearly there. They also tacked on something to the likes of failure to abide by your license restrictions (in this case failure to display N sign.) I ask to get my phone back. One of them says the way I talked back is irritating and they might accident drop my phone and break it because he has a headache. I ask him how is he saying all this, doesn’t he have a dash cam? He laughs in my face and says I watch too many movies.

I don’t want to continue the story because it’s too long, but the police Breathalyzer has a unique number for each usage that tracks and has records of BAC, which mine was at 0. The stupid police officer thought he deleted my video but it was still in my recently deleted which I restored. They failed to realize I had a dash cam that proved my story to be 100% correct and I was driving in a straight line through an intersection while it was a green light, and the taxi driver also contacted me to be a witness.

The case was thrown out also immediately by the superintendent. The cop had failed to fill out paperwork for the IRP and he didn’t even sign his own signature at the bottom. The opposing driver was the one who initiated an ICBC claim on me, which I won.

The two remaining tickets (about failure to display N sign) were both thrown out because the police officer failed to show up to court. The impound lot noted that I had an “N” sign on my car when they received it. Note that I had not touched my car since the police impounded it, proving I had no way to put the N sticker on after the fact.

All in all, the drunk driver was saved by the two police officers who I suspect knew him or had an incentive to protect him. I got my car back and impound fee waived but it left an extremely sour taste in my mouth. I filed a formal complaint but I’m worried it wouldn’t make a difference. I literally came from work after a 6 hour shift and since I work at a public library, we had cameras and I was on camera the entire time except for a washroom break. The incident happened a 5 minute drive from my workplace.

Wow good guy taxi driver... Who would have known.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by yiggy (Post 8975238)

"Beyond the call"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snip3r (Post 8975246)

"Beyond the call"

Is it just me or have they just recently hired a batch of bad apples?... Things hasn't look good for the VPD in the past few years. I used to look up to them too...