PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy

[R1CED`]

because it's kinda idiotic to check a social media/messaging app about speed traps when you're driving...at least with a navigation app like waze it's more likely you're using it on a phone mount/infotainment

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by R1CED`

because it's kinda idiotic to check a social media/messaging app about speed traps when you're driving...at least with a navigation app like waze it's more likely you're using it on a phone mount/infotainment

I actually check this thread before I make my commute to check if anything relevant to my commute has been posted... I don't have my phone mounted in any way when I drive.

Like I said, if there is a "whatsapp group", but apparently not used anyway, then I guess there's no point to it. No worries.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by eclipseman

Not the asian one from IC.com is it? He was legit. Always friendly to modded cars, and he also owned a Type R. He also did not work traffic as far as I can remember...

Originally Posted by 68style

I was a bit confused by that post too, I remembered having positive memories of white knight as a member...

I thought it was White Knight, but it was a long time ago. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.

But this particular officer was notorious for coming the meets in street clothes and checking out the cars. Then when he spotted those cars while on shift he would pull them over and give them a box 1. He knew exactly what modifications guys were doing, and had no mercy while he hunted those cars down. He was giving guys box 1 inspections for having a strut bar.

[R1CED`]

9am knight & 36th an unmarked f-150 with tonneau pulled over a jag s-type, older gentleman and wheels looked stock just very dirty with brake dust but the officer was checking his wheels

[BIC_BAWS]

Stop posting spotted here - Use Waze. If you want to be in the WhatsApp chat, and you're not just a lurker here, PM me your number.


Edit: Since it's not my group, approval will be based on join date, post count, and behaviour in this thread.

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

I thought it was White Knight, but it was a long time ago. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.

But this particular officer was notorious for coming the meets in street clothes and checking out the cars. Then when he spotted those cars while on shift he would pull them over and give them a box 1. He knew exactly what modifications guys were doing, and had no mercy while he hunted those cars down. He was giving guys box 1 inspections for having a strut bar.

Lol... must have been exciting for him. As close as he gets to being an "undercover" cop.

[!LittleDragon]

lol... I used to run a road block email list that would blast all the subscriber's phones with road block locations back in the day... Hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago...

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

Lol... must have been exciting for him. As close as he gets to being an "undercover" cop.

"My name is Brian O'Conner, and I'm a street racer"





With all due respect to Paul Walker. RIP

[320icar]

Originally Posted by BIC_BAWS

Stop posting spotted here - Use Waze. If you want to be in the WhatsApp chat, and you're not just a lurker here, PM me your number.


Edit: Since it's not my group, approval will be based on join date, post count, and behaviour in this thread.

Why not? Like it or not it’s part of the discussion.

[BIC_BAWS]

Originally Posted by 320icar

Why not? Like it or not it’s part of the discussion.

The original intent of the thread was to collect information. I think we can stay true to the intent by providing a platform that collects information on those who have been affected by the VI Blitz - by not posting spottings in here. While there's the pros of providing the spotting information to other members, the con is that this thread will be further cluttered.

Otherwise, this thread might as well just be another Speed Trap thread, because we really can't tell a difference if these are VI traps.

https://www.revscene.net/forums/5959...thread-13.html

[R1CED`]

wasn't a speed trap

I thought it was helpful to know they may be doing VI on stock vehicles totally non-performance related (ie. older Jaguar sedans), because all we hear here on a forum here are mostly boy racer vehicles

[underscore]

Originally Posted by R1CED`

because it's kinda idiotic to check a social media/messaging app about speed traps when you're driving

Inb4 people get handheld device tickets trying to avoid a VI.

Originally Posted by originalhypa

I thought it was White Knight, but it was a long time ago. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.

If I remember right, wasn't there White Knight and white_knight or something like that? One was a normal guy, one was scouting modded vehicles, just with similar user names.

Originally Posted by BIC_BAWS

Otherwise, this thread might as well just be another Speed Trap thread, because we really can't tell a difference if these are VI traps.

Or DUI checks, mobile device, stolen vehicle, etc, etc, etc. Christmas parties will be in full swing soon, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to risk helping some drunk driver avoid a roadblock.

[Traum]

Here is the (extremely) long blurb that I had been working on for the last little while. I am going to break the entire thing into 3 parts (for reasons that will become obvious once you read it), and I ask for your help in acting as my additional pairs of eyes -- to help me proof-read this, correct anything you notice that is incorrect, poorly written, or otherwise undesirable. I welcome any constructive recommendations that can help me make this better. Once an acceptable draft has been put together, I plan on sending it off to:

- the BC Minister of Transportation - Claire Trevena
- the Deputy Minister of Transportation - Grant Main
- my MLA
- Attorney General - David Eby
- the VPD complaints department
- the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner

I have little expectations on what could be achieved from a mere letter to the parties involved, but I cannot sit idly by and watch my passion and enthusiasm for cars and the local automotive culture get decimated by the authorities when they are not acting in the interests of the law and the principles behind them -- not when I have dedicated at least the past 10 years of my life to be part of it and contributed to it.

* * *

My name is XXXX XXXXX, and I am a long time automotive enthusiast. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the lack of clarity as well as the apparent absurdity in a certain section of the MVA. Additionally, as a result of this dubiously written section of the MVA, a large amount of anecdotal evidence is suggesting that members of the VPD are enforcing this poorly written piece of legislation rather arbitrarily, thereby turning it into a tool to unfairly penalize motorists with situations where there is little to no recourse on the losses suffered by the said motorists.

Specifically, there are 2 sections in the MVA that I find particularly troubling and worthy of concern, the first of which is "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 18 regarding wheel alignment. In the second clause of Section 18, the MVA says:

The caster, camber or toe-in of a vehicle shall not be out of adjustment to the extent that it is apparent visually.

Whichever lawmakers who drafted this clause clearly have zero automotive knowledge, nor have they consulted anyone from the automotive industry prior to writing this up. Wheel camber -- and in particular, a small amount of negative camber -- is not only helpful, but often times essential in contributing to good vehicle dynamics and stability. Automotive manufacturers know this, so they almost always design their vehicles to allow for a small amount of negative camber from the factory. Take my personal BC-registered vehicle, a 2014 Mazda2 hatchback, as example. It is a FWD vehicle that features front MacPherson struts and solid rear beam axle as its suspension design. According to factory specifications, the acceptable range of camber settings are +0.55° to -1.45° in the front, and -0.31° to -2.31° in the rear. In particular, because of the rear suspension design, rear camber is, for all practical purposes, non-adjustable.

Out on the streets of Metro Vancouver, members of the VPD have been known to issue N&O (Notice and Order) at Level 1 and 2 to vehicle owners while citing "visible camber" as the matter of non-compliance. This is highly problematic because the clause in Section 18 of the MVA is poorly written, and it does not take real world situations into account. As illustrated by the (real world) example using my own vehicle, camber measurements can easily go up to more than -2° and still fall entirely within manufacturer specifications. As a long time automotive enthusiast, I can tell you with certainty that a (wheel) camber angle of -2° is "visually apparent", and yet it is still entirely within the manufacturer's tolerance. (For what it is worth, I'd even say that -1.5° of negative camber is "visually apparent".) But in the eye of the BC MVA and some VPD members, this is unacceptable and provide sufficient grounds for a peace officer to issue an N&O. Even more insulting is the fact that as illustrated by the example mentioned above, certain vehicles have non-adjustable camber settings where the amount of camber you get straight from the factory falls squarely into the "illegal" range.

Personally, I find it utterly ridiculous that the province and the VPD are deeming this amount of negative camber to be unacceptable (and therefore illegal) when the subject matter experts -- the automotive manufacturers themselves, in this case -- have indicated that that level of alignment configuration is entirely within manufacturer specifications and totally acceptable. In addition to the manufacturers, any knowledgeable automotive enthusiast can tell you that a small and appropriate amount of negative camber can be very helpful to vehicle handling, dynamics, and stability. Indirectly, these characteristics translate into better automotive safety.

[Traum]

My second concern revolves around the VPD's execution of the MVA regarding vehicle ride height. In the MVA, there are only 3 sections that directly or indirectly discuss vehicle ride height. They are:

1) "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 7.091 regarding clearance height.

2) "Division 4 - Lamps" under Section 4.05(2) regarding headlamps (and their mounted heights).

3) "Division 25 – Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance" under Section 25.20(b) regarding changes in suspension height, which further relates to Section 25.21 (Limitation on operation) and 25.22 (Duties of authorized persons).

For #1, the MVA says:

A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4 500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.

For #2, the MVA says:

The headlamps must be mounted at a height of not less than 56 cm and not more than 1.37m.

For #3, the MVA says:

25.20(b)
[This Part applies to a vehicle that was] altered by changes to its suspension height by more than 10 cm from the original basic specification of the vehicle manufacturer,

25.21
A person must not drive, operate or park a vehicle on a highway until it has been presented to a designated inspection facility and an approved certificate of mechanical condition in a form set by the director has been issued in respect of the vehicle by an authorized person.

25.22(1) An authorized person must not issue a certificate under section 25.21 unless he or she is satisfied, and certifies on the certificate, that the vehicle complies with the Act and its regulations and is safe for use on the highway.

25.22(2) The provisions of sections 25.02 to 25.06, 25.09, 25.12 and 25.13 apply to persons issuing inspection certificates, operators of a designated inspection facility and authorized persons.

Note that no part of the above sections prohibits the changing of suspension height of a vehicle by 10cm or less. In other words, as long as the change in suspension height of a vehicle is 10cm or less, and that the height of the headlamps falls within the 56cm to 1.37m, and that the minimum clearance for all parts of the vehicle (other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway) is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway, the vehicle's ride height is in compliance with the MVA, and is therefore legal for on-road use.

Again, out on the streets of Metro Vancouver, members of the VPD have been known to issue N&O (Notice and Order) at Level 1 and 2 to vehicle owners while citing "the vehicle has been lowered" as the matter of non-compliance. In the absence of any violation against the aforementioned sections of the MVA, this is extremely problematic because it shows members of the VPD have an incorrect understanding of the law, and more importantly, is enforcing their own personal and arbitrary interpretations of the law when there is absolutely no legal basis for them to do so! As a member of the public, I find this totally unacceptable, and I think this practice must stop immediately. If the vehicle violates the clearance height requirements, the VPD officer is certainly welcomed to issue N&O or other citations as deemed appropriate. If the headlamps are too low as a result of vehicle lowering, the VPD officer is welcomed to issue N&O or other citations as deemed appropriate. If the vehicle has been lowered by more than 10cm, then again, the VPD officer is welcomed to issue N&O or other citations to ensure the vehicle complies with the MVA. But the mere fact of lowering a vehicle, without violating any of the other clauses of the MVA, does not make the said vehicle out of compliance against the MVA, and the VPD officer therefore has no legal grounds to issue that kind of notices or citations.

[Traum]

To the Minister of Transportation and her deputy, the Attorney General, and to all other MLAs, I urge you to revise these sections of the MVA so that they reflect reality, are factually based, and clearly define what is legal and acceptable without any ambiguity and what isn't. Members of the VPD are executors and enforcers of the law -- they are not subject matter experts in automotive engineering and designs, so they are poorly suited to interpret the true meaning of any number of poorly written legislations. Furthermore, the intention of the MVA is supposed to ensure vehicle and road safety -- it is not meant to act as a legal tool to intervene and suppress automotive enthusiasts when their passions do not deviate from the law nor the intentions of safety behind it.

To the VPD and the Police Complaint Commissioner -- and in particular to the rude and overly aggressive officer(s) who have been going on a wild VI-issuing spree lately -- please refrain from unfairly targeting vehicles that are perfectly safe and road-worthy, and take action to ensure that the police' authority is not being abused. Any poor and half-baked understanding of the MVA and arbitrary interpretations of the law against motorists make the entire police force look extremely unprofessional; irresponsible actions from select members of the VPD are enough to leave a very poor impression of the entire police force among the general public. Furthermore, I must emphasize (as many have probably done so in the past) that the Vehicle Inspection mechanism utilized by the VPD is a deplorable tool because it instantly and automatically penalizes the motorist with the financial costs of an inspection even if the vehicle is in full compliance with the MVA. When an innocent member of the public is penalized for a crime that he did not commit, when a motorist is slapped with the financial, time, and emotional burdens of proving himself innocent when he has not broken any laws, justice is not being served, and that is absolutely detrimental to society.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply regarding my concerns and requests on this matter.

XXXX XXXXX
Vancouver, BC
604-XXX-XXXX

[SSM_DC5]

Some feedback for you. I get a mixed sense of formal and informal tone from it. I suggest stay consistent and go with formal.



why not combine this
1) "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 7.091 regarding clearance height.

...
For #1, the MVA says:

A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4 500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.

to


1) "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 7.091 regarding clearance height, which states the following

"A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4 500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway."

at the bare minimum, change says to "states" or "states the following"






You define Notice and Order then put abbreviations, be consistent with all abbreviations, for instance, VPD, MVA. define it the first time you use it, then use abbreviations the rest of the letter. like this
Vancouver Police Department (VPD)
Motor Vehicle Act (MVA)



For this
To the VPD and the Police Complaint Commissioner -- and in particular to the rude and overly aggressive officer(s) who have been going on a wild VI-issuing spree lately -- please refrain from unfairly targeting vehicles ....

What's the -- all about? are you trying to indicate where you will bold?




perhaps throw in the end, that you would gladly show them further evidence to back up your claims, assuming you have some prepared. like youtube videos or example's of VI tickets, etc.





and this isn't feedback, but more so, words of encouragement. What you have so far is pretty good and it's almost something I would copy paste and send to the list of people you are going to send it to. Keep updating us with what you have, so in the end, my lazy butt can copy paste it.

[True.True]

Raised my car with 2 turns of coil overs and slapped my stock exhaust on. And passed my LEXUS at Richmond Honda even though my VI says I have to do it at a Lexus/toyota dealership. What a waste of time/money

[SSM_DC5]

Originally Posted by True.True

Raised my car with 2 turns of coil overs and slapped my stock exhaust on. And passed my LEXUS at Richmond Honda even though my VI says I have to do it at a Lexus/toyota dealership. What a waste of time/money

How much did 2 turns change your car? Takes 3 turns to move about 1.5 millimeters on mine.

[bb4srv]

I scanned your initial letter and I find the tone quite aggressive and condescending. Keep in mind that if you decide to write to a government agency, especially when addressed to the Minister, the tone should be professional and grammatically correct. The Ministry would not take your letter seriously as written.

Once you have a final draft, post it here and PM me and I can edit it for you.

Plus, it should be Solicitor General, Mike Farnworth - not Eby

Originally Posted by Traum

I welcome any constructive recommendations that can help me make this better.

[hud 91gt]

I agree with the above. Keep it formal, professional and without any slagger.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by Traum

I welcome any constructive recommendations that can help me make this better.

If i may, might i suggest that you finish it off with a few screenshots of content from officer Cain's private Instagram account

[snails]

Originally Posted by welfare

If i may, might i suggest that you finish it off with a few screenshots of content from officer Cain's private Instagram account

In for more information on this..

[68style]

4 motorcycle cops were pulling people around 6pm this evening all along 70th east of Oak... there was no radar from Oak bridge like usual just pulling cars seemingly at random out of traffic, saw a stock 2003 Civic having to cycle through it’s various lights at the officers instructions close to Marine Drive and closer to Oak they were yarding over a stock Range Rover Sport too.

Too bad people with completely stock vehicles are unlikely to be part of RS or privy to any kind of movement from the car scene.

[CorneringArtist]

Originally Posted by 68style

4 motorcycle cops were pulling people around 6pm this evening all along 70th east of Oak... there was no radar from Oak bridge like usual just pulling cars seemingly at random out of traffic, saw a stock 2003 Civic having to cycle through it’s various lights at the officers instructions close to Marine Drive and closer to Oak they were yarding over a stock Range Rover Sport too.

Too bad people with completely stock vehicles are unlikely to be part of RS or privy to any kind of movement from the car scene.

So now it's anyone for roadside inspection. Aren't there more important traffic issues to address?

[TypeRNammer]

While I was driving the 49 bus heading east bound, as I was crossing Victoria drive. I see this motorcycle cop heading the same direction. Then all of sudden starts speeding up, passes two cars in the opposing lane without any lights only to pull over a modded FJ Cruiser. Didn't even look that modded to begin with, some sort of Desert color, after market bumpers, slight lift kit, bigger tires.

This was around 10pm