Originally Posted by Traum
(Post 8936295)
The following are some of the points that I think might be of interest to the general RS community:
- I think Sgt Lee quite openly implied/acknowledged that the VPD is aware of the higher number of VI's that have been written up, esp by a certain officer that we all know about. They have spoken to the officer(s), and unsurprisingly, the officer(s) deny they were targeting a specific group of people. Instead, it is about safety, and the officer(s) back up their claims citing examples with more extreme modifications.
IMO, it is difficult to argue against that because that is more or less a model answer any typical police officer would have said. We all know what those more extreme examples might look like, and while the community knows innocent people and those with mild modifications undeserving of citations have been dragged into this, the more extreme examples continue to give the police legitimacy to keep doing what they have been doing. And without a willingness to speak up, we'd never be able to get out of this mess. (IMO, that most effective way is to file an official complaint with the police.)
- On the issue of the VPD officer sending vehicles to dealerships, Sgt Lee said to me that the ticketing officer(s) was claiming how he/they had previously come across situations where certain vehicle inspection facilities were doing a sloppy job in their inspections, passing cars that should not have been passed. Again, when the reasoning / model answer is presented like that, it is difficult to argue against it. Furthermore, the MVA specifically grants the ticketing officer the power to do this. (Section 7.08 of the MVA)
- Regarding my complaint on camber, Sgt Lee thinks there is very little he/VPD can do. He agreed that in the example I have presented using my own vehicle (where the manufacturer specs allows for rear camber up to 2.something°, meaning the camber will be obviously visible but is also non-adjustable), the current clause in the MVA doesn't sound right. But this issue is really more of a thing for the legislative arm of the provincial government to act on / respond to. This does not surprise me one bit because it is precisely what I had expected when I was drafting up my complaint. Sgt Lee mentioned that he will report back to his superior on how the MVA is unfair to some cars (such as mine). But without a larger volume of complaints, I don't expect any meaningful changes can occur.
- For my vehicle lowering complaint, Sgt Lee did not comment on the actual legal aspects of it, nor the (legal) accuracy of my accusations. I was disappointed about that, but again, it does not surprise me one bit. Instead, he suggested that I should contact CVSE to find out whether there are any clauses in the inspection manual that specifically allows/disallows vehicle lowering (within a 10cm height change). Another option he mentioned is to seek some legal advice from a lawyer that also happens to be an automotive enthusiast. Of course, that'd very quickly become cost-prohibitive, and I obviously cannot afford to do that.
- For VI, Sgt Lee acknowledge that currently there is no recourse for "wrongfully" given VI's, and that may seem unfair (esp when a finance cost will be incurred by the vehicle owner). At the same time, there are also no mechanisms in place to prevent the vehicle owner from receiving a VI with "illegal mods", changing back to stock, passing the VI, and claims that he has been wrongfully issued the citation. The only recommendation he can offer on this issue is for us to exercise our rights and speak up.
And on this note, because there is a real and tangible penalty imposed on the vehicle owner, the guilty-until-proven-innocent connotation and the lack of recourse for the wrongfully accused clearly violates the presumption of innocence that is our fundamental legal principle. In that sense, I think there is a strong argument that we can put forth. I plan on doing that in a separate complaint, but again, I won't be able to get to that any time soon. If others would like to come forward to take this on, or would like to include it as part of your complaint if you are already planning for one, I would very much encourage you to do so.
* * *
Going forward, Sgt Lee has indicated that if I want to, I can continue to pursue my complaint under service and policy complaints, and he will assist me in setting that up. Reading between the lines, however, I feel like this is VPD's subtle reminder that my complaint will be closed if I don't do anything soon. And with the way my questions / concerns are handled, I can't shake off the feeling that this initial step of the complaint process is really just a combined PR effort + screening process to cut down on the actual number of complaints the VPD has to process. From a business / PR management point of view, I am not at all surprised by it. But I am not going to be satisfied with a response like that.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, and it is aggravating that we have to go through and put up with all this when all I want to do is enjoy my car. But I will not relent -- at least, not at this point -- because the whole situation is still pissing me off.
|
