PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy

[J.C]

Originally Posted by BIC_BAWS

Visible camber(RE - all cars that they see with visible camber including fresh off the lot cars

MVA: Wheels cannot poke outside of the fender.
CVSE: Factory specific thresholds for camber.

Police: No visible camber.

Most cars come cambered from factory - take a look at a BMW show room.

MVA Regulations Division 7 - Other Equipment - 18


License plate positioning must also be horizontal and unobstructed
MVA Regulations Division 3 - Display and Use of Number Plates - 3.02/3.03

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by westopher

I'll be sure to purchase a dash cam because I should be expecting to have unprovoked altercations with the police all of a sudden after 16 years of driving with no issues. Silly me.

Not a knock on you personally, but i'm a big advocate for dashcams only because of all the garbage we see in the "dangerous drivers" and "dashcam rolling" threads.

I don't feel safe driving without one anymore cause video evidence has saved my ass several times already, including against false witness claims.


Anyhow, I am rather surprised not much video has surfaced yet relative to all the VI incidents. I would have thought more people have dashcams rolling these days.

[westopher]

I'd like to get one, but to be honest I'm not well versed in car wiring, and I don't like people fucking around with the wiring in a 21 year old German car that is a rats nest to begin with. Or messing with the headliner, dash, a pillar covers, etc that are an absolute miracle they haven't disintegrated yet. The GARBAGE dash cam installs I have seen make me nervous.

[twitchyzero]

ive only done a few
while pulling headliner/trims makes it easier but not necessary for front
adding a rear channel is when it gets to be a pita
if you have a spare cigarette socket that's an option if you still aren't confident with add-a-fuse

[68style]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

if over margin of error,+/- 5kph of speed limit, i'll bite my tongue and pay
if i somehow missed that police was observing me jaywalk, i'll bite my tongue and be responsible for my action
but that makes me a cuck, right?

some checks and balance to the discussion is not healthy? we likely have one shot to come to the public with this, if the argument is quite flawed then it won't go well

did your fellow is300 friend have this?

https://youtu.be/C293JUqZkQM?t=187

no one's gonna die over that but i'm not sure i can call that mild

You just don’t get it... police suddenly up in your face about stuff they never enforced before because reasons nobody knows and you don’t think it’s a problem. Fair enough, keep on keeping on then. Why post in this thread anymore?

That’s not even the same engine on that IS300, that’s a 3SGE not a 1JZ and his had a silencer (you can choose when you buy any HKS whether it comes with it or not)... but thanks for trying (and failing miserably) to invalidate what I’m saying by picking in 1 out of 10+ examples that were off the top of my head let alone going through this whole thread for people that are being picked on in an irrational and questionably motivated crackdown that’s being conducted far more excessively than is necessary for very very very dubious reasons and little or no actual interest in public safety. It’s harassment plain and simple.

If they made an announcement through the media that cars aren’t allowed to be modified in Vancouver anymore and that existing rules are going to be strictly enforced... okay go, fair enough, there’d likely be a lot of backlash but at least everyone gets a chance to correct the wrong and it’s not a big mystery. The way they’ve done it is so shady, inconsistent and underhanded it’s nothing but abuse of power by a select few VPD members and its as simple as that.

[rohante72]

Originally Posted by exilegod

seems to have died down recently eh. .. thank god. . .

I think this is due to weather and people less frequently driving their modified vehicles in Vancouver areas.

But, one can hope that it dies down. Sold my ae86 and held off on buying another 80's car.

Hopefully my 280z that should be complete by then can avoid this nonsense. I like driving in vancouver.

Especially since the 280z will have passed OOP...

[Traum]

I just read through everything under that CVSE dispute resolution page, and IMO, at a practice level, that dispute process is completely useless for VI's from the affected vehicle owner's POV.

From the Dispute Resolution Flow Chart, I generally agree with what you have already written, although I am not sure how the actual timeline will play out. But more importantly, the problem with any wrongfully issued VI is the lost time, money (eg. inspection fees, lost time from work, etc.), and stress that is borne by the vehicle owner. If you have the money, I'm sure you can hire a lawyer to sue someone (the police? the BC gov?). But for the average Joe, there is no dispute resolution because you can't recoup anything out of the CVSE dispute resolution process. In the Q&A section, it specifically says:

Q. Will CVSE pay for my expenses incurred if the dispute if resolved in my favour?
A. The policy does not allow for financial compensation. Should a dispute be resolved in the driver/carriers favour then CVSE will remove any carrier profile points that have been associated to that specific Out of Service designation. There are no points associated with a Notice and Order under the NSC.

So essentially, if a vehicle owner wants to dispute a VI, the only possible chance is to dispute it with the issuing officer (level 1 resolution) or take the dispute to the supervisor (level 2 resolution). If Cain is already both the issuing officer and supervisor, then you're basically done. Even if it were a lower ranked traffic police issuing the VI, you know what will happen if you try to dispute it -- the officer thinks you are being aggressive / not respectful / uncooperative, their power trip kicks in, and instead of that Box 2 VI he has issued, it is going to turn into a Box 1 VI.

Originally Posted by coupelove

Yup! The rules are unclear for everyone! This is the problem. Most things are legal to modify on a car, only a few things are written into law as illegal.

Nobody even knows there IS a dispute process for VI's that directly oversee notice and orders. Check it out CVSE - National Safety Code

How to dispute? Speak to the officer's supervisor, if you still want to dispute after the supervisor reviews, speak to the local manager(who? what position in the department is unclear). after that, you still want to dispute the order you can have a CVSE manager reconsider your case. Imagine all this happening while your sitting on the side of the road after getting pulled over.

The thing we should be complaining about is the system is stacked against fairness. A notice and order literally says to speak to the officers supervisor if you dispute the action. If Cain is the sergeant, how well do you think that is going to go? If you don't like his action, is it even possible to have his manager show up on scene? Will a CVSE manager be available to come by and look at your car? There is no choice but to accept enforcement action, pay the tow home, overpay at the dealership to get a passed report.

[Turboman]

I am pretty sure anyone could make any sort of infraction or legal problem regarding driving a car make it to court. Once again a VI is something you should abide by and clear. After your little problem is fixed, put a retainer fee down with a law firm who has similar situations won. Make sure you get the financial parts covered when you win your case. Lost wages, PTSD. shop install for VI pass ECT... chachiiiiing

[CCA-Dave]

FWIW, I am not a lawyer. I did challenge the province on a charter or rights and freedoms issue once, and that was a whole new learning experience. But it does make me think about the complete lack of recourse in the VI department...and I think that is what it boils down to.

I think, ultimately, someone is going to have to challenge the Province on their VI using the charter or rights and freedoms as the basis for complaint. I think it falls under section 11, which protects a person under criminal and penal matters, and section 7 which protects a person's legal rights. What it boils down to, is challenging the fact that we are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the current VI process does not meet the expectations of Fundamental Justice. (In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation.) If you like, you can spend your morning reading items pertaining to the above, but the bottom line is a cursory glance and some personal experience makes me think it's a charter issue. If, for the sake of argument, we agree that it's a charter issue and this is probably the best/only way to make progress in the area, we have some challenges...

First off, the charter sections are written in regards to be charged with an offence. In the particular case of a VI, an individual isn't being necessarily being charged with any offence, which (from the perspective of an officer who's issuing an invalid VI) is the perfect way of 'getting away with it'. They haven't charged you with any particular offence, thus you have no way to challenge it. This is (for a lot of us) the main issue. So the first challenge is going to be forming an argument for the court that despite it not being an offence under legislation, it is essentially the same thing and should be treated as such.

The second problem is going to be with the idea of fundamental justice. From Wikipedia: A legislative or administrative framework that respects the principles of fundamental justice, as such, must be fundamentally fair to the person affected, but does not necessarily have to strike the "right balance" between individual and societal interests in general. The province will argue at this stage that the VI process is in the best interest of society, as it allows the police to remove dangerous vehicles from the road immediately without risking public safety. So, even though it is somewhat unfair to the potentially innocent individual, the societal interests outweigh the unfairness and ultimately the process is balanced as far as fundamental justice is concerned. To flip this to a different argument, we have a law that allows for your vehicle to be impounded immediately if you are caught speeding 40+ over the speed limit. Society as deemed this to be acceptable, even though the offender hasn't had an opportunity to prove their innocence. The law has been challenged (at least in Ontario) against the charter of rights and freedoms, but it was determined while the law technically violated section 11, the Fundamental Justice in section 7 allowed for it. No one thinks the law is unfair when some Ferrari's with N's are impounded for doing 190kph on the upper levels. But the moment someone's car is impounded for doing 41+ over the question of "was the radar calibrated/used properly/etc." comes into play.

So, I see three problems with getting the VI issue solved:

1) Actually getting a case in front of the province to challenge the province against the charter of rights and freedoms.
2) Make a compelling enough argument that a VI order falls under section 11.
3) Make a compelling argument that the balance for fundamental justice is not fair.

To be honest, I have no idea how you do this is. When I challenged the province, I actually challenged the length of time a speeding ticket took to get to the courts, thinking that it was one of the defences I would use for having the ticket thrown out. I showed up expecting traffic court and discovered that I was in real provincial court, with a real judge and an actual lawyer representing the province. It was quite the experience! Challenging the province against a charter infringement sets up one of two courses of action. If one individual is successful in having their VI order "thrown out", it sets a precedence for how the province must proceed in future...it can change laws. If the challenge is unsuccessful, it sets a precedence that the province is operating in the correct fashion and can continue to do so. So the first step is researching any and all challenges of similar types to see what sort of precedence has been set.

By now, if you've read this whole post, you can probably imagine this is going to require a lawyer, and some significant preparation time. The earliest you're going to get a court date is probably 14 months from your initial request...which is why we're stuck where we are. A) who's going to pay for the lawyer, vs just taking the fine and inspection fees? B) who has the time to deal with this a year + away? I'm seriously tempted to see if the Midget with no windshield (legal) could get a VI in Vancouver, so I could challenge this. But I'd have to do it without a lawyer, and l don't think losing on a technicality or because I missed a precedent setting case would help our situation at all.

[trollface]

Originally Posted by rohante72

I think this is due to weather and people less frequently driving their modified vehicles in Vancouver areas.

But, one can hope that it dies down. Sold my ae86 and held off on buying another 80's car.

Hopefully my 280z that should be complete by then can avoid this nonsense. I like driving in vancouver.

Especially since the 280z will have passed OOP...

Like I said many many pages ago. This will pass.

We don't have a good number of cases and ppl willing to step forward.

Unless someone wants to be a martyr and hire a lawer etc, just let this blow over.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by westopher

I'd like to get one, but to be honest I'm not well versed in car wiring, and I don't like people fucking around with the wiring in a 21 year old German car that is a rats nest to begin with. Or messing with the headliner, dash, a pillar covers, etc that are an absolute miracle they haven't disintegrated yet. The GARBAGE dash cam installs I have seen make me nervous.

It's ugly, but lighter socket + the little adhesive hooks stuck to the windshield is a zero impact install. An add-a-circuit is more hidden and also zero impact if you can find a well grounded nut or bolt under the dash to use. It'll vary from car to car but all the ones I've put in all I've had to take off is the a pillar cover to make a hidden install. I can understand your concern about breaking something though, I'll admit the main reason I didn't mind pulling the pillar cover off my car was because if I did break anything I could just steal the cover from my other car.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by CCA-Dave

FWIW, I am not a lawyer. I did challenge the province on a charter or rights and freedoms issue once, and that was a whole new learning experience. But it does make me think about the complete lack of recourse in the VI department...and I think that is what it boils down to.

I think, ultimately, someone is going to have to challenge the Province on their VI using the charter or rights and freedoms as the basis for complaint. I think it falls under section 11, which protects a person under criminal and penal matters, and section 7 which protects a person's legal rights. What it boils down to, is challenging the fact that we are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the current VI process does not meet the expectations of Fundamental Justice. (In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation.)

Personally, I am hoping enough complaining to the politicians, including the Solicitor General, will be enough to get them to realize that there is a fundamental justice problem with the VI system, and then they would revamp the legislations to include a dispute mechanism like how you'd dispute a traffic ticket. But I have no expectations this will happen on its own for a variety of reasons.

The next best thing is, since this seems to be primarily a CoV issue where selected members of the VPD are the primary culprits causing it, I'm hoping a service and policy complain will be enough to get the Police Board to order the VPD to ease up on the VI crack down as a policy change. I have higher hopes on this than the actual legislative change, but I also think the chances of this happening is rather low.

[CCA-Dave]

The optimist in me would like to agree with you. But our blatantly unconstitutional excessive speeding and new drinking and driving laws lead me to believe nothing will happen without a successful charter challenge. I hope you're right, honestly I do.

[E90M3]

Anyone see that the kid who started this nonsense finally talked about it on a FB post in a group? Talking about how someone else blew it out of proportion and basically his life is ruined lol

[vexor]

Looks like Cali has a similar problem as we do with their new loud exhaust law. I feel like it's become guilty until proven innocent.

YouTube (Short URL)

[westopher]

Well he’s not wrong. People are vandalizing his shit, threatening him, etc.
He’s just a stupid kid with a big mouth (or was)
We have grown adults with guns and authority who may be taking a full on vendetta against him. What’s worse?
Or maybe the cops aren’t too? I mean it could just be a coincidence it coincides with the story of him causing shit.
Either way, it’s time to leave him out of it. It’s been time for a long time.

[coupelove]

Yup. You have it figured out. Miscarriage of justice.

Thanks for posting, some great points here people.

Originally Posted by Traum

I just read through everything under that CVSE dispute resolution page, and IMO, at a practice level, that dispute process is completely useless for VI's from the affected vehicle owner's POV.

From the Dispute Resolution Flow Chart, I generally agree with what you have already written, although I am not sure how the actual timeline will play out. But more importantly, the problem with any wrongfully issued VI is the lost time, money (eg. inspection fees, lost time from work, etc.), and stress that is borne by the vehicle owner. If you have the money, I'm sure you can hire a lawyer to sue someone (the police? the BC gov?). But for the average Joe, there is no dispute resolution because you can't recoup anything out of the CVSE dispute resolution process. In the Q&A section, it specifically says:



So essentially, if a vehicle owner wants to dispute a VI, the only possible chance is to dispute it with the issuing officer (level 1 resolution) or take the dispute to the supervisor (level 2 resolution). If Cain is already both the issuing officer and supervisor, then you're basically done. Even if it were a lower ranked traffic police issuing the VI, you know what will happen if you try to dispute it -- the officer thinks you are being aggressive / not respectful / uncooperative, their power trip kicks in, and instead of that Box 2 VI he has issued, it is going to turn into a Box 1 VI.

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by 68style

You just don’t get it... police suddenly up in your face about stuff they never enforced before because reasons nobody knows and you don’t think it’s a problem. Fair enough, keep on keeping on then. Why post in this thread anymore?

If they made an announcement through the media that cars aren’t allowed to be modified in Vancouver anymore and that existing rules are going to be strictly enforced... okay go, fair enough, there’d likely be a lot of backlash but at least everyone gets a chance to correct the wrong and it’s not a big mystery

why dont you actually read a bit into your examples if you're gonna use them as analogies?

just because they never enforced something actively/in a blitz doesn't mean it's NOT a problem

a quick google will tell you 2,300 peds were in injured in BC in 2013, with 52 fatalities.

so yes, they DO ticket people for jaywalking, try crossing Kingsway from Metrotown willy-nilly

why does it matter if they're publicly announcing if they're gonna ramp up enforcement in one problem area or not?

obvious not the same severity but do you think they broadcasted to the central news agency in China they're gonna extradite people who broke international sanctions before they snatched Huawei CFO?

there were bloody like several road signs saying they're catching distracted driving and a few blocks later they still caught a whole bunch

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...-warning-signs

even if they did say they're tightening up against car modifications, were you actually going to revert thousands of dollars in mods and go back to 4x4 status voluntarily? i didn't fucking think so

a law isn't invalid just because of ignorance/they didn't give you a heads up LOL

while they could start with education/warning, it's within their means to hand you a ticket

should there at least be a mechanism to dispute said ticket, yes of course!

[Traum]

So I sent an email to CVSE yesterday to ask about measurement procedures for exhaust noise:

I have a question regarding maximum allowable exhaust noise levels for light vehicles in terms of compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) and CVSE light vehicle inspection regulations. I was unfortunately not able to find a definitive answer after reviewing both the MVA and the CVSE inspection manual, so I am hoping you could clarify that for me.

In Division 7 - Other Equipment, under Schedule 27 regarding Vehicle Noise, the MVA only states that when tested in an inspection station, the vehicle engine, any auxiliary engine and exhaust level from a light duty vehicle must not exceed a maximum allowable sound pressure level of 83 DBA. However, there is no description on what the measuring procedure or standards at which the sound reading is obtained from. Similarly, in the CVSE inspection manual for light vehicles, under Section 1 - Power Train, item o) on noise emissions, it only states that noise level must be confirmed with decibel meter for any vehicle with non-OEM, modified, or altered exhaust system. No measuring procedure or standards is described in regards to how the sound reading is collected.

As most people are aware, exhaust noise levels vary depending on the engine RPM (among other factors). Measured readings can also vary tremendously, depending on how the reading is obtained. For example, distance from the sound source (ie. muffler), the direction of the decibel meter in relation to the exhaust opening, etc. can all change the reading by quite a bit.

Is there a standardized procedure at which the reading is obtained when an inspection is performed at a CVSE-authorized inspection facility?

Thank you for your assistance.

The following reply came back from a manager of the Provincial Vehicle Inspections & Standards Program:

Thanks for taking the time to send your question. At this time there is no standardized noise emission test for BC. The legislated requirements to determine excessive noise levels are prescribed through the opinion of an inspector in Motor Vehicle Act Regulation division 7. The referenced decibel levels in division 7 are only applicable when tested in provincial inspection stations which have not been a part of the inspection program for some time. All vehicle inspections are now conducted at designated inspection facilities. It is expected that authorized inspectors will confirm their opinion of excessive noise – or not excessive noise – with the use of a decibel meter as mentioned below.

I hope this provides the information you are looking for.

I really shouldn't be surprised. But well...

[Traum]

And right after I receive the reply from the CVSE manager regarding exhaust noise, this came up in my inbox. It is from a CVSE director regarding the original complaint that I have mass emailed to the Solicitor General, Transportation Minister (and her Deputy), my MLA, VPD PSS, and OPCC. The Deputy Transportation Minister was CC-ed on the email as well.

Good afternoon Mr. [Traum],

Thank you for taking the time to write and for your detailed correspondence; I’ve been asked to respond on behalf of our Ministry. I cannot speak to the enforcement protocols that Vancouver Police may choose to follow, but can comment on the regulations themselves as well as some plans for the future

The issues related to vehicle height, clearance and their related regulations are complex, as you’ve demonstrated in your analysis. I would agree with you there is vagueness, which in an enforcement world, can sometimes allow for interpretation. At times, this is a good thing; allowing front line officers to take all information and situational influences at hand and come to a most applicable response or action. This can open doors for educational opportunities and awareness rather than tickets or enforcement, however retaining the ability to issue tickets or notices when blatantly non-compliant.

At other times, vagueness can leave interpretation to multiple conclusions, and has the ability to move further away from intent of regulation rather than focus on specific wording of a regulation. An example of this is the Schedule, Section 18 – the key words are “not be out of adjustment”, and the “apparent visually” is the less-than specific measurement. If it is still within manufactured specifications, it is not out of adjustment, regardless of what it looks like visually, however the confusion on this issue is apparent.

To your point, I would agree that much of this section, as well as others in the MVAR, are in need of clarity and updating. To that end, we have recently initiated a work plan within our Ministry to assess this section, among others, to look to clarify and modernize the wording. Analysis has already begun, with work continuing throughout the spring and summer, with intended recommendations for changes and updates this coming fall. I look forward to more clarity and consistency on this and other sections of the regulations that the various roadside officers and agencies are mandated to enforce.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and your awareness on this complex issue, your feedback will be of assistance as we move forward. Feel free to contact myself should you have any questions.

Regards,

I am not really sure where to go from here. I am still in the process of revising my service and policy complaint to the OPCC (yes, I know I have been extremely slow on this ), and I don't think there is a need to stop that at all. It pertains more to the enforcement aspect of the problem, and I certainly think work needs to be done on that front, probably more urgently than the actual legislative aspects since it will have a more immediate effect.

But yeah, need to sit down and think it over...

[twitchyzero]

what if it's this fatality that's caused law enforcement to say that's it, modified scene is done

it happened a month or so before this thread started

[Akinari]

Except that was in Abby...and we're talking about the VPD.

[68style]

Yes, a lifted truck in Abbotsford that a young girl on her phone with her N turned left in front of caused officer Cain of the VPD to launch a personal campaign against modified cars in Vancouver.

Makes complete sense.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

pretty sure meme405 (sorry can't recall his username) with the bagged infiniti wants traffic cop to fight gang violence several pages back

Why do I keep getting dragged back into this. Lol

Yeah, I feel that the cops who are pursuing this stupid issue could better serve their community by solving petty crime, or at the very least getting all these senile geriatrics off the road, or all the POS beaters with bald tires and 1 thou of brake pad material left off the road.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what car I drive. Obviously I'm a car enthusiast, otherwise I wouldn't be on RS. So yes I am a bit biased, I understand there are people out there that wish every car was a prius and made zero noise.

[yourself]

I hope the Cam Phasers on Cains F-150 go.