Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
Based on what? And without changing a single thing? Though by their nature a VI is still completely valid even if the car passes without changes. So unless it's the same officer giving the same vehicle VIs repeatedly then you're not going to get very far.
Except a VI is for anything, not just ride height. I feel like at best this would get thrown out of court, at worst it seems like a fast track to ending up with mandatory annual inspections. Remember how fun AirCare was for everyone?
Out of the people that have passed without changing a thing, how many have gotten more than 1 VI per year?
|
I don't get the angle you are taking trying to disprove what I'm saying when I'm not implying what I'm saying is fact.
I'll speak some facts here.
Fact: Cars that are not low enough to be considered illegal have been issued VIs for being "too low"
This is easily measurable roadside. You don't even need a ruler to do it. You just need eyes.
Fact: Cars are being issued VIs with zero, or minimal modifications, then passing with zero issues.
Fact: Police officers giving VI's are straight up LYING about the legality of modifications. Telling SW that ALL CAR MODIFICATIONS ARE ILLEGAL is a straight up fucking lie. This is no different than being given a ticket for parking illegally when there is a clear sign that states the parking rules, and being 100% within the legality when you park there.
Now I will clarify what I was speculating by using the information that has been available to me, by making educated guesses based on numbers.
Speculation: There have probably been, based on a guess, through the amount of time elapsed and the participation in this thread a couple hundred VIs given out.
Speculation: Other than rice cookerbois car, and a couple shitty cars I have seen on IG get VI's, most will pass, with no issues. If that number is the case, lets say 100 cars out of 110 pass.
Is that not grounds for the police to be held accountable for arbitrarily telling people they are doing illegal things when they are not? Wheres the line? Can a cop come up to me and tell me I have drugs when I don't and arrest me? Should it be my job to prove innocence when there is no cause for arrest? Should it cost ME money to prove my innocence just because someone felt like being an asshole, to counteract some goofball I don't know that shares a common interest (sort of) with me?
Yes I'm escalating it, but personally, I'd rather pay $500 to a lawyer to get this to stop, than pay nothing and worry about being punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong every time I leave the house.