[underscore]

Originally Posted by westopher

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.

My point is that if you're going to go to the extreme of a class action you probably should be using facts, and be thinking big picture (which the guy doxxing a police officer sure as hell didn't do). That's why I mention things like annual inspections. All it takes is the wrong people seeing too much of a fuss being raised over what are technically validly issued VIs (as far as their intended purpose in the gov'ts eyes) and they'll start thinking about the revenue generation from required periodic inspections. That's enough of a headache with a daily, now imagine the guys with 2/3/4/5/etc vehicles doing it for every one. At one point I had 7 cars, so I'm not super jazzed on that idea.

Even then we'd still have VIs because of the guys who get an inspection and then immediately make their vehicle illegal again.

Originally Posted by westopher

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.

Fact: Sadly that's how VI's are currently set up to work. A vehicle does not need to be modified to get a VI, an officer just needs to say they suspect something is non-compliant (visible or not) as they aren't mechanics and they aren't going to start doing a full inspection at the side of the road.

Originally Posted by westopher

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.

Those seem like pretty generous numbers given how I've seen peoples VIs go in the past, but based on how the VI system is currently set up even that is completely fine in the gov'ts eyes. You're also assuming the information coming from people is correct, which again given what I've seen in the past a lot of people who say "it's legal" and "it passed without doing anything" are lying. That isn't the case with everyone, but people seem to have a very loose definition of what "changing nothing" is.

Originally Posted by westopher

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.

The problem here is you're not relating to equivalent things, a VI is simply a referral for an inspection, not an arrest (aside from a box 1, but looking at some of these cars it's like wearing a necklace with a brick of coke hanging off it). I'm not sure what you mean by getting VI's to stop, they'll always exist, and going by how they're currently defined unless the same cop is repeatedly issuing them to the same vehicle you're going to have an extremely difficult (borderline impossible) time proving there is any wrongdoing taking place. It'll certainly cost you a hell of a lot more than $500 to get a lawyer to come up with something that has any hope of going anywhere.

Originally Posted by westopher

So does number 4 mean even the tips can not be larger than stock? Or the piping itself can not be?
4 would basically mean that the exhaust is in fact, basically unable to be modified if its the former.

Even the tips, that's the way it's been forever. The stupid part is that it's purely tip diameter, not cross sectional area. Meaning if you have two tips stock, and swap to a single, the single has to be the diameter of *one* of the original tips. If the single is bigger, even if it's smaller than the combined area of the two tips, it's noncompliant.

ie stock you have dual 2" tips, total area = 6.28sq". Swap to a single 2.5" tip, total area = 4.91sq" (smaller) and it's illegal.