[Traum]

The VPD said it doesn’t want to speculate why the numbers have spiked.

It said the notice and order is a way for officers to keeping Vancouver roads safe.

“Our officers are dedicated to making our city roadways as safe as possible,” said Sgt. Jason Robillard.

“If our officers are noticing an increase in unsafe vehicles after education and enforcement efforts, then we may choose to issue a notice and order, ensuring that the unsafe vehicle is inspected by a licensed mechanic.”

As someone who has spent a bit of time into the issue, I find the comments from Sgt Robillard to be rather insulting. When there is concrete and irrefutable evidence that VPD officer(s) are mis-interpreting and mis-enforcing the MVA, it boils me up to see the VPD spokesperson mention "education" and "vehicle safety" when it is the VPD officer(s) that are un-educated about vehicle safety laws, and yet they are the ones enforcing it.

Cho's video, a clip of which made it into the CTV news story, has one blatant example of how a VPD officer has mis-interpreted the MVA, and is mis-enforced the MVA. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the camber clause in the MVA (second clause of Section 18) specifically says that the amount of camber present needs to be out of adjustment, and not just visually apparent.

From Sproadicmotion's video, there is again concrete and irrefutable evidence that the VPD officer in it (likely Cain?) has mis-interpreted and mis-enforced the MVA. The below are two excerpts from my OPCC complaint:

As a concrete example of a VPD officer mis-interpreting and mis-enforcing Section 18 of the MVA / Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual (regarding camber), we can refer to the following video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWsIrRo_YWM

In the video clip between 1:08 to 4:38, a local Vancouver driver has been stopped for a number of MVA violations by a police officer. From 2:52 to 2:56, the police officer can be identified as a member of the VPD through the badges on his jacket.

Among the allegations made by the VPD officer, excessive camber is one of the MVA violations. This is discussed during the exchange between 2:32 to 2:46. Please note that I am not questioning the validity of the excessive camber allegations here. Instead, the item that catches my attention is the mis-interpretation of Section 18 of the MVA, the complete disregard for Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual, and the subsequent enforcement of this mis-representation / complete disregard. In the verbal exchange between 2:32 to 2:46, the VPD officer can be heard saying:

“Naked eye… camber… tires… your wheels… you can’t have any… that is visible to the naked eye, alright? So I don’t even need to get a tool to measure the camber.”

Clearly, this is not what Section 18 of the MVA nor Section 4, item #8 of the CVSE inspection manual has stated. It is obvious that the VPD officer’s interpretation of MVA Section 18 does not allow for *any* visible wheel camber, and he is ignoring the requirements described by the CVSE inspection manual. Based on the actual wording of the legislation / regulations, I find it impossible to agree with the VPD officer’s version of the law. To me, this suggests poor and inadequate training on the VPD’s part, as well as an incorrect personal interpretation of the MVA / CVSE requirements and its enforcement by the VPD officer.

To make matters worse, certain VPD officers are enforcing their own personal and arbitrary interpretations of the MVA / CVSE inspection standards when the officer’s interpretation is clearly at odds with what can be found in those legislations and regulations. Referring back to the same video clip as I have previously mentioned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWsIrRo_YWM

you can see from 2:47 to 2:58 that the VPD officer is obviously referring to the CVSE inspection requirement Section 4, item 2b as I have indicated previously. As you may recall, the regulation is only applicable to the front wheels. However, in the video, the VPD officer is clearly motioning and referring to the rear wheels of the vehicle where the steering mechanisms are nowhere to be found. As such, I think the example shows the VPD officer is either misunderstanding the application of the inspection requirement, or intentionally mis-interpreting the inspection requirements to suit his needs at the moment. But regardless of what his intentions might be, he is mis-enforcing a legal requirement when that requirement is clearly not applicable to the situation at hand. In my opinion, that is a highly unprofessional behaviour coming from the field officer.