Quote:
Originally Posted by mikasaur
So, you're all assuming the kid who still lives with daddy but spent all his (or daddys) money on making his car louder for..literally no reason other than to make it louder to make sure people look at him...isn't lying or exaggerating?
And you admit "we all know how loud that car is" but are still crying "cops don't know how loud that car is"?
This went from "don't VI stock cars" to "well maybe the guy installed the invidia exhaust that actually makes it quieter than stock and we should do a db test"? I guess it didn't occur to you that they might've seen the mods, or the neighbors have their own evidence, or the idiot kid even admitted all his mods?
Nah lets believe that he's 100% innocent cause I read it on the internet and it fits my narrative.
|
I assume you are trolling here, but what the heck, I will entertain you lol.
No one has a problem with his FRS getting a VI, a catless exahust is illegal in BC, clear markers are illegal in BC, so a VI is warranted 100% of the time.
This is exactly why I didnt name any names in general, I am addressing VPD as a whole.
Like I mentioned in my original post and my subsequent post. It is one thing to pull over the individual when his car reaches the public road. It is something very different issuing it on a private premise.
My examples are extreme and far fetched, but not illegal.
The scenario of modifying your car on your premise just to impress your friends or purely for your own amusement, and de-modifying it before you hit the road again to be road compliant is 100% legal.
Based on the description, our assumption is that the FRS is loud af, but that's just it. It is our assumption, our assumption dont hold any consequences. But assumptions by the VPD or any public servant do have direct consequences.
Do you want the police to charge you with murder based on assumption because your neighbor saw you with a gun after he heard gun shots? Or do you want them to charge you because they found bullet casing that are matched to your gun beside the victim?
We are not here to argue if the FRS VI is valid. We are here to argue
1) if VPD should start to take action based on assumptions, and not based on hard evidence and facts.
2) If VPD issueing traffic violations on private premise is a good idea. "Traffic Violation" by definition should be targeting cars/users that are in traffic, ie public BC roadways. Hence why you dont see speeding tickets given out on track days. Because it is on a private race track, and not a road way.
In conclusion, I wouldnt have a problem if
1) The VPD waited for the owner to start the car and pull him over once he is on public road way
2) The VPD used a decible meter to test his car (even using the wrong method, but that is another topic).
At least in the above scenario, the VPD will be taking action based on evidence (even if the collection method of the evidence is wrong), and reinforcing traffic violations on public roads, where the space is shared with other road users (ie. in traffic).
And not by a "report" they heard from a neighbor who may NOT be an expert, and just take it as 100% true without any investigation on their end. Kicking the ball to the alleged violator to spend their time/resource/money to prove their innocence.