HIDs... do the police actually care? (if so, how to report serious offenders?)

[mqin]

Assuming we're talking about aftermarket HID's, which can usually be pretty blinding when used with stock headlights and not aimed correctly.

I've asked around quite a bit before purchasing a set for myself and the most common/popular answer that I've received from HID retailers and police officers is that as long as it is a pure white glow, then it is fine, however if it's anything over 6000k which is usually when the blue glow starts to set in then police officers could pull you over for it, but as for the offense of what they could ticket or charge you with, I'm wouldn't be sure since it's never happened to me and I have driven pretty often directly behind cops going up the big royal oak hill near deer lake at burnaby late at night as well.

[Graeme S]

Anything and everything that isn't stock is technically eligible for a ticket or whatnot. Whether or not it happens is another question entirely, however. The wording of the MVA basically states that any lighting which is not stock is not legal.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by mqin

I've asked around quite a bit before purchasing a set for myself and the most common/popular answer that I've received from HID retailers and police officers is that as long as it is a pure white glow, then it is fine, however if it's anything over 6000k which is usually when the blue glow starts to set in then police officers could pull you over for it, but as for the offense of what they could ticket or charge you with, I'm wouldn't be sure...

Pure white isn't "fine" - the lights are still illegal. All if means is that your lights are less likely to draw attention to your car (all bets are off if they're poorly aimed, though).

Of course the retailer is going to tell you whatever he needs to to make the sale - technically, selling non-road-approved lights and accessories is illegal for the retailer, too, but he's not going to tell you that.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Anything and everything that isn't stock is technically eligible for a ticket or whatnot. Whether or not it happens is another question entirely, however. The wording of the MVA basically states that any lighting which is not stock is not legal.

"Stock" isn't the issue... "non-approved" is. Aftermarket fixtures are fine as long as they're approved by the appropriate bodies, and installed and operated according to the regs.

[zulutango]

[EXTERIOR] Lights, Aftermarket HID Sales - Banned in USA - CelicaHobby

http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/...e=pr21-03.html


IN the US, huge fines for selling the "conversions' in BC the sellers could be charged under the MV Act for selling "defective" equipment ..

Sale of motor vehicle contrary to regulations

222 A person must not sell, offer for sale, expose or display for sale or deliver over to a purchaser for use a motor vehicle, trailer or equipment for them that is not in accordance with this Act and the regulations.

[G-spec]

Originally Posted by zulutango

[EXTERIOR] Lights, Aftermarket HID Sales - Banned in USA - CelicaHobby

American Products Company To Pay $650,000 Civil Penalty For Sale of Lamps Not Meeting Safety Standards


IN the US, huge fines for selling the "conversions' in BC the sellers could be charged under the MV Act for selling "defective" equipment ..

Sale of motor vehicle contrary to regulations

222 A person must not sell, offer for sale, expose or display for sale or deliver over to a purchaser for use a motor vehicle, trailer or equipment for them that is not in accordance with this Act and the regulations.

thanks for info, but these lights are still gonna continue to be sold by various shops there is nothing stopping them, the same way that tint shops will continue tinting front windows which is also illegal but once again there is nothing stopping them, least of all some small line in the MVA

It all comes full circle though, at the end of the day I think the city loves the fact they can have their officers ticket these offences and make money for the city, instead of actually shutting these practices down at the source like you typically would with mostly anything else that isn't legal for use.
I wonder how much the ticket quota would be affected if they actually did this

[zulutango]

Unless they issue city VTs for defective equipment under the MV Regs I don't believe the city gets any money back. I believe there is a share of $ from actual driving VTs..eg speed, red lights etc but I'm not aware if MVAR VT cash gets sent back.

As far as ticket "quotas" (which don't exist) go, if you mean "totals' then defective equipment VTs are not a primary target VT like would excessive speed, red lights, stop signs, due care etc. I still wrote them but preferred to give a non-fine VI which would require the problem actually be repaired instead of waiting 18 months for the dispute to maybe end up in court, have the JP reduce the fine and the defect still be unfixed.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

As far as ticket "quotas" (which don't exist)

Perhaps each detachment is different:

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_ser...valleyirsu.pdf

Page 78

They also needed to maintain a minimum amount violation ticket output which sometimes required going to locations not specified as 'high crash sites' to obtain a higher volume of violation tickets. These were termed, "fishing holes".

[Bainne]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Perhaps each detachment is different:

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_ser...valleyirsu.pdf

Page 78

Zulu is correct, from my discussions with acquaintances in various local services, they don't ever use the word quota and you're hard pressed to get anyone to actually admit it

They are "targets", "performance plans", "minimum expectations", production/performance standards". In some municipal services, they are actually set out by the cities, which in my opinion is the real crock.

Honestly though, I can't say I mind it in the realm of criminal targets. If the idea is to make officers more vigilant to a certain increases in crime or deviant behavior, especially when it coincides with publicly announced blitz's and to send a message/prevention tactic that a particular activity is not acceptable in a zone, then it is a decent measure of officers vigilance, standards and the departments dedication to crime reduction and hopefully has an effect on prevention.

It's when it becomes a necessary additional revenue generator in the form of ticketing and officers are forced to disregard their use of discretion because of departmental policy, that I think it is a pretty contemptible practice.

[zulutango]

IRSU is/are units designated as enforcement only units and are expected to do enforcement (ie write tickets) and are expected to do just that . The MT and HP units do a lot of investigation as well as enforcement and I never had a "quota" in 28 years. If I showed up at the end of the month with no activity to show I had done enforcement and had nothing else to show where I had spent my time (e.g. investigations, training, Tac team, Media relations duties) then it would be reasonable to have to explain myself to my boss when he asked what I had been doing with my 10 hour shifts. That is not a quota, that is accountability.

[sebberry]

Isn't the whole idea behind road safety to achieve a reduction in violations?

Sorry boss, didn't meet targets this month, people are really taking this safety thing seriously!

[zulutango]

If people voluntarily obey the law then the tickets would drop...if they voluntarily break the laws they get tickets when they get caught and maybe choose to not volunteer to pay the Govt their money....or they may comply with the laws and tickets would drop. Never encountered anyone I ticketed who wanted to pay it. Did find many that would modify their behaviour to avoid future tickets.

The whole idea behind road safety is not to achieve a reduction in violations (i.e. tickets), the idea behind it is to reduce the risks associated with illegal driving choices i.e....make safer roads and hence the term "road safety"

[FerrariEnzo]

i was under the impression that anything thats done to a vehicle that does not come with it at factory is deemed to be illegal, whether if its DOT approved or not, but wherever or not the office will go through the trouble of issuing tickets is another story..

[zulutango]

In short..

Sale of motor vehicle contrary to regulations
222 A person must not sell, offer for sale, expose or display for sale or deliver over to a purchaser for use a motor vehicle, trailer or equipment for them that is not in accordance with this Act and the regulations.

Canada Safety Standards
223 (1) A manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or trailer manufactured in British Columbia for sale in British Columbia and a dealer must not sell, offer for sale, display for sale or deliver over to a person for use a new motor vehicle or trailer of a class prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) unless the motor vehicle or trailer and its components comply with safety standards prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and the regulations under it, bear the National Safety Mark and display the statement of compliance as required by those regulations.

(2) A distributor or dealer must not modify or alter a new motor vehicle or trailer, or exchange components of a new motor vehicle or trailer of a class for which standards are prescribed, in a manner that the motor vehicle or trailer does not comply with the safety standards prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and the regulations made under it.

(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prohibiting

(a) the installation of components in a motor vehicle or trailer or the removal or alteration of any components of a motor vehicle or trailer if the installation, alteration or removal affects or is likely to affect the functioning of the motor vehicle or trailer so that it no longer meets the safety standards that were, at the time of its first retail sale, applicable to it and its components under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), and

(b) the operation, driving or parking on a highway of a motor vehicle or trailer in which a component has been installed or altered or from which a component has been removed contrary to a regulation made under paragraph (a).

[tool001]

Got a notice to remove tint, but they were also stopping people with aftermarket hids. I asked him, he said they are, especially pickup trucks..he did check my hids/projectors, but they are factory. So.
Posted via RS Mobile

[firebird79_00]

shitty, im keeping them on my truck no matter what

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by firebird79_00

shitty, im keeping them on my truck no matter what

Keep us posted on how that works out when you get a Box 1, would you? Here in PF, we live for that shit.

[Teh Doucher]

Originally Posted by firebird79_00

shitty, im keeping them on my truck no matter what

go back to vancouverfbody you scum

[Nlkko]

Originally Posted by firebird79_00

shitty, im keeping them on my truck no matter what

We need less retards like you on public road.

[tool001]

he spent 2 minutes looking at my projectors. meanwhile his partner pulled over a minivan with hids..i saw him writing the minivan up.. so i asked him about it..thats when he mentioned about trucks with hids and fog hids...before i left i thanked him for it..

[underscore]

I hate HID's to no end. The crappily installed ones the most, but OEM ones aren't much better once you toss rain on the road or a hill into the equation. Honestly, when driving in town you barely need headlights, let alone HID's. For darker roads, isn't that what highbeams are for? An HID highbeam/standard lowbeam would be the ideal combo methinks (OEM of course)

Originally Posted by BallPeenHammer2

GC200 has a point. 5-6000k is the usual OEM light brightness for most high-end vehicles.

at 10+K, altho NOT brighter, the colour starts getting DARKER, which is illegal when it's too blue. (higher K = bluer/purple-er colours)

I run 7000k HID's in my reflector housing in my car, but had it carefully tuned for height, and had it tested while I was in another vehicle facing it in opposite ends of traffic. It was good. No blinding, no killing eyes.

But when ppl in trucks/SUV's have their HID's pointed SUPER high, it pisses me off to no end (ESPECIALLY the asian drivers)

Congratulations, your lights still suck.

[sebberry]

I upgraded my stock bulbs to 65w low beams and HIR (HIR, nor HID) high-beams. More than plenty and doesn't blind anyone.

But then again I'm not about the bling.