If those are B.C. vehicles, you've provided no evidence to prove it, and furthermore, with about 400k kilometers of driving experience in the province, I've never seen a vehicle that bad.

Your grammar is just as terrible in the videos as it is in your posts.

[quote=rubenoff;7825792]The problem is that Autoplan Insurance brokers issue the paperwork, not ICBC themselves. Unless you inspect every car before you issue the registration, there is no way to check to see that they are mechanically compliant. An insurance cleck is not qualified to see if your alignment is correct or that you have illegally jacked/lowered your vehicle without proper engineering techniques being used...and i would not want them doing that. I have run across pocket bikes that have been given regsitration and clerks that told drivers it was OK to put front licence plates on their dashes, among other things. They couldn't even handle those things and are not qualified and should not be doing that kind of mechanical work. A mandatory mechanical inspection by a qualified mechanic would solve the problems.

And yet wasn't there a thing on the news a while back where licensed vehicle inspectors were passing vehicles that shouldn't be on the road.
Vehicles like the Dodge van that flipped over on the highway. Dodge van that was full of farm workers where the rear seats were pulled and fitted with wooden bench seats and no seat belts to fit more people in the vehicle than it was designed for.

Let me re-phrase my statement... qualified and uncorrupt inspectors.

This just gets better and better.

Let's funnel every 5 year old and older car in the province through inspection shops. Law abiding folks like myself would shell out hundreds of dollars that I would normally put into maintenance while those who are "in the know" pay off corrupt inspectors for an inspection decal and continue on their way.


As for all those rusty vehicles, rubenoff, we don't need mandatory inspections to catch them. A simple traffic stop and VI would take care of that just fine.

Really good point much appreciated, Drivers 80 years of age need to prove medical proof via their doctor that they are O.K to drive, good move from an accident prevention point of view, that aprox. 4/5 th. of their life at what point would we give vehicles the same test of basic condition 20 years? 30 years? 40 years? the effect of body rust and under vehicle rusting of brake lines, fuel lines, power steering lines, and general underneath body condition
we do not agree with all vehicles the discussion is leading towards the age of
maintaining safe road worthiness and the time to compact the unit for recycling Have a nice weekend

here is the link to the Private Vehicle Inspection Programme P.V.I.P. available at I.C.B.C
inspection approved garages the inspection looks for vehicle integrity, However where
there is a concern for downtime prevention, Its good to do the ourselves if we have the abliity, we always suggest to folks to get a mechanic reccomended by friends or family
and have them perform the work up to the owners manual reccomendations and use the
P.V.I.P. programme as a guideline in unit's useful age analisis with overall cost as a factor v/s buying a newer vehicle

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/CVSE/vehicle...PDF/MV3199.pdf

our Last vehicle a 1988 Dodge aries station wagon lasted until 2005 and on the last inspection and repair showed serious rusting of the fuel tank and carrier straps and the frame area over the rear suspension area and around the front strut mounting area and the mechanic who is an inspector suggested taking the unit out of service

The basis differences between the inspection and the Preventative maintenance requirement when married together gives an overall view a better look at the unit and if completed help's to eliminates undesirable downtime along the road Cheers

This has already been the case in BC in the past, and is still the case in many jurisdictions. Be glad you live in BC today, where it's not.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

This may come as a surprise to you, but I can read. I know it has been the case in BC in previous years, and as I said once before - I am glad I live in BC where we have just a little less regulation.

I never doubted you could read. I'm utterly shocked that you appear to comprehend.

Bazinga! :Petting

Im just wondering but if i had Yellow LED piaa fog lights is that illegal?? and alsowhat if they were HID 5 LED fog lights

I was going to post exactly this. In my 15years of driving I have come across a few RCMP members who are not BC natives and try to use a regulation from another province that doesn't exist in BC.

Using foglights when not required is one that several rcmp members have mistakenly ticketed for in BC.

Fight the ticket.

FYI, in Washington state there IS a law against it, and there you CAN get a ticket for it.

we are Kinda O.E.M guys. and use the driving experience gained and teachings in defensive driving course, that guide us to drive road and weather conditions
have a nice weekend

it seems pretty clear if there is fog use fog lamps, if there is no fog shut them off. sometimes we need to look at the front of the vehicle to see what lights are actually on, especially is the vehicle builder did not place an indicator on the dash of the unit to show the operator what lamps are displayed , we should not need to have the Gustappo come and give us an expensive ticket to remind us of our responsibilities as operators

What is clear to me is that the BC MVA permits their use when there is no fog.

more lights lit on the front of the vehicle increases the visibility of the car, even in clear daylight conditions. hence mandatory drl use. so if you turn on another 2 lights that if aimed properly shouldn't affect anyone, more is better, is it not?

The only downside to properly aimed fog lights being used all the time would be increased glare off a wet road surface. That's partly why I don't like HID headlamps - too much light reflecting off a wet road.

Other than that, I don't see why use of fog lights in clear conditions would be undesirable.

The only downside to properly aimed fog lights being used all the time would be increased glare off a wet road surface. That's partly why I don't like HID headlamps - too much light reflecting off a wet road.


I never found that with my HID's...specially in the situation you describe here...but then, I'm getting older and blind these days. :toot:

I'm speaking about oncoming vehicles. Normally you have the cutoff preventing the full brightness of the bulb from blinding the oncoming driver, but with a wet road you have a considerable amount of that light bouncing up.

??????????


Fog lamps
4.11 (1) A motor vehicle may be equipped with 2 fog lamps, mounted on the front of the vehicle below the headlamps, that are capable of displaying only white or amber light.

(2) Each fog lamp must be
(a) mounted not more than 30 cm below the headlamps, and
(b) adjusted and aimed so that, at a distance of 8 m from the lamp, the centre of the beam is at least 10 cm below the height of the fog lamp.
(3) The fog lamp wiring and switch must permit simultaneous operation of the parking lamps, tail lamps, licence plate lamp and, if required, clearance lamps.
(4) The operator of a vehicle may use fog lamps instead of headlamps when atmospheric conditions make the use of headlamps disadvantageous.
[en. B.C. Reg. 476/98, s. 2.]

even in my lowered car, where most vehicles low beams are in my eyes anyway, i don't really notice the glare off the road too much.

and no where in that does it say you are prohibited from using the fog lights when atmospheric conditions do not require them, just that you are allowed to use ONLY fogs if the use of the fogs AND headlamps are disadvantageous.

I've bolded the important bit..

Originally Posted by rubenoff
??????????
(4) The operator of a vehicle may use fog lamps instead of headlamps when atmospheric conditions make the use of headlamps disadvantageous.
[en. B.C. Reg. 476/98, s. 2.]

It's also important to bold this part of that quote..


Originally Posted by rubenoff
??????????
(4) The operator of a vehicle may use fog lamps instead of headlamps when atmospheric conditions make the use of headlamps disadvantageous.
[en. B.C. Reg. 476/98, s. 2.]