i agree with you on that... the simple stuff...

but when it comes to sections that are more complex... and a person who wants to do their modifications properly... or within code so they check the requirements so therefore they know and understand the way to do things so that it is within regs... and the officer still insists they know better... this is where we run into problems... AND where our current system makes absolutely no sense...

The system says the Police may direct your vehicle to an Inspection Station for the detailed, complete inspection where an actual mechanic will look at those thing like alignment, brake wear, suspension etc. To me, triage at the roadside makes sense. Would you rather that you had to pay for a complete inspection every time you were stopped with a burned out tail light? That is the other option. In most other Provinces your car has to pass a mandatory inspection every year, and you pay for that. In other countres like New Zealand, your car must be inspected twice a year, and you pay.

I was looking to buying a bike/scooter/car in the uk here, and it threw me off to see that MOT test they have - to test to see if your car is road worthy... and it's more than just emissions testing that Air-Care does...

they even test things like working windshield wipers - like so many cheap dumbasses on the road who can't see a bloody thing as soon as it starts to rain because they won't replace their 5 yr old wipers...

Yea its called a safety test. In Ontario they have all vehicles, not just commercial vehicles go through this. Normally its whenever a vehicle is re-registered , and or sold. To me it makes sense to do both a safety test and aircare. Its not only a money grab for the government but it helps get the clunkers off the road. I was surprised in BC there is only a safety for commercial use vehicles.

Ya skid, show me where I claimed to be a lawyer or anything like that. I guess you are referring to anyone who posts with their thoughts/opinion is a "sidewalk lawyer".

They used to have safety inspections here as well (GVRD at least, dunno about all of BC), many many years ago. I remember going with my grandfather a couple times.

I think he's referring to when you (and others here) start spouting legal opinions as if they know the law so much better than the cops. This may come as a surprise, but the cops do actually take some law courses as part of their training.

You're the only one that quotes the law here Soundy. :thumbsup:

Regardless its one thing to offer your opinion on a matter. I guess since I speak my mind and give my opinion, he takes that as a "sidewalk lawyer".

I would hope they are informed on the laws that they are upholding to some extent.

the MOT here requires you to retest every few years tho - and while it is a money grab - having testing down only when you resell a car makes no sense whatsoever.

2 different Criminal Code law exams and a Federal statutes exam. Must pass all three with a minimum 85% mark. 100% on my Fed Stats and I believe 97% on the two CC exams. Then passing 2 Provincial Statutes exams during RFT and a Traffic Law Enforcement module, plus so many updates that you almost loose track. Then there are court decisions that sometimes reverse previous rulings and change the rules retroactively...and then Crown wants a substantial likelyhood of conviction before they approve any charge. Yep, it takes a bit...and we're not "real lawyers" by a long shot.

I have no problem with the mandatory inspections if it took all the sh**boxes and improperly modified cars off the road... but as of now mostly car enthusiasts are harassed who have put time money and effort into their cars...

I ask why should I have to pay, when I know that my car is within regs, to prove a power tripping officer who didn't pay attention in class wrong?

Giving the officer the power of judge, jury and executioner is wrong especially when in many cases they have no clue about what they are trying to enforce... Same could be said for a few other things where ultimate power is left up to the officer... :rolleyes:

Every VI I ever issued was to a vehicle owner who assured me that the car was 100% OK and legal. Every VI I issued was for a car that was not. If the VI was issued to a 100% compliant vehicle that went right from roadside to the inspection without being "de-modded" ( happens a huge percentage of the times) and it passed the inspection, then the owner should follow up with a complaint to the appropriate Police Dept.

In the real world, the cars are defective/non compliant, they get "fixed" before they are inspected and the owner then shows the VI form with no defects. I'm not even going to mention the number of inspection stations that do not do proper inspections because of $$ changing hands, friends owning the shop, or inept inspectors. This is what happens. IF the Cop was 100% wrong and there was absolutely nothing wrong with a vehicle ( and I believe in the Tooth Fairy too) then make a complaint and seek financial redress from them. Isn't that far better than wasting your time posting and casting thinly-veiled slams on all Police here on this board...which would you prefer to do?

I have never issued a VI for a vehicle that displayed no defects at all..that would be unprofessional and would get me into way more trouble that the VI was ever worth. I don't know any other Cops who are out there looking for heat from the public and their employers on purpose....because that is what happens.

I've gotta say Zulu, that was a great response!

Most GD police officers don't ever issue more than a box 3 Notice and Order seeing as how most non-traffic members don't know all that much about the MVAR and the various mechanical parts of/on vehicles.

i dont understand why they even sell mods that are illegal.

^Because most of them ARE NOT ILLEGAL for off-road/show-car use, only for use on public roads. If your car is only ever going to go between the garage and the show-and-shine lot via trailer, it doesn't need to be licensed for the street, and you can mod it up pretty much any way you f'n well please.

^ ahhh...gotcha. didnt think about off road/show uses. but isnt that a really small subgroup?

It is but is a business or company going to really turn down paying customers?

Why would you limit yourself to only so called "legit" purposes when the customer can be participating in a car show or off road use. Besides, you have no reason to believe they won't/can't and so you really have no reason not to sell it to them.

Plus, a lot of things are legal to INSTALL and HAVE on your car, but with some provisos. For example, most "additional" lighting - underglows, massive driving lights, etc. - is not illegal to actually HAVE on your daily driver, as long it's covered with an opaque cover.