If the MVA permits it, why can't he have them on?

they out to get you brag

i actually had a beer one time when i had my N as i was out in my buddies townhouses with him and 3-4 more ppl since we were gonna go to a bar. i wasnt gonna drink except this "one" beer to kinda fit in i guess and when we went to the bar the plan was to eat/have some drinks (minus the drinks for me) anyways they were alla bout to get in my car (yes, more then 1 person and i still have my N) when we see a cop come our way, i tell em to gtfo and only take 1 passenger. they start walking, cop goes to talk to them and i drive off, cop comes my way and pulls me over. asks if i been drinking and stuff i told her yes i had one beer. i give her my license and she goes to her car. comes back and asks me " you know i can give you a suspension right now, and let me ask you if i hadnt pulled up you would have driven them all in your car right ? " i say yes mam and then she says " dont drink anymore as there will be roadblocks on this street later tonight, have a good day " and gives me my license back :fullofwin:

tldr : be honest and polite and cops will give you a break :D

if he is allowed to have it on, why is he afraid to have them on? and besides he is only permitted to have them on when conditions deem them necessary. I remember you posting the section regarding them, and the way I read the section was that you can only use either your headlamps or foglights, not both simultaneously

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.

True enough... I have a few VPD stories over the years.

Was zipping down Cambie once, nice sunny day, tunes cranking... just before Marine a motorcycle cop steped out and waved me over. I was probably doing over 60 where it's a 50 zone. Cop saw the radar detector on my dash and asked if it had picked up his radar. I told him I didn't know, I couldn't see it because of the bright sun or hear it over the music. He kind of chuckled at that and let me go with a warning.

Heading down Davie one evening in the left lane, some bozo started crossing the street in the middle of the block, coming from the opposite side of the road. I stopped to let him cross in front of me, then started going again once he got to the curb lane. Cop pulled me over right away, and proceeded to explain that while I wasn't required to stop for the guy in the first place, once I did stop, I was required to wait until he got all the way to the sidewalk. Then he let me go on my way. I imagine this is a law that not a lot of people know.

might wana check that again

"@VancouverPD Tues Traffic Test answer: Fog lamps may be used along with headlights at any time, regardless of conditions. MV Regs 4.11(4) for more info."

https://twitter.com/VancouverPD/stat...14891479015424

maybe if i'm real tanked and i'm SUPER SUPER nice when i get pulled over, they'll let me off the hook too!

what they say contradicts what i just posted though, which is from 4.11 of the MVA

they out to get you brah

I believe there's a difference between pulled over by general duty and a traffic officer. General duty often have less interest in writing tickets, they are usually busy enough doing other things, less knowledgeable about the MVA and therefore more inclined to warn and such. Traffic officers meanwhile are the opposite. They have less tolerance for minor infractions and quick to write tickets. I've not had many tickets but the ones I've had were all written by traffic officers who were total douches (not just saying that because I received tickets but referring specifically to their attitude). This is complete opposite to times when I was pulled over by non traffic officers and yes one wrote me a ticket but at least he was pleasant and nice about it.

this is the key word. it gives you the option to use them instead of headlights if the use of headlights is disadvantageous.

it does not say, May only be used instead of headlights, or other like wording.

That's true. In my post on the first page, after the cop got me towed, he said I'm lucky he's in general duty,and if it was a traffic cop id have a 600 ticket.
Posted via RS Mobile

I think it needs to be written in a different way. I know cops that think it is read the way YOU perceive it, and also the way I did as well. Even if you are allowed to use it simultaneously with your headlights, it doesn't say anywhere there that you are allowed to have them on at anytime, but only when visibility is poor. I am going to call ICBC and see if they know... then again, I guess it depends on whoever is reading it.
http://forums.castanet.net/download/...9884&mode=view

4) The operator of a vehicle may use fog lamps instead of headlamps when atmospheric conditions make the use of headlamps disadvantageous

It does not say shall, must, can or should...

may
1 [mey] Show IPA

auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1.
(used to express possibility): It may rain.

2.
(used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.

3.
(used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.

4.
(used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.

5.
Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)

Hey thanks for the response Zulu but I've been hassled in the past by RCMP in richmond for having Fogs + headlights on at the same time so I just avoid it so I won't attract attention.

I guess it's not a matter of legalities but rather misinterpretation of the law by an officer I ran into awhile back.

I've done more research and I believe in the case that you have both your headlights and fog lights on at the same time, it does not matter what the conditions are BUT if you choose to have ONLY the fog lights on, the environmental conditions must be justified. So the only time it is illegal is if you have only your foglights on when it isn't "foggy".

I have my fogs hooked to turn on when my headlights turn on, I've NEVER been hassles for it, And i go through atleast a roadblock a week...

Unless you are half blinded or live in butt fuck no where , you should not need your fogs. Who use fog lights when there is no fog.... My goodness....
Posted via RS Mobile

I retired from daily driving because my eyes can no longer take the abuse of other people who are either oblivious or think their lamps make their shitboxes look soo mich better.
Posted via RS Mobile

i remember an incident with a cop where he almost screwed me over. i got radar'd in richmond for speeding, I was a N driver at the time and was under probation from a previous ticket. I was eligible to take my class 5 at that time and I knew if i got suspended then i'd have to restart the whole process of waiting to get my class 5.

I told the cop my situation and he advised me to "quickly go pay the ticket and then take your class 5, so that the superintendent of motor vehicles won't know you got another ticket before your class 5 test".

Thinking the cop was out to help me, i went to ICBC to pay the ticket but consulted with the front counter lady about the situation. She told me if i wanted to take my class 5, paying the ticket will ultimately prevent me from doing so, and advised me to dispute it and take the test during the waiting period. So I did just that, got my class 5, and saw that cop in court (i won).

That incident really gave me a negative impression on some cops, but my run in with cops in other non-vehicle related incidents were actually quite positive, so i guess it evens it out :badpokerface:

sometimes being "honest" will royally screw you over.

don't ever self incriminate yourself. Sure, some cops MAY be really nice and let you off the hook, but im damn sure most of the time they'll use your confession to charge you.

from my experiences, its best to keep your mouth shut when you can.

gotta protect yourself son

:lawl: Get over it old man.

If you weren't speeding while under probation in the first place, you wouldn't have been in that pickle.

Again, if you didn't break whatever law it is, whether provincial or criminal, you wouldn't have to worry about self incriminating yourself.

just providing some tips for the best interest of the individual ;)

hey if anyone here in this thread did not originally break any laws, then there wouldnt be a need for this thread am i not right?

It wouldn't be a big loss if this thread wasn't created