Box 2 VI

[J.C]

Got dinged with a box 2 VI for having "no suspension" and the center of the car being lower than the rim

Just looking for clarification

On the N&O it says I must get it inspected promptly at a designated inspection facility and it must be repaired immediately and within 30 days of this notice.

Does this mean I can still drive around for 30 days?

The officer told me if he sees me on the road, he'll tow me.


I couldn't seem to find anything in the MVA about airbags
I'm missing one because I have an aftermarket driver seat
This is what I see:

"Drivers' seats and belts
30 The driver's seat of a motor vehicle shall be tightly secured to the floor of the vehicle and shall be adequate to comfortably seat the driver in such a manner that he may safely operate the vehicle.

A vehicle to which section 220 of the Act applies shall be equipped with safety belts of a type set out in section 7.13 of the regulations.
Safety belts shall be available, be in good condition, and the belt buckle shall be in good working order."

Also, are stretched tires illegal?

Tires, wheels
20 A vehicle shall be equipped with tires in compliance with sections 7.16 and 7.161 of the regulations.

No tire on a vehicle shall have any of the following defects:
(1) Cord break or air leak;
(2) Tread damage including cracks, cuts or snags in excess of 25 mm in any direction and deep enough to expose the ply cords;
(3) Sidewall cracks, scuffs, cuts or snags to the extent that body cords are damaged or exposed;
(4) Bumps, bulges or lumps apparently caused by separation of the tread or sidewall from the ply cords or by partial failure of the tire structure, including the bead area.

[mb_]

Yeah you can still drive it around for 30 days but you're not exempt from getting a Box 1. Best to deal with it immediately.

You can't really dispute a VI either so only way to take care of it is get it inspected. It's next to impossible to have it cancelled and I was one of the lucky ones to have theirs cancelled.

[sho_bc]

If you've removed any of the airbags, if I remember correctly, it should be a fail. What airbag is missing?

[J.C]

Drivers seat

[BoostedBB6]

Depends on the place that does the VI, but if you have removed a safety device (air bag) you will fail immediately.

Also,

MVA: Division 7

Wheel alignment

section 18:

Side slip of the front wheels shall not exceed 9 m per 1.6 km as measured on the alignment gauge.

The caster, "camber" or toe-in of a vehicle shall not be out of adjustment to the extent that it is apparent visually.

So if you are aligned to fit the wheels and tires under the fenders and putting it within spec causes you to rub you will fail.
As for the tires, I have never seen a written law about how stretched you can be BUT if you are fitting a tire on a rim and the tire is not specified by the tire manufacturer for that size of wheel you will fail.

[zulutango]

You're fortunate he gave you the #2. With the lack of ground clearance I would have given you a #1 and it would have left on the hook. As far as the tyres go, they must be enclosed by the body...that may have also been a concern...but I don't have a picture to judge. Take his break....do not drive your car with no ground clearance. Get it fixed and inspected. It's a tow job and a $598 VT for failing to comply with the conditional condemned vehicle order (ie #2).

[jing]

Speaking from experience, do it ASAP.

I was issued a Box 2 before and the PO told me that I had until my insurance renewal to take care of it. Being young and stupid at the time, I took his word for it and didn't read the fine print on the back of the citation, which, as you already mentioned, states that you have 30 days to address the issues.

Long story short, my fuel pump died while driving (on the way to the inspection facility ironically), which led to a good samaritan cop asking if I needed any help, then once she scanned my plates she had to upgrade me to a Box 1 and issue me a $598 failure to comply fine and led to me having the shittiest birthday ever.

[Yodamaster]

With new cars you can really get screwed because of the safety equipment, no matter how much safer (x) seat is than stock, you'll get dinged for the lack of airbag for sure.

I'm assuming you're on coils, just raise it up for the test?

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

With new cars you can really get screwed because of the safety equipment, no matter how much safer (x) seat is than stock, you'll get dinged for the lack of airbag for sure.

I'm assuming you're on coils, just raise it up for the test?

How about raising your car for safety instead? That way if you get a flat, parts of your car don't dig into the road and cause you to loose control. Just a thought.

[Yodamaster]

I don't know how to politely say no.

Dragging frames isn't my thing, but if the ride height on a Lamborghini is considered safe enough, I'll gladly follow suit with any other car.

[nsx042003]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

I don't know how to politely say no.

Dragging frames isn't my thing, but if the ride height on a Lamborghini is considered safe enough, I'll gladly follow suit with any other car.

Lambo just looks low due to the bodyshape, if you look at a Huracán, it actually has some clearance to the ground.

But i think i saw OP's car before, it looked good, but i think the lip of the wheel gave the car away for cop to actually verify and see if it's lawfully done. I'd say if the wheels were more tucked in, it wouldn't have a problem

[J.C]

Here's a pic for reference

I mean it is low, but it's not low to the point where I scrape or rub every time I hit a bump on the road.
The only time anything scrapes is going down a driveway or over a speed bump. I don't rub at all; even taking fast turns.
I'm not stupid enough to drive around scraping or rubbing at every bump

My car parts are actually higher than the bottom of my wheels, but barely so I could see why he wrote that down

The damage on the bumper and the lip is actually from hitting a curb and not from any driving on the road


I'll just get it fixed and move on

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

I don't know how to politely say no.

Dragging frames isn't my thing, but if the ride height on a Lamborghini is considered safe enough, I'll gladly follow suit with any other car.

The requirement is NOT for "ride height"....it is for "ground clearance"...and they are not the same thing. The clearance problem is that the lowest part of your car must be the rims....nothing else. That way if the tyre goes flat nothing will dig into the road......I hope I have said this politely enough ?


BTW....nice ride....tyres need to be enclosed by the body and they are not in this picture...maybe why you got stopped?

[punkwax]

Tires with an i need to be enclosed by the body? Do trucks have different rules or does that mean POs are handing out VIs to every dude with a lift kit?

Googled "lifted F150" - 95% of the tires stick out past the body.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=lifte...d=0CAYQ_AUoAQd

Not trying to be a smartass (aside from the tires comment ), serious question..

[underscore]

All tires (or tyres) on all vehicles have to be enclosed, although it gets made a bit pointless when almost the entire body is above the tire (then I think their might be requirements for flaps but I'm not sure).

[J.C]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The requirement is NOT for "ride height"....it is for "ground clearance"...and they are not the same thing. The clearance problem is that the lowest part of your car must be the rims....nothing else. That way if the tyre goes flat nothing will dig into the road......I hope I have said this politely enough ?


BTW....nice ride....tyres need to be enclosed by the body and they are not in this picture...maybe why you got stopped?

Thanks
I got stopped for "bouncing down the road" and having "no suspension"
He didn't say anything about my exhaust, wheels, or tires
He only ticked off suspension, steering, and for some reason brakes lol

[Fafine]

just curious where'd you got pulled over

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by punkwax

Tires with an i need to be enclosed by the body? Do trucks have different rules or does that mean POs are handing out VIs to every dude with a lift kit?

Googled "lifted F150" - 95% of the tires stick out past the body.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=lifte...d=0CAYQ_AUoAQd

Not trying to be a smartass (aside from the tires comment ), serious question..

Mudguards
7.06 Every motor vehicle, trailer and semitrailer not constructed so that the spray and splash of water and mud to the rear of the vehicle is minimized shall be equipped with mudguards and, if necessary, mudflaps.


The inspection manual gets into more details but the trucks you show are alll NOT complying with the BC MV Act..

BTW, for one educated in the British Colony of New Zealand, a gentleman always spells those round black thingies with a "Y". I believe you might be able to change yoiur spellchecker to "The Queen's English", instead of the American version... we also spell "colour" with a "U".

[J.C]

Originally Posted by Fafine

just curious where'd you got pulled over

Kingsway and Vic
Cops were at Esso

I've been going to that McDonalds for a long time now and there has always been cops, but it was the first time there were traffic cops handing out tickets
The other cops are usually there for lunch or coffee and just leave me be
Kinda ran right into them lol

[J.C]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The requirement is NOT for "ride height"....it is for "ground clearance"...and they are not the same thing. The clearance problem is that the lowest part of your car must be the rims....nothing else. That way if the tyre goes flat nothing will dig into the road......I hope I have said this politely enough ?


BTW....nice ride....tyres need to be enclosed by the body and they are not in this picture...maybe why you got stopped?

Sorry for double post, but just have a couple more questions

If that's for ground clearance then is there anything relating on how much you can lower the car from factory?

and what I'm seeing is that stretched tires are okay as long as they are enclosed by the body of the car, is that right?

[zulutango]

There are dimensions above ground for minimum/maximum heights for headlamps etc in the regs....plus

Sale of pneumatic tires
7.16 No person shall sell or offer for sale a pneumatic tire either separately or as part of a vehicle intended to be used upon

(a) a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry not in excess of 10 persons, including the driver,
(b) a station wagon, or
(c) a trailer licensed under the Act,
unless the tire conforms to the standard of performance for tires from time to time made by the Canadian Standards Association, now numbered C.S.A. Standard D 238.1, entitled "New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars"; and is labelled in accordance with the standard.
[en. B.C. Reg. 68/71, s. 1.]

Defects in pneumatic tires
7.161 (1) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer equipped with pneumatic tires that are not in good order or that have any one of the following defects or conditions:

(a) cord break or an air leak;
(b) tread damage including cracks, cuts or snags in excess of 2.5 cm in any direction and deep enough to expose the ply cords;
(c) bumps, bulges or lumps apparently caused by separation of the tread or sidewall from the ply cords or by partial failure of the tire structure, including the bead area;
(d) tread worn to the extent that
(i) in the case of a commercial vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 5 500 kg or more, less than 3 mm of tread groove depth of a front tire or 1.5 mm of tread groove depth of a rear tire, or
(ii) in the case of a vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subparagraph (i), less than 1.5 mm of tread groove depth on any tire
remains at 2 points on the circumference of the tire tread not closer together than 38 cm, or tread worn to the extent that tread wear indicators in any 2 adjacent grooves of the tread contact the road surface.
(2) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer that is equipped with both bias ply tires and radial ply tires; unless the vehicle operates on more than 4 wheels, in which case bias ply tires and radial ply tires shall not be used on the same axle.
(2.1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person may, during the period a regular tire is unusable due to its having been damaged, use a limited mileage temporary spare tire specified by the vehicle manufacturer for use with the other tires on the vehicle provided he makes arrangements forthwith to repair or replace the tire for which the spare tire has been temporarily substituted.
(3) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer equipped with a tire that has been regrooved or recut, except a special tire that has extra undertread rubber for this purpose and is identified with the word "regroovable" moulded in the tire by the manufacturer.
(4) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer, except an implement of husbandry or a slow moving vehicle as defined in section 7B.01, that is equipped with a pneumatic tire not designed and manufactured for highway use and that does not have a tread pattern of material across the area of the tire in contact with the highway.
(5) No person shall, without an overload permit issued under the Commercial Transport Regulations, B.C. Reg. 30/78, drive or operate on a highway a vehicle so loaded that the tires are loaded above the maximum load specified by the tire manufacturer for the tire size, ply rating and service speed.
[en. B.C. Reg. 153/71, s. 3; am. B.C. Regs. 205/72, s. 9; 343/77; 452/82, s. 1; 206/96, s. 2.]

[meme405]

Originally Posted by J.C

If that's for ground clearance then is there anything relating on how much you can lower the car from factory?

In reality the fact that you have aftermarket parts on your car that aren't OEM is enough to fail an inspection if the inspector wants to maintain his integrity.

All coilovers, lowering springs, etc are marked "off road use only", because they do not meet DOT requirements.

So realistically even if you put on a set of coilovers jacked all the way up, you are still liable to fail an inspection.

[BoostedBB6]

Originally Posted by J.C

Sorry for double post, but just have a couple more questions

If that's for ground clearance then is there anything relating on how much you can lower the car from factory?

and what I'm seeing is that stretched tires are okay as long as they are enclosed by the body of the car, is that right?

Technically, you are not supposed to touch any component of a motor vehicle but these laws are not enforced much at all.
As for how low, no lower than the lowest part of your wheel/rim. If you were to loose all air pressure in the tire, the rim is the first and only thing that should contact the road surface. If anything else touches the ground before the wheel then it is to low to be legal.

As for tires, there is no law about stretching, however, if you have the improper size tire for the rim width and the manufacturer does not list that tire width be used on the wheel you have then you will fail (if they stick to the letter of the law that is)

[JL9000]

Originally Posted by meme405

In reality the fact that you have aftermarket parts on your car that aren't OEM is enough to fail an inspection if the inspector wants to maintain his integrity.

All coilovers, lowering springs, etc are marked "off road use only", because they do not meet DOT requirements.

So realistically even if you put on a set of coilovers jacked all the way up, you are still liable to fail an inspection.

I will have to respectfully disagree with at least a portion of this post. According to the latest copy of the vehicle inspection manual sitting in my tool box, a car does not need to have many OEM parts to pass an inspection.

Make no mistake, many officers do not possess the knowledge required to issue valid violation tickets and VIs, and they do not need to. If it is a violation ticket, it is up to you to prove your innocence in court. If it is a VI, then you're screwed out of the inspection fee. It really is that simple.

And yes, I am fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of good cops out there too, and that many modified cars have no business being on our roads.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by JL9000

I will have to respectfully disagree with at least a portion of this post. According to the latest copy of the vehicle inspection manual sitting in my tool box, a car does not need to have many OEM parts to pass an inspection.

Make no mistake, many officers do not possess the knowledge required to issue valid violation tickets and VIs, and they do not need to. If it is a violation ticket, it is up to you to prove your innocence in court. If it is a VI, then you're screwed out of the inspection fee. It really is that simple.

And yes, I am fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of good cops out there too, and that many modified cars have no business being on our roads.

I really don't know what part of my post you are disagreeing with...

Go look at any set of aftermarket coilovers, exhaust, lights, intake, etc. ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, will say "Off road use only".

It's just a way for the parts manufacturer to absolve themselves of the testing requirements, certifications, and liability of building DOT spec parts.

So sure I guess if you remove the head unit of your car or the carpet in the inside or something that doesn't break the MVA, but as soon as you slap on a set of lowering springs, or coilovers your car is a rolling MVA infraction... Now whether or not someone would actually fail you for that is completely aside from the point.

Cops don't inspect shit, they see something they think is not MVA compliant they issue a VI, and then it is the responsibility of the inspector to determine what is and isn't MVA compliant.