Post the picks.

pretty much just cited for being lowered, wheels, and exhaust.

https://www.straight.com/news/114278...duct-complaint

Go here to see uncensored photos of their faces

First of all, I apologize for being so slow with the revisions. Secondly, I want to re-iterate again that I appreciate all the feedback that has been given to me, and I have tried hard to incorporate them as much as I can. In the end, I know the piece below has not included many of those well-meaning suggestions. Partly, this is due to my own limited ability in coming up with a strong and well-presented argument for those suggestions. It is also a matter of time constraints, stuff that is happening, etc.

I have really wanted to include an argument against the questionable exhaust noise allegations, but unfortunately, due to the aforementioned limitations, I was unable to come up with anything that I would find acceptable myself.

So barring any major flaws that RS might notice, I am going to send this off to the Minister of Transportation (Claire Trevena), her deputy (Grant Main), the Solicitor General (Mike Farnworth), the MLA in my riding, the VPD Professional Standards Section, as well as the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

I also plan on contacting the Specialty Vehicle Association of BC, as they are a well-established body / motor vehicle hobbyist group that has experience in working with provincial government agencies. I don't know what I can expect out of it, but I can't imagine how it could hurt.

* * *

My name is XXXXX XXXXX, and I am a long time automotive enthusiast. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the lack of clarity as well as the apparent absurdity in a certain sections of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). Additionally, as a result of these dubiously written sections of the MVA, a large amount of recent anecdotal evidence in recent months is suggesting that members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) are enforcing (these sections of) the MVA rather arbitrarily, thereby turning the MVA and the vehicle inspection notice and order (N&O) into tools that unfairly penalize motorists with situations where there is little to no recourse on the losses suffered by the said motorists regardless of whether the said motorists are guilty of violating the MVA.

Specifically, there are 2 areas in the MVA and their enforcement that I find particularly troubling and worthy of concern, the first of which is "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 18 regarding wheel alignment. In the second clause of Section 18, the MVA states:

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

The legislation as written above is deeply problematic because it is inconsistent with real world automotive knowledge and common practices that are used by automotive engineers and manufacturers. That inconsistency in turn suggests subject matter experts from the automotive industry have not been consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation, resulting in poor legislation that is detached from reality. From an automotive functional point of view, wheel camber -- and in particular, a small amount of negative camber -- is not only helpful, but often essential, in contributing to good vehicle dynamics and stability. Indirectly, this enhanced vehicle dynamics and stability can improve automotive safety among other things. Automotive engineers and manufacturers know this, so they almost always design their vehicles to allow for small amounts of negative camber from the factory. Take my day-to-day personal BC-registered vehicle, a 2014 Mazda2 hatchback, as example. It is a front wheel drive vehicle that features front MacPherson struts and a solid rear beam axle as its suspension design. According to factory specifications, the acceptable range of camber settings are +0.55° to -1.45° in the front, and -0.31° to -2.31° in the rear. In particular, because of the rear suspension design, the rear camber and toe settings are generally considered to be non-adjustable.

Out on the streets of Metro Vancouver, members of the VPD have been known to issue Box 1 and 2 N&O to vehicle owners while citing "visible camber" as the matter of non-compliance. This is problematic because the clause in Section 18 of the MVA is poorly written, and it does not take real world applications and practical automotive designs into account. As can be seen by the (real world) example of my own vehicle, camber measurements can easily go up to more than -2° and still fall entirely within manufacturer specifications. And herein lies the problem – a (wheel) camber angle of -2° is quite "visually apparent", and yet it is still entirely within the manufacturer's specifications. (For what it is worth, I'd even say that -1.5° of negative camber is still "visually apparent".) But in the eye of the BC MVA and some VPD members, this is unacceptable and provides sufficient grounds for a peace officer to issue an N&O. Even more nonsensical is the fact that regular, everyday vehicles can have non-adjustable camber settings where the amount of camber you get straight from the factory can already exceed the provincial “legal” range.

My second concern revolves around the VPD's apparent (lack of) understanding of the MVA regarding vehicle ride height. In the MVA, there are only 3 sections that directly or indirectly discuss vehicle ride height:

1) "Division 7 - Other Equipment" under "Schedule – Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle" in Section 7.091 regarding clearance height. The MVA states that:

A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.

2) "Division 4 - Lamps" under Section 4.05(2) regarding headlamps (and their mounted heights). The MVA states that:

The headlamps must be mounted at a height of not less than 56 cm and not more than 1.37 m.

3) "Division 25 – Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance" under Section 25.20(b) regarding changes in suspension height, which further relates to Sections 25.21 (Limitation on operation) and 25.22 (Duties of authorized persons). The MVA states the following:

25.20(b)
[This Part applies to a vehicle that was] altered by changes to its suspension height by more than 10 cm from the original basic specification of the vehicle manufacturer,

25.21
A person must not drive, operate or park a vehicle on a highway until it has been presented to a designated inspection facility and an approved certificate of mechanical condition in a form set by the director has been issued in respect of the vehicle by an authorized person.

25.22(1) An authorized person must not issue a certificate under section 25.21 unless he or she is satisfied, and certifies on the certificate, that the vehicle complies with the Act and its regulations and is safe for use on the highway.

25.22(2) The provisions of sections 25.02 to 25.06, 25.09, 25.12 and 25.13 apply to persons issuing inspection certificates, operators of a designated inspection facility and authorized persons.

Note that no part of the above sections prohibits the changing of suspension height of a vehicle by 10cm or less. In other words, as long as the following 3 conditions have all been met:

i) a change in the vehicle suspension height that is 10cm or less
ii) the height of the headlamps continues to fall within the 56cm to 1.37m range after the suspension height change in item i)
iii) the minimum clearance for all parts of the vehicle (other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway) is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway after the suspension height change in item i)

the vehicle's ride height is in compliance with the MVA, and is therefore legal for on-road use.

Again, out on the streets of Metro Vancouver, members of the VPD have been known to issue Box 1 and 2 N&O to vehicle owners while citing "the vehicle has been lowered" or that “there is less than 1” of clearance between the tires and the fender” as the matter of non-compliance. In the absence of any violation against the aforementioned sections of the MVA, this is extremely problematic because it shows members of the VPD have an incorrect understanding of the law, and more importantly, are enforcing their own personal and arbitrary interpretations of the law when there is absolutely no legal basis for them to do so! As a member of the public, I find this gravely disturbing and wholly unacceptable. If a vehicle violates the clearance height requirements as indicated in Section 7.091 of the MVA, the VPD officer is well within his duty to issue N&O or other citations as deemed appropriate. If the headlamps have become too low as per Section 4.05(2) of the MVA after a vehicle has been lowered, the VPD officer is again within his duty to issue N&O or other citations as deemed appropriate. If the vehicle has been lowered by more than 10cm, then again, the VPD officer is welcomed to issue N&O or other citations to ensure the vehicle is in compliance with the requirements set out by Section 25.20(b) of the MVA. But the mere fact of lowering a vehicle, without violating any clauses in the MVA, does not make the said vehicle non-compliant against the MVA. Without a non-compliant vehicle, the VPD officer has no legal grounds to issue that kind of notices or citations.

To the Minister of Transportation and her deputy, the Solicitor General, and to all other MLAs, I urge you to revise the problematic sections of the MVA so that they reflect reality, are factually based, and clearly define what is legal and acceptable without any ambiguity and what isn't. Members of the VPD are executors and enforcers of the law -- they are not subject matter experts in automotive engineering and designs, so they are poorly suited to interpret the true meaning of any number of poorly written legislations. Furthermore, the intention of the MVA is supposed to ensure vehicle and road safety -- it is not meant to act as a legal tool to intervene and suppress automotive enthusiasts when their passions do not deviate from the law nor the intentions of safety behind it.

To the VPD and the Police Complaint Commissioner, please ensure that field officers refrain from unfairly targeting vehicles that are perfectly safe, road-worthy, and in compliance with the law. Please take action to ensure that police' authority has not being abused. Any poor and half-baked understanding of the MVA and arbitrary interpretations of the law against motorists make the entire police force look extremely unprofessional; irresponsible actions from select members of the VPD are enough to leave a highly tarnished impression of the entire police force among the general public. Furthermore, I must emphasize that the Vehicle Inspection / Notice and Order mechanism utilized by the VPD is a deplorable tool because it instantly and automatically penalizes the motorist with the financial costs of an inspection (and sometimes more) even if the vehicle is in full compliance with the MVA. When an innocent member of the public is penalized for a crime that he did not commit, when a motorist is slapped with the financial, time, and emotional burdens of proving himself innocent when he has not broken any laws, justice is not being served, and that is absolutely detrimental to society.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply regarding my concerns and requests.

XXXXX XXXXX
Vancouver, BC
604-XXX-XXXX
xxxxx@email.com

Hopefully, we could get some media coverage for this.

We could start a crowdfunding campaign to place an open letter on printed medias. (I would assume legislators still prefer reading printed materials)

Media coverage is already arranged for. Unfortunately, no one that got a VI stepped forward with their video or wants to do a TV interview. Understandably, in fear of backlash.

My media contacts are still waiting.

I like the crowdfunding idea.

BIC_BAWS tried for the last few months to set the media coverage up but no one stepped up.

And IMO crowdfunding print materials is a really poor use of resources when y'all could be writing to your MLA's and various policing oversight agencies for free. Even that CTV interview is free.

Everyone's willing to post on IG or complain in WhatsApp groups but no one is willing to step up and make a real difference (except for BIC_BAWS whom got left out high and dry). That's why this is still going on.

Speed check and possible VI check NB Knight at 62nd. 4 cops on location. Saw one car being towed already.

EDIT: it's been there since 930am this morning until now

Take marine exit to avoid it. Or drive next to my bus and hide for a few blocks lol

we are going to need your timing stop and bus # info :pokerface:

Someone will just end up running over one of these idiots again.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-vpd-1.3464431

I always go super low key when driving past there, not just because of speed trap but to draw less attention. Sometimes i hide on the inside lane in the blind spot of bigger cars like suvs. Tough luck man, exact same thing happened to me there when i got my first speeding ticket, cop just walked out and stopped 3 lanes of traffic just for me.

If all these efforts are true, then Cain is no better than the kid who first started to dox him.

Would these recent turn of events create some worry within the local car tuning/modification shops? This may put a serious dent to their clientele and I think it is their best interest to also band together to lobby with MLA's to get a dialogue going with the VPD.

Consider the following possibility:

You are a crusty old white person, you are frequently bothered by loud and obnoxious vehicles on the road, vehicles that are often being operated in a fast aggressive manner. Perhaps you don't like the way these vehicles look, perhaps they kicked rocks up at your car, perhaps the exhaust gasses from their tailpipe were miasmic, whatever the case.. you're annoyed.

So you file a series of complaints with the VPD and your MLA. The complaints result in discussions between local politicians and the VPD relating to enforcement of the MVA. A specific officer (Cain) is then tasked with targeted enforcement of the MVA, specifically aiming to penalize those which have modified their cars with a racing/stance/fucboi theme.

Is it possible that Cain is simply fulfilling the wishes of the VPD and/or his direct supervisor? Is this so hard to believe, I find it to be far more reasonable than the theory that Cain is butt-hurt over some vaping fucboi that cried about him on FB.

Furthermore, I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that the MVA will be revised/amended to be more accommodating to modified vehicles, take your lumps and move on.

i want to do a decibel rating on my exhaust just out of curiousity, is there an app you guys suggest? do ppl usually do one for idle and then..one for 3000rpm? what distance does the 'meter' have to be away, 50ft? ..

Apps are not accurate because the mic in your phone is not calibrated. It can easily be 10 plus DB's off and that's a lot.

Are we obligated to do any road side tests? Ie revs and lights? Or we can just shut off the car? And let them talk their talk?

What the actual fuck does the tip diameter have to do with anything? I can get aftermarket tips on my car, its not going to CHANGE how loud the car is LMAO. What a joke.


Also, IF ANY OF YOU HERE GET PULLED OVER, PLEASE RECORD THE INTERACTION. I've been talking to a friend who said to get harassment on video.

I don't see what the benefit would be to not doing it. If you do it and your lights work and the car is quiet, they may not give you a VI, but probably will.
If you refuse they will just give you a box 1 VI since they have no accountability if the car is found in compliance anyways.

https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram...MDA4Nw%3D%3D.2

sorry, front splitter sticking 1 ft out ready to chop ankles off, what did he think was gonna happen? if it's for function, should consider getting a trailer to the track. pretty sure his insta said it's mainly for marketing though

i think we should just be grateful to even have 15yo RHD vehicles legal on the streets here

Sure, the S15 looks kind of extreme, but what about more subtly modded cars like the 370Z posted a couple pages back:


I noticed you also failed that post, so is there more to the story about that car?

Most time when one can’t afford something someone else has. They judge people. And they hide behind how grateful he or she should be. Telling other their ankle will get hurt to gain followers.

You telling us we can't afford your 15-20 year old snow plower, guy?

Lol. Be serious.

So beside the height,camber issue......is it ture the vehicle "HAVE" to use "OEM" parts?according to some other memeber who got VI ticket said not oem wheels,exhaust,suspension....etc
If so which mean our car cant use any aftermarket parts like oem replacement door ,fender,headlight?n even cant have other set of wheels with tires for winter use?

Jesus what did they do to that poor car. Are these really the cars people are crying about VIs? Maybe VPD just wants to restore taste to vancouver modding scene :lawl: