Notice & Order #2

Ticket WriterOver the course of my service in traffic law enforcement I saw many things that made me shake my head. Examples include a pickup truck that had a rope strung through the vent windows and tied to the windshield wipers so that they could be operated by the passenger, another pickup with black plastic tape stuck over the brake warning light so that the brightness would not bother the driver at night and a car had no working lights on the rear because ICBC had not arranged for collision repairs yet. 

Admittedly, these are extreme examples but there are many vehicles on our highways that are not being properly maintained by their owners.

I had developed a routine that involved a circle from the driver's door forward around the vehicle and back again. Once completed I had a fairly good idea whether the defects were minor in nature (a box 3), worthy of an immediate tow (a box 1) or somewhere in between. That would call for a "box 2" which required that the vehicle be promptly presented at a Designated Inspection Facility. If the inspector identified defects, they had to be repaired immediately and a passed inspection report submitted to Commercial Vehicle Safety and Enforcement within 30 days.

If the 30 day period expired without a pass report, ICBC would flag the vehicle licence record. If police subsequently found the vehicle being driven on the highway the vehicle licence and number plates could be seized and the driver issued a violation ticket with a significant penalty. The system insures that the vehicle is repaired.

Should the owner decide that it was not worth repairing the vehicle, they simply cancelled the vehicle licence, effectively removing it from the road and it could be disposed of with no further enforcement costs. If the buyer wanted to licence it, the ICBC flag remained and no vehicle related transactions would be allowed until a pass report was issued.

I liked to use this method rather than immediately issuing a violation ticket for driving a defective vehicle. It allowed the driver or owner to spend the money that would have gone to the ticket on the inspection and repair process and I was assured that vehicle maintenance would be done.

Related Information:

This is a very draconian use of law in my opinion. I have been subject to this , and their is absolutely no recourse. It is judge dread, law.
I was working as a night janitor and I was carrying a hand buffing unit from one site to another in a Plymouth voyager. I inadvertently left a part of the cord hanging down. I was pulled over and issued this citation. I tried to reason with here, as she was with me when we discovered the cord. She actually told me they are trying to have vehicles over q certain year removed from the road. Vehicle was in good shape. New tires, not even paint damage, just old.

So, you are saying that you were issued a Notice & Order box 2 for the single reason that a 110 volt electrical cord was dangling from your vehicle?

In reply to by DriveSmartBC

This was in 2001, 3am around the airport in Richmond, my van was an 85. Yes it was a 110 v. She had already written the citation before exiting her car in my opinion. I dont remember what box was checked. I did take it for inspection. They were surprised I received the inspection based on the ecterior shapre. They inspected it top to bottom, and found my battery clamp was loose. cost me around $200 and sleep time (I worked nights)

This sounds like the most unreasonable Inspection Order I ever heard of.

To counter-balance your unfortunate experience:

Around the same time a removal order was issued for a car driving in New Westminster.
The officer issuing the order called a New West municipal tow, the tower hooked up, drove to the closest gas station, unhooked the car and let it go free.

The rear axle was detached on 2 of 4 mounts and was offset to the left by about 10 inches, the right rear tire was mounted on its face to compensate for the offset, the brakes discs were ground down to the ventilation fins, the clutch was barely catching, the windshield was cracked, oh and the muffler and piping was broken off at the cat (car sounded Mad-Max-like). A few weeks later the alternator went, the radiator ruptured, and by the time the overheat was noticed, there was only enough time to pull into a convenience store parking lot, and as the few bottles of water were being carried out to the car, the oil pan pressure reached critical and blew out and thick white clouds of vaporized oil came out with a loud bang and then a hiss as the few panicked lot patrons scurried for cover. Car was sold for $40 to a cash-for-junk tower straight from that parking lot the next day.

But at least there were no cords hanging out ;)

My issue was that I could do absolutely nothing about it. My case started and ended on the side of the road with (in my opinion) an unreasonable rcmp. she clearly is unqualified to make that call. Therefore is a draconian use of force of law. in your case, there must have been some highly visible issues. Even then maybe they could have you see a rcmp with tools and training to an initial 21 point inspection ,( kind of like commercial inspection) before subjecting to cost ant time of a provincial inspection.

An exterior inspection by a police officer may identify some deficiencies such as defective lights and worn tires.  However, it is unlikely to identify a significant problem with the brakes, engine, steering, etc.

In the late 1960s I lived in Victoria and had to take my car to a government test station where it had to pass a detailed  safety inspection that included the brakes, steering, etc.  For whatever reason this program was discontinued in the 1970s.

In my view all vehicles should undergo a basic safety inspection by a qualified person at least once a year.  This is done at some garages when a vehicle it taken in for an oil change. 

I am surprised that, to insure a used vehicle, ICBC does not require documentation that the vehicle passed a basic safety inspection by a qualified person.

It's tough to fit in details when I am limited to about 300 words to keep the newspapers happy. When they quit publishing this weekly article entirely I will be able to use as much space as I want to.

I checked e-brake, steering joints, master cylinder and drum brake backing plates for oil in addition to perimeter visual. I have to agree though as one inspection facility told me that many box 2's that I sent them should have been box 1. At least the forced inspection picked it up.

A few months back I contacted ICBC regarding unsafe private vehicles,with the intention of seeing if ICBC would get involved with dealing with lifted trucks and SUV's.The response was typical and predictable.ICBC said it was an enforcement issue,and really had no appetite to become involved.My thoughts are, if you are going to insure vehicles and, accept the consequences of when that vehicle is in a wreck,and it has been modified so that it no longer conforms to motor vehicle standards,I think that ICBC should be held to a standard similar to what is expected of commercial vehiciles.My suggestion was to have owners sign a form at the time of insurance renewal of any pickup truck or suv stating that no modifications have been done that would contravene the standards and regulations in the MVA.If found to be contrary in the event of an accident, or by enforcement,the insurance is invalid.That means you crash,no insurance.You get pulled over,no insurance,you get towed, and fined.Remember when people lift vehicles,it throws all the safety features engineered into them,out the window.Side impact structures and airbag sensors are no longer effective as a result.You would think that ICBC would be interested in dealing with the issue in the interest of safety,let alone the potential legal exposure they have,but when you are the only game in town,the rules are different.The other issue that this includes is lighting.It is trendy to put super bright lights in vehicles,it is also trendy to drive with fog lights on at all times,and its trendy to lift vehicles.Maybe someone can add these 3 up, and see what the answer is.I understand that these are all enforcement issues,but I think ICBC should maybe put some effort into a solution,after all they are supposed to be looking after the publics best interest.

I would disagree. It sounds to me that the safety features you are referirng to are directly related to the owner and not the public, so why do you feel obligated to have law brought against that person. In a commercial vehicle there are a lot more factors , like weight , employee safety, corporate entity owned etc. What free people do to there vehicles is up to them. ICBC is a monopoly , but insurance is insurance , and as long as we are free people subject to only one insurance company,( that is mandatory) barring severe gross negligence, proven in court by ICBC, they should be insured. Is that not what insurance is for? I can see collision insurance expecting you to meet thier level of safety, but you at least have a choice weather or not to buy it. 

... hopefully helpful, possibly opinionated.

"In the late 1960s I lived in Victoria and had to take my car to a government test station where it had to pass a detailed safety inspection that included the brakes, steering, etc. For whatever reason this program was discontinued in the 1970s.

In my view all vehicles should undergo a basic safety inspection by a qualified person at least once a year. This is done at some garages when a vehicle it taken in for an oil change.

I am surprised that, to insure a used vehicle, ICBC does not require documentation that the vehicle passed a basic safety inspection by a qualified person."

I'm pretty certain that it was in the fall of 1984 that mandatory annual government inspections (more frequent for commercial vehicles) were discontinued. A big mistake, quite frankly. This check, performed by qualified mechanics with no personal interest in the result, conducted for a very reasonable price, ensured that fundamental items such as tire tread, brake balance, headlight aim, steering alignment, steering play, turn signals, brake lights, windshield wipers, exhaust systems, seat belts, etc were all working properly. It was win-win-win for everybody.

Here in the lower mainland, at least one of those old facilities was pressed into new service when they brought in Air Care. Personally, I would rather be certain that the other guy's brakes were working than his car emissions were under control ...

Whether or not, in this day and age, a mandatory annual safety inspection is justified could be arguable; tires, brake pads, exhaust systems, etc can all be relied on to last for far longer than was imaginable twenty to thirty years back.

But one must be wary of inspections based on getting an oil change; there have always been bandits in the mechanic's business, eager to find 'issues' that require expensive repairs. Who you deal with is very important, particularly if you're not mechanically inclined or able to understand the issues.

Meanwhile, every vehicle that is brought into the province actually is subject to an inspection; new vehicles at the dealer, used vehicles through a Government Certified mechanic authorized to do this. Whether it's an Alberta car with a crack in the windshield, or a US vehicle in need of DRL & Metric speedometer etc, these items will be identified and corrected before the vehicle can be sold or insured here.

Commercial vehicles must also be re-inspected frequently; annually for some, such as Driving School Vehicles, twice annually for something like a Bus. Ask me how I know this (he said, as the owner/operator of a DTS with a PTA license).

"It sounds to me that the safety features you are referirng to are directly related to the owner and not the public, so why do you feel obligated to have law brought against that person. In a commercial vehicle there are a lot more factors , like weight , employee safety, corporate entity owned etc. What free people do to there vehicles is up to them."

Well, for sure there is some dumb stuff on the internet, but that statement is a real gem. If my wife or child is in a crosswalk, I don't care whether you're driving a car or a Kenworth - the brakes had better work, along with the rest of it. For sure, mechanical defects are far less of a factor in this day and age when it comes to collisions, but you're deluding yourself if you think that the responsibility for any driver or vehicle owner only concerns themselves. Good grief ...

The safety features I am referring are on everyones vehicle.The issue I raised,was with lifted vehicles,that ICBC is willing to insure, when they don"t meet the standards clearly stated in the Motor Vehicle Act.There are strict guidelines for bumper height, side impact beams,front and side air bag sensor location that ensure in a collision that they will come into play when you collide with another vehicle that also within the scope of the tolerances that are mandated.When a vehicle has its bumper height above the specs,none of the safety features on the other vehicle involved in the collision are effective.A side impact beam will serve no purpose when the bumper hitting you is at the level of your noggin.Same goes for air bag sensors.All vehicles,be it a bus,commercial truck, or passenger car, have to fall within these guide lines.The idea is that anyone sharing the road with conforming vehicles,has an expectation that in the event of a collision,they will be afforded the participation of safety features on their own vehicle.Please don't tell me what free people do to their vehicle is there own concern,when I am talking about vehicles that DO NOT CONFORM to the motor vehicle act.Just hope you don"t get hit by one of these clowns,trust me,its not pretty.

Hey there,

I was curious to ask for any advice on my current sitaution.

So I was given an inspection notice, on quite a decently new vehicle in pretty good overall shape. I recieved the notice during a traffic stop, specifically due to bald tires, and according to the issueing officer, it sounds like my muffler is broken. Now the thing is, I was given a Box 2, rather than a Box 3, which is where my issue lies. Why when they pointed out 2 specific issues would they make it a box 2, especially when the claimed issues are 2 things listed under options for a box 3? I have 4 brand new tires I just havent had the money to install, but I can afford to fix my muffler mod, and the tires, but not a full inspection as Im on assisstance, currently in the process of getting a PWD designation.

Is my only option to go to my local RCMP detachment and request to speak with a superior? I just dont understand why they would make it a box 2 when I was told two specific issues, that are included on the notice options for a box 3. This is literally ruining my life, that Ive been working so hard to get back together. I have no record, traffic or criminal, complied politely with the entire traffic stop and even was told by the issueing officer he sees me all the time and has never seen me drive in anyway that was an issue at all before this one incident.

Im thinking it seems that speaking with the issueing officer or their superior seems like the only option? I dont even have a phone to be able to call them, every penny I have goes to rent, bills, gas and insurance. Having an anxiety disorder really isnt helping my situation. I just cant lose my ability to drive. I live rurally, and have to go to town to see doctors every month at least once a month... Sorry for the long comment, Im just so stressed out and looking for any advice at all on my situation.

Thanks in advance and have a great day!

In reply to by DriveSmartBC

For sure, I just figured no harm in asking if there is anything else to consider :).

Thank you kindly!

Hey there again!

So, I just phoned ICBC today to see what all needs to be done to reinsurance the vehicle that I had insurance on last, which I became delinquent on payments with, requesting the debt amount, and any tickets or outstanding orders.

They told me the price, which they informed me included my unpaid speeding ticket.
I asked again, if there was still a flag for an incomplete inspection order, and they told me that there was no such order at all, outstanding or otherwise

Now I'm assuming they would have that info, since those 30 days were up.
Including the fact that I included that I was inquiring specifically for renewing insurance on the vehicle I got behind on payments with.

Is it possible that the issuing officer realized that they made a mistake, that it should have been a box 3 afterall? Being that the only issue was my tires needed to be replaced, which when stopped I had informed them I had at home and could install them right away.

ICBC should have had that info if it was there, right?

Any ideas of suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance, and have a great day!

Paperwork can fail to be submitted or go astray.

At this point I would simply go ahead and complete all your ICBC transactions to become mobile again. Having done that, I would then consider going back to the officer, showing him your properly equipped vehicle and ask what happened. If you don't, there is the possibility that it could come back to haunt you at the roadside when you don't expect it to.

At least that way you won't always be wondering if you will get into trouble for ignoring the order.