Why don't RCMP do a better job enforcing traffic rules?

[Bsuds]

Well, actually I was a traffic cop.

Being a School Crossing Guard does not count!

[Dizzy1]

for the love of god what efin part of only mandatory on commercial vehicles don't you get, all passenger vehicles have fenders that's what is required to minimize spray of mud and water

Yet you have a lifted truck - the fenders which were designed to reduce spray, no longer do the job they were designed to do. It's really quite simple.

[Grandan]

Lost a good dog on dehart and another good dog on byrns . Neither guy stopped . Both were heavily speeding . Wanted to kill the last guy . I agree a bit of traffic law and order would be appreciated

what the hell was your GOOD dog doing on the road unless they were speeding through your front yard you have no one to blame but yourself

My wife taught our dog to stay off the road when it was a pup. The dog died of old age. People who allow their dogs to run at large are a menace.

[mexi cali]

muffler dragging on the ground,
total absence of tail lights
burned out head lights
only high beams, no low beams
so much smoke you can barely see the car
and that is just in my garage.

[my5cents]

key words "if necessary mud flaps" just because you wannabe traffic cops are getting sprayed with water doesn't mean that theyre necessary I followed a prius that was spraying slush and water out the back I guess it needed some big cat mud flaps on it and I'm well aware of the lift laws thanks and I have my doubts that you were a traffic cop but hey its the interweb I used to work for NASA until I took a job at a nuclear plant

You've been told. I've provide you with the facts and quoted the law. I've checked, it wasn't the first time you have been supplied with those facts (21 Dec 2016, by lightspeed, in "Yer and Idiot").

Although, it seems no amount of facts will change your determination to believe that certain equipment (or lack thereof) and vehicle modifications are completely legal, the benefit, I guess will be for those reading these forums who may have been mislead by your misinformation.

[LTD]

I'm not misleading anyone its the wannabe traffic cops who feel they know better who are misleading, ive bought a couple lifted trucks from out of province brought them here had inspections done and never had anyone tell me I needed mud flaps. Just because someone feels in their non professional opinion that they know the laws better doesn't make them right and that includes you and cops. Theyre not inspectors and most don't have a clue the fact is the only vehicles that mud flaps are mandatory on are commercial period you guys go back to policing the streets I have to go deal with the number 7 reactor now

[my5cents]

I'm not misleading anyone its the wannabe traffic cops who feel they know better who are misleading, ive bought a couple lifted trucks from out of province brought them here had inspections done and never had anyone tell me I needed mud flaps. Just because someone feels in their non professional opinion that they know the laws better doesn't make them right and that includes you and cops. Theyre not inspectors and most don't have a clue the fact is the only vehicles that mud flaps are mandatory on are commercial period you guys go back to policing the streets I have to go deal with the number 7 reactor now

"I'm not misleading anyone" - (14 Mar 2017 19:39) : "mudflaps for the hundredth time are only mandatory on commercial vehicles"

"ive bought a couple lifted trucks from out of province brought them here had inspections done and never had anyone tell me I needed mud flaps"
I don't doubt you have purchased a lifted truck.
I don't doubt you bought a lifted truck from out of province.
I don't doubt the mechanic who inspected one or more of these vehicles entering the province didn't tell you that you needed mud flaps.

First we don't know if any of the vehicles you have had examined had a problem with "spray and splash of water and mud to the rear", as that is the key to requiring mud flaps, but I don't think the fact a mechanic passed your vehicles, trumps the black and white wording of the law in BC.

I have, and so has light speed posted the actual wording from the BC Motor Vehicle Act Regulation that clearly explains that mud flaps are required when vehicles spray. The MVA Regs clearly show that mud flaps are required on all types of vehicles, not just commercial vehicles.

I personally have seen many vehicles that have received inspections from designated inspection facilities and have passed that have glaring and obvious problems. One, glaring example was a motorcycle imported from Ontario with an assembly to hold the license plate in a vertical position, something that perhaps is legal in Ontario, but definitely illegal in BC.

The entire Designated Inspection Facility program, in my opinion is completely wrong. In the 70's, the provincial government of the day did away with the expanding program of government Provincial Testing Facilities, and implemented private authorized designated facilities for a limited number of inspection reasons (a totally different topic).

It's hard for me to understand, unless you are being contrary for the sake of being so, how you could insist something is fact because a mechanic, who may or may not have the full knowledge to properly inform you, told, or didn't tell you something verses the written word taken from an actual government publication.

Perhaps you've been too close to reator 7 without your tin foil hat on.

[LTD]

its hard for me to understand how you and the wannabe traffic cops out there feel you have the qualifications to dictate if someone should have mud flaps or not its all about how you interpret the written law if required is pretty gray. I have been stopped and ticketed in my jeep more than once for no doors and its completely legal . reactor 7 is ok no leaking

[lightspeed]

I once bought an SUV and put aftermarket mud flaps on it. The reason I did it was because I drive some pretty gnarly roads with chunky winter specific tires. I didn't want to spew spray and debris up onto LTD's windshield and all over his vehicle.
I slept well at night knowing that I "did the right thing" and it was one less thing to inconvenience other drivers.

Not even much of a benefit for myself, apart from maybe some rocks and gravel being prevented from being thrown up against my paint. I just did it because I wanted to, not "had to".

Oh well....life goes on.

[LTD]

well I appreciate that no need to worry about me tho I don't tailgate people so rocks and water spray don't bother me I run 42" boggers on my jeep but don't run it on the street that much they throw really big rocks best not to tailgate me.

[my5cents]

its hard for me to understand how you and the wannabe traffic cops out there feel you have the qualifications to dictate if someone should have mud flaps or not its all about how you interpret the written law if required is pretty gray. I have been stopped and ticketed in my jeep more than once for no doors and its completely legal . reactor 7 is ok no leaking

I'm glad I was worried about you (reactor 7)

No, I sorry, I'm not saying "you need flaps", my only point is that your statement "only commercial vehicles need them".

The requirement of mud flaps is determined by the spray. So I guess it would be up to the owner to test out his/her vehicle see if it sprays and if it does install mud flaps, or risk a ticket if some diligent Mountie on a wet raining day sees the spray.

The section that requires mud flaps is probably a good one, in that it does say you need them only if there is a problem.

There are others, that aren't so generous. Even before it was law that we needed day time running lights, it was illegal to operate a vehicle without it having headlights. No not having them on, but available. Yes, at noon on a July day.

As for you being stopped for a non-existent infraction, you certainly aren't alone on that one. Ask the grandfather who received the IRP while a passenger in his own vehicle.

... a quick drift back to the topic... Everyone should be aware that all cops aren't assigned to the same tasks.

A "traffic cop" is a police officer who's main task is to enforce traffic laws. In the interior and for that matter in most RCMP jurisdictions it's pretty hard to tell a General Duty member from a Traffic member. They're all in cars with the odd exception of a real warm sunny day, then the one or two police motorcycles may be seen. In the light traffic of Kelowna, it's not that big a deal. Likely a perk for the traffic member, to get out in the fresh air and ride a Harley for a few hours.

A General Duty member may be enthused to write tickets some may not. In some areas, police management have to encourage a minimum number of traffic contacts (notice I didn't say quota) because without that, some members wouldn't write a single ticket.

Now a Traffic member will write lots of tickets, that's his job. Some will write more tickets before their first donut break than a General Duty member will write in a month,, or more. When we see a police car and a violation take place and no action, that was likely a General Duty member, who may be enroute to something more urgent than a violation ticket, but to us sitting in traffic, it's just a cop, not enforcing traffic rules.

If you are in the City of Vancouver and you see a motorcycle cop, that IS a traffic cop. He can get through traffic and apprehend the violator he spotted, he is a "hunter". The weather is much milder there, the bikes are out every day and evening unless there's snow or black ice. They don't have one or two, they have dozens.

At any given time I'd venture a guess that Vancouver would have more motorcycles out on patrol than Kelowna would have police cars (General Duty and Traffic) on the road and likely twice as many. Add to that other traffic duties such as the Accident Investigation Squad who fill in their time when not investigating accidents with traffic enforcement.

The other element to traffic enforcement is police management. A particular traffic cop may feel that a certain violation is of particular concern, but his boss wants his attention focused on something else. For quite a while the "flavor of the day" was plain out speeding, speeding this speeding that.

Yes, it's a concern, however it may not be the direct cause of accidents in certain locations.

We've now seen agreement that speed differential is a concern and to the end of mitigating that, we've seen some speed limits raised where there was chronic speeding in areas where limits were likely lower than they should have been (Trout Creek area of Summerland, one example).

I recall a VPD traffic member being assigned to speeders at the intersection of East 41st and Knight St. He was asked to assess the problem and take action. He first monitored the speeds of traffic North bound on Knight, then South bound. He found that although the speeds were faster South bound, that the problem was speeding (although slower than South bound) North bound because traffic was coming over the crest of a hill at the intersection and left turning vehicles (SB to EB) were hitting and being hit by the speeding North bounders.

It's like turn restriction signs, we don't see as many in the interior, but large cities have lots of "No left turn 7AM - 6 PM" etc.

We as motorists, stuck behind an illegally turning vehicle, may wonder "why the heck isn't there a cop here writing tickets ???"

Well from a traffic engineering perspective if a no turn sign is obeyed by 95% of vehicles, that is enough to keep traffic flowing, if the obedience rate gets below that, enforcement is required. So there's sometimes a reason.

[dirtybiker]

key words "if necessary mud flaps" just because you wannabe traffic cops are getting sprayed with water doesn't mean that theyre necessary I followed a prius that was spraying slush and water out the back I guess it needed some big cat mud flaps on it and I'm well aware of the lift laws thanks and I have my doubts that you were a traffic cop but hey its the interweb I used to work for NASA until I took a job at a nuclear plant

Great, another nuclei surgeon. sporting some huge' rooster tails' of debris !


ETA: I agree vehicles with short or no rear-overhang, Prius being one, should also have mandatory
spray diffusion.

That "spray of water" diffused, doesn't hold near the amount of damaging particles being inflicted upon
other road users.

[KL3-Something]

I'm not misleading anyone its the wannabe traffic cops who feel they know better who are misleading, ive bought a couple lifted trucks from out of province brought them here had inspections done and never had anyone tell me I needed mud flaps. Just because someone feels in their non professional opinion that they know the laws better doesn't make them right and that includes you and cops. Theyre not inspectors and most don't have a clue the fact is the only vehicles that mud flaps are mandatory on are commercial period you guys go back to policing the streets I have to go deal with the number 7 reactor now

Well, all pickups in BC are classified as "Commercial Vehicles". Don't believe me? Check the registration.

[LTD]

yes because they can be insured for commercial purposes so can cars whats your point pickups are also considered commercial over a certain weight I would think a cop would know this

[Bsuds]

Section 7.06 says all vehicles so it would appear they are required on any vehicle that is not all ready designed to limit the spray.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... 1/26_58_04