As most of you are aware, we've been keeping a very close eye to what's going on with our local inspections. There is good news, and there is some further concerns as a result.
The good news is that this summer has seen a decrease in the MPI/VIU inspections. These are the mobile inspection station set up by the joint effort of MPI and WPS VIU where vehicles are corralled into a local for a full inspection.
While this appears to be a response to the hobbyists pleas to end targeting, we're still seeing a fair bit of roadside inspections done by WPS using cruiser cars. This seems to have far less negative impact on the hobby, and probably does a better job of finding the real problem vehicles.
Even this method raised questions, however. The primary question being if this is a real viable use of police resources. The next question being what is the reasoning behind these inspections and citations.
We're going to break down what transpires. Whether it be a roadside inspection by WPS in a cruiser, or a full inspection by MPI and VIU, the result is the same.
The inspection is completed, and a citation is written for the faults found. Time is given for repairs, but the citation is a given. Generally, the time frame to bring the vehicle into compliance is far shorter than the earliest court date for the citation.
This means that if you believe your vehicle is in compliance and choose to fight the citation, you will more than likely have your insurance cancelled waiting for your court date.
As well, should you choose to fight the citation, you're looking at losing wages because you're taking time off work. Some have reported avoiding this issue by using night court, but the reality is that you're still investing a bunch of time. So most simply choose to pay the citation.
The monies received by the courts for those citations goes into general revenue for the province. Half of that money is returned to the city of Winnipeg. And this explains a lot about why the WPS are so heavily involved.
We're looking at a fair bit of revenue generated for the province and for the city from what we're hearing. No number appear to be available, we're just talking to recipients of these citations to get a feel for the amount.
Let's look at the "corralling" method of inspections. From information we've gathered, the directive for the inspections comes from the administrative level within WPS. The VIU then sets up a date with MPI to go mobile and conduct these inspections.
The WPS go out and find suspect vehicles, and direct them into the inspection station where MPI employees complete the inspection. We're told that these MPI employees are all mechanics, and all properly trained in regards to the inspection handbook used by accredited shops.
The results of these inspections are turned over to WPS who in turn discuss the results with the owner and present the citations.
The roadside cruiser inspections are not so
thorough. The basically consist of a check for compliance with HTA regulations. Still, a citation is written and all that follows is similar.
To the average citizen, this probably seems to be a great idea, this drive to find and get unsafe vehicles off our roads. And initially, we agreed with the principal, just not the method.
Upon further investigation, we discovered some interesting numbers from MPI that make us ask why WPS involvement should be so heavy, and if MPI isn't stepping beyond their bounds.
We first attempted to get some numbers on accidents where faulty equipment was the cause. We were given the run-around. Wrong departments to call, being told that that information wasn't tracked, etc. At one point, MPI demanded to know out policy numbers so that they could open a file on us.
It wasn't until they were reminded about FIPPA that MPI miraculously found us what we were looking for. The statistics on accidents for 2009, citing contributing factors. Evidently, 2010 statistics have yet to be compiled.
The information that we were after shocked us. It turns out that in 2009, only 0.5% of all motor vehicle collisions in Manitoba had faulty equipment as a contributing factor. That's right, 0.5%. and not necessarily the cause of the accident, but rather a contributing factor. Meaning that it played a *part* in the collision.
So why all this effort to protect us from the risk posed by these unsafe vehicles? Because if you simply look at the numbers, vehicles with faulty equipment actually don't seem all that dangerous at the end of the day.