You heard it from the source. GLENN TAYLOR !UPDATE!

[rockcrete]

The whole problem is that while Glenn may accept that, the next guy may not and then my guy is fine with anything that passes the aim test. Everything is all over the place, what works for one person on one date and time is completely different from what works for the next person, you could go broke trying different combinations until you luck out and pass your isnpection.

[csperformance2006]

These lights have passed the aim test, because they where designed in canada and tested in the US for there standard.

I know Glenn and his staff will not approve anything that is not legal or written in the books

[dah_hunter]

Well that sounds promising..

Im interested in the Headlights for sure..

[rockcrete]

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)
Installation of U.S.-model headlamps
and front sidemarker lights; (b)
installation of U.S.-model rear
sidemarker lights and reflectors; (c)
installation of a high mounted stop
lamp, if the vehicle is not already so
equipped. The petitioner asserts that the
tail lamp assemblies meet the standard
in all respects.

There you go, right from the NHTSA website (Docket # 5507) in the US from the documents used to certify the Skylines by Motorex, the tail lights are fully compliant.

[James@JDM]

This is what i'm talking about. I'm VERY interested to find out what you hear from her

So far all I have is an email from Fiona Waititi, a Vehicle Compliance Specialist with Land Transport New Zealand:


"Good afternoon Andrew

Thank you for your inquiry concerning the use of left hand drive vehicles in NZ.

Your inquiry has been forwarded to Barbara Bibby, Senior Policy Analyst, Policy and Planning Vehicles section of Land Transport New Zealand who will be able/ to reply as soon as its practicable.

Kind Regards

Fiona Waititi
Vehicle Compliance Specialist
Vehicle Certification Unit"


That was 01/09/07. I will be calling hopefully the end of the week/first of next to see if I can speak to Ms Bibby directly. I'll post my findings.

It is currently LEGAL to operate LHD autos in New Zealand. Hope this works.

Sorry to bust your bubble on this one (trust me I really want to add more power to this fight) But living in NZ I can tell you this is not entirely true.

We are allowed to have LHD cars here yes, but you have had to own them overseas for 90 days, and then must not sell them for 5 years or if you do the new owner must convert them to RHD no exception, the only other exemption is once past 20 years of age, they then are determined as classic, and you can leave it LHD, but you may only have one per 6 months, i.e you can't bring in a mass quantity of them and title/sell them.

Thanks

[jhmed]

The bubble isn't burst... It still is legal to drive them isn't it? They just make it difficult. This may piss off a lot of the importers out there, but I'm in this fight for one very selfish reason. I really don't give a damn if they let another JDM into this country. I don't. All I care about is being able to drive what I currently own.

I hate to say it, but I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

[psilosin]

^^^

And what if something happens to your vehicle and you need another one....

[jhmed]

I won't own another one. If this one 'dies' and the insurance won't fix it, then it's time to move on. I've had my fun. I've been doing this for 12 years now... I will probably be ready to stop when that time comes.

[Paradis]

please see the following..

http://forums.gtrcanada.com/viewtopic.php?p=111094#111094

[TR3CK]

from what I gather about this.....

Our cars are exempt from the CMVSS because they have to either

a) Comply to the rules

or

b) be 15 years old or older and as such do not need to comply.


The problem arises that you DO HAVE TO COMPLY to your provincial rules. The rules are generally whatever it takes to pass your OOP. In the case of BC, instead of writing everything from scratch they took the CMVSS and copied and pasted it into the BC gov inspeciton manual. So in BC you DO NOT HAVE to comply with CMVSS, but you DO HAVE TO comply to the BC inspection manual. Since it is derived from the CMVSS then essentially you do have to comply with at least part of the CMVSS.

Now my question is this though.......... what about the Alberta cars? Is it in out manual to have DOT headlights? or just be aimed correctly? What about other provinces in general?

I can tell the case in the province of Quebec. We don't have the problem that you have in BC. Cars that dont comply with the Mechanical Inspection Guide of the SAAQ which is a copy/paste of the CMVSS are ALLOWED to be on the road. Here is why, go read what's write on the page 9 of the pdf of the MIG: http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publicati...deverif_an.pdf

PRECEDENCE OF MANUFACTURER’S STANDARDS

The inspection procedures and compliance criteria
described in this guide may not apply to certain vehicles, in
which case the vehicle manufacturer’s standards shall take
precedence.

The meaning of this is that a car that have been originally assembled with for example no DOT stamped lights will have not issue to pass the provincial inspection in Quebec because according to the manufacturer standard of the car, it's mean to be like that.

In reality it's not always the case because some inspections center mandated by the SAAQ are not aware of this paragraphe at the beginning of the MIG but that's another subjet...

[crushers]

Wayne has posted that I am in TC's back pocket by not approving lights to give them time to figure things out. Pure Crap. This suprises me coming from Wayne as I assumed he was a different type of gentleman. Wrong call I guess.
Cheers and good luck.

Glenn,
i have watched you on 2 different forums for over a year.
you are probably a good guy deep down but you bring nothing to the table, you are in a position to help but other than backing a bunch of misguided memos you have accomplished nothing on any of the forums.

of course you are in the back pocket, you get your paycheck from the BC government, i do not believe that is "pure crap". you will respond with what you are told to respond.

there is an agenda the BC MVA is trying to push though behind closed doors, they want RHD units off the BC road system. you yourself and Mike have stated quite plainly that you believe RHD are dangerous, which BTW is the furthest from the truth. it isn't the cars that are dangerous it is the attitude of the person behind the wheel.

in the end, if you are not helping to legalise these units then you are against them...extremely simple to understand...

<as for me being a gentleman, i am a redneck... a suit and tie doesn't cut it for me>

[Shadao]

i wanna know wht ol glenn has o say about the chrysler pacifica, it was brought up on ivoac.ca that the visibility of these vehicles is virtually non-existant, and that chrysler made them that way to appear to be safe, many auto critics have complained bitterly about the horrid visibility mainly in part due to the huge window/A pillar rstricting view, in a RHD vehicle you would never have that problem....

it was also said on ivoac.ca that it must have been some freak chance that vehicles have been designed to put the driver in the worst possible place, middle of the road.... considering that most people drve to work alonenot car pooling it truly isa wonder why they havent made RHD manditoy on a LH road system and visa vis for LHD vehicles in a RH road system... i wonder how many lives this would save...

see here for these valid points about this http://www.ivoac.ca/pn/index.php?nam...=viewtopic&t=7

[Hunter]

report to Transport Canada

After reading all these great debates about the rumoured/ proposed changes to the 25 year rule I have 2 comments. I As a Mini nut have battled with the same problems , as the mini tailights dont have any Dot or sae markings on them except for the refllector, I paid Mr Daniel Stern a respected auto lighting consultant to the US and the Canadian Govt to prepare a report on the Compliance of JIS and ECE tail/markers and side lamps on imprted european and JDM vehicles and overall the report showed that with at the most a bulb change they are compliant with DOT standards. He is willing to prepare a report to submit to Transport canada on the effects of imports into canada, and as a member of the US National Academy Sciences Transportation Research Board which is the premier traffic safety research consortium he will be listened to. of course this will cost money but perhaps if everyone got togther as a group?... also he said he had looked in the canada Gazette and no formal propsals had been made at this time to make the changes. he can be reached at dastern@torque.net or at his website Daniel Stern lighting.com

[woody]

I got a letter back from the Prime Ministers office this morning.

The response was as follows:

"Dear Mr. Calderwood:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge your e-mail regarding the regulations affecting imported used vehicles from Japan.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your e-mail to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I am certain that the Minister will also appreciated being made aware of your concerns, as well as your personal interest in this matter.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.

M. Bourque
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance de la haute direction
pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre
"

I do not know if the Prime Minister was made aware of the letter or not, but at least I received a response.
I replied with some added information and thanked him for taking the time to respond.

Has anyone else sent letters (emails) to the Min of T ? or the PM?

I certainly hope every importer in Canada has. There business depends on it.

I suggest everyone contact your importer and ask, see if they have contacted their ministers or not. Anyways, I am still pursuing this.

[Paradis]

Great work Woody, lets hope that response is authentic in its intentions.


Hunter,

If you could get some more info such as how much he'd looking for for a formal report that can be submited that would be fantastic, as I am most certaintly interested