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

[SmegEad]

What everyone fails to understand is that Grant (and others like him) is empowered to interpret and apply the law as he sees fit. Arguing the point with Grant just wastes time and energy, including Grant's.

To register a vehicle in Grant's area, you must comply to his interpretation of the law, PERIOD. To affect change, we need to be further up the chain of command, much like fighting a traffic ticket.

If we are told that we must have DOT/SAE headlights, taillights, markers etc, then so be it. We don't think twice about dumping $$ into a new turbo.

My only concern is - where does it end? If it is a vendetta against RHD will we continually be tagged for re-inspection by every "peace officer" with a bee in his bonnet, regardless of compliance?

[GT]

I'm now off for the weeknd and on my own nickel, so I will make a few posts. I'm sure Paradis is getting tired of being the middle man. You can guess who I am from my cleverly picked username :wink:

First off, Rockcrete, I guess I've made soem headwaves cause you still not trying to argue that the manual isn't law.

Show me one post where I apply the rules of the CMVSS or move the goal posts. I've read and re-read but can't really figure out what the heck you are talking about. Yes, imports older than 15 years are exempt from federal rules, although some of our pieces of legislation adopt certain parts where it fits. I didn't think I had made it that hard to understand, but I guess somehwere (help me out here) I did. what CMVSS rules are you talking about that WE can't get passed and where did you get that from?? I'm baffled by your post :?:

There is one more post that I sent to Paradis before I was off for the day. Maybe some of what I said will be of assistance.

Fire away!!

[SmegEad]

If the car does not pass, are you expected to export it back to Japan?

No - it simply cannot be registered for road use in BC. Track or export to another province is ok.

[ndawg]

You guys keep saying there will be DOT headlights out in FEB, but what about the other imports such as the Honda Beat, Alto Works, Pulsar, Sera, ECT. Im sure by making DOT lights for the skyline wont make them budge on the 25 year law, since there are many cars coming in whose lights are not DOT.

[rockcrete]

The whole problem if you keep reading his arguements are the application of CMVSS rules that he can't get passed, our vehicles were never manufactured under CMVSS and are exempt from CMVSS which is the only reason they are allowed in the country in the first place. This is a shifting goalpost, nothing you can do will please them, that is why they won't allow any obvious easy fixes to anything. It is very easy to certify the beam pattern on a correctly modified headlight, and in fact, is what they do in Europe with RHD cars when taken to LHD countries. The government recognises individual tests on all kinds of other items that don't meet Canadian standards. The only end answer they want is to ban RHD cars, all this is just a bunch of crap to slow it down before they can stop it. These people are not our friends, nothing you can do will please them. I almost think we need to stage a protest at the legislature to get some publicity, but I would be willing to bet that a horde of inspectors descend on us with a fleet of tow trucks. The BCMVA is very clear about lighting requirements, the only things he is throwing back are citing CMVSS requirements which DO NOT APPLY.

[Touring240]

I wonder what he is asking of the 2 Skyline owners in order to allow them to pass inspection.

If the car does not pass, are you expected to export it back to Japan?

[Paradis]

Some more from Glenn, though i think some of you are missing the point and poorly picking your battles so to speak. If this is the direction all of our discussion will go, it will be very difficult to make a case to keep the gates open so to speak. Arguing about headlight legislature is trite and quite frankly poorly timed right now. We should be working to meet the standards and demonstrate our desire to do what has to be done to keep our present situation the way it is.
Going around and arguing that the standards are wrong or there's loopholes in the phrasing is of poor choice right now i say. If we didn't have standards then anyone could just duct tape a flashlight to their hood and call it a headlight.

Focus on the ultimate goal here folks

I must comment on Psilosn posts;

I don`t know what you mean by `this is the kind of attitudes we have to deal
with``. Quite clearly you seem to be the one with an attitude wanting to try and
sling mud or get a rise I guess, once again instead of dealing with the issue at
hand.

In your own definition of equivalent you state that the def in sub 3 is the one
that ``A reasonable person capable of critical thinking would apply`` You want
to talk about attitude? Anyhow, right there in the definition you posted, it
says "correspoding or VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL"" Of course you are only reading into
it what you want.

Here is a part from the MVA, the equivalent part;


General lighting requirements


4.02 (1) A vehicle on a highway must only be equipped with and use lamps,
reflectors or other illuminating devices authorized by this Division or
authorized in writing by the director.

(2) A vehicle on a highway must be equipped with lamps equivalent to those
provided by the original manufacturer in accordance with the requirements that
applied under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), or a predecessor to that
Act, at the time of vehicle manufacture.

(3) All lamps, lamp bulbs and reflectors required or permitted by this Division
must comply with

(a) the approved standards established by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada)
and the applicable SAE standards,

(b) the conditions of use described in this Division, and

(c) the requirements of Table 1 of the Schedule to this Division.

(4) The function of 2 or more lamps or reflectors may be combined if each
function meets the following requirements:

(a) no turn signal lamp may be combined optically with a stop lamp unless the
stop lamp is extinguished when the turn signal is flashing;

(b) a clearance lamp must not be combined optically with a tail-lamp or
identification lamp.

(5) The director may exempt vehicles or classes of vehicles from the
requirements of this section.

[en. B.C. Reg. 476/98, s. 2; am. B.C. Reg. 135/2003, s. 1.]



It is very straight forward. Equivalent lights to what the manufacturer had to
put in to comply with the standards at time of manufacture. How you can figure
that square beams are equivalent to a big molded light is beyond me.

Also to state that lamps are designed they way they are is only for aesthetic
reasons is an uninformed statement.

Just for the record, I'm glad you made your post because then other RHD owners
can see the ATTITUDES that I have to deal with. You guys are sometimes your own
worst enemies.

[Paradis]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so i'm not getting anymore into this until i myself talk to someone like Mike Woods. I can buy into the case against the headlights, but i do not personally believe there is a public distain for them. I don't think anyone really cares to be honest, i mean if you went to France for example and asked locals how they feel about RHD, they're gonna say "uhhh... what about them??"

More from glen..

In response to Lotus;

No we won't be going after postal vehicles/garbage trucks next as they
meet our standards and were manufactured to be fully compliant with
CMVSS rules for the model year. They are purpose built vehicles used in
industry and are not insured for private use. It's kind of like big
tired loaders being allowed to run around with no fenders or mudflaps
when a lifted pick-up can't.

This is what I was trying to get across before. Most of the RHD owners
want to keep pointing fingers at other cars and other issues. "What
about these kinds of vehicles or what about junky cars or what about
garbage trucks...."Deal with your own issues. If all of your cars were
compliant then the only avenue would be the seated position. What good
do you think it does complaining about postal trucks? They comply, most
RHD's don't. The few I have running around here that I know are
compliant have no issues. Simple. I should qualify there are only 4 that
I know of that comply. There is a Pajero, a toyota pick-up, a 180 and a
cool 2 door landcruiser (owned by a nice guy who had the unfortunate
event of rolling his 91 rhd cruiser just a few months ago). The rest
don't comply. We have two Skylines sitting here that won't pass
inspection. That really has to suck for the owners. I've looked at them
both

I really do feel for people that will be effected by the enforcement of
the rules. It doesn't bother me that most will think it is a bs line or
me just trying to be a "good cop". It is my job however and I will
continue to do so. Why shouldn't rhd vehicles have to comply with the
rules that every other vehicle on the road has to comply with?

I think the best course of action is trying to make the vehicles
compliant first

[Boyscout]

RHD owners do have an uphill battle. The general public does not want them on the road

since they want to see case studies showing RHD vehicles are not an issue in a LHD part of the world (i.e. the UK), i would like to see THEIR case studies proving the above quote

[mwracing]

Taylor, Glenn TRAN:EX
to me

show details
Jan 4 (1 day ago)

Looks good.

Just to clarify a couple of points: The issue isn’t about the safety of these vehicles because of their age, the issue is about design. I would agree with most about these vehicles being in above average shape.



As far as who is spearheading the issue with Transport Canada, I am not sure. There are many people out there (general public) who adamantly disagree with allowing these vehicles on the road period. I’m sure Transport Canada has heard from many different avenues on this subject. I regularly get complaints from the general public about rhd’s and I tell them to visit the local MP.



I would think that a 25 year rule would give the law makers time to figure out how they want to deal with it. Most of the vehicles here should not have made it onto the street in the first place. We had to go out and educate the inspection facilities in their errors.



I agree that studies need to be looked at BEFORE rhd are allowed period. If studies show them to be safe then away we go. But to allow them first, then see what happens doesn’t seem to make sense.



RHD owners do have an uphill battle. The general public does not want them on the road. I really do feel for owners who have spent their dollars on a vehicle that, for all intents and purposes, has passed an inspection (improperly mind you) been properly insured, only to be pulled over and told their vehicle doesn’t comply. I also do see the lure of these vehicles. They have low km for the model year, have some really cool features like cable lockers on some 4x4’s, big power Skylines, and cars like the Toyota Sera, which are just plain cool.



RHD owners always bring up the garbage and postal truck issues as well. They are vehicles designed for a specific purpose and are not insured for pleasure use. They also comply with all the federal and provincial rules. There always has been an allowance for vehicles used in industry. It’s the same thing as trying to compare what a plated, rubber tired loader has to comply with vs a lifted truck. The loader has no fenders, doesn’t meet bumper heights or light heights and doesn’t have mudflaps. They are also exempt from inspection.



I hope that helps a bit.



From: Martin Worobec [mailto:martinworobec@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:53 AM
- Show quoted text -

To: Taylor, Glenn TRAN:EX
Subject: Re: importation
- Show quoted text -

http://forums.gtrcanada.com/viewtopic.php?t=11912&sid=4b4c4e3d1c49fbfd1e3add3128bec1f1

this is the topic i started with our conversation last night.

please feel free to email me responses at your conveinence if you like.





Taylor, Glenn TRAN:EX
to me

show details
Jan 4 (21 hours ago)

Hey Martin,



I have a contact number from our head office from our Vehicle Inspection Manager.



He is one of the gentleman who is “spearheading” this issue and a better resource than myself.



His name is Mike Woods. His contact number is 250-953-4040



You can post this on the board.



Thanks,



Glenn

[psilosin]

There is a reason why headlamp lenses are shaped they way they are on vehicles.

Yes its called aesthetics...modern cars have fancy looking shaped lights to look cool and follow the lines of the vehicle. The size and shape is irrelavant to function.

How can one headlight granted SAE certification be any more or less good than another headlight with SAE certification. There isn't...if they meet SAE standards then they meet SAE standards regardlessif they are square, circular or a triangle in overall shape. You could rig up a generic rectangular sealed beam headlamp to a skyline and be in full compliance. The ONLY reason people would not do that is it would look retarded.

You still do not give a reply to the legality of custom flatebed trucks if your definition is true. How are those off the shelf tail lights equivalent to OEM. They are very different in size and shape (typically horizonal or each light separate) from most standard truck tailights that are typically vertical cluster in orientation. Much more than .25" different in size.

Now you guys see the attitudes we are up against. To them an apple is not an apple when they are convinced its an orange but when they want an apple to be an apple it is an apple.

Also your dictionary statement is flawed as well, to be technical it was simplified with 'comma' and 'and' joiners to merge the various definitions into one. from the Marriam -Webster dictionary:
1 : equal in force, amount, or value; also : equal in area or volume but not superposable <a square equivalent to a triangle> [so by this definition it MUST be a different shape. By definition if it was the same size AND shape it would be EQUAL not EQUIVALENT. So using the size/shape definition regarding replacement lighting does not make sense...think about it!]
2 a : like in signification or import b : having logical equivalence <equivalent statements>
3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function This is the definition a reasonable person capable of critical thinking would apply (and is applied to custom flatbed trucks obviously)
4 obsolete : equal in might or authority
5 : having the same chemical combining capacity <equivalent quantities of two elements>
6 a : having the same solution set <equivalent equations> b : capable of being placed in one-to-one correspondence <equivalent sets> c : related by an equivalence relation

[SmegEad]

Complaints from truckers after you've pulled their rig over for an inspection do not equal "complaints from the general public".

That's like complaining to a cop that he should be "solving real crimes" while he's writing you a speeding ticket.

I don't believe for a moment that the "general public" beyond a very few individuals cares one way or the other about RHD vehicles.

I'll give "them" the benefit of the doubt on the headlight issue and will take steps to ensure my headlights are compliant. I get the side marker light argument too and will fix that as well. Beyond that - pound sand.

[Shadao]

he said that the general public disliking them is from his own experiences in dealing with people....

well if i was in his shoes im pretty damn sure i would hear more negative than positive, since most people arent gonna call him up and say " rhd cars are good ", just like someone said most likely these commments are from people who are old and crazy, and dont know anything about it so they fear it.

HOWEVER, because he is in the position to talk to these people with there complaints he should be difusing public myths/rumors about our cars, rather than carry them on, and i bet he tells his boss that people call into complain about rhd cars, which will only fuel more reasons for the higher ups to disallow them....... and there light pattern blah blah etc etc...

well last night a brand new chevy avalanche was behind me, i dont own a skyline yet, i own a dodge neon, and the trucks lights were so bright in my eyes even with the day/night mirror switched to night mode. i had to pull over because i couldnt see. then after i had pulled over, the truck carried on its way, however, on the way back from where i was headed there was one of thoe honda fugly truck things and its lights blinded me first from the hi-beams coming around a corner then when he switch them off his truck lights up like a xmas tree with super bright fog lights in my face along with his low beams that are point directly into my feild of vision...... everything went spotty and blurry for a few seconds while i was driving down winding narrow road.... thats real safe.....

i fail to see how( in his words) rhd cars will make the road unsafe do to there low beam light having " a slight bias towards on coming traffic ", as well as how having the hi-beams move towards the shoulder of the road, i personally would love to have more light spread on the shouldder of the road to my right. i find my lights arent bright enough in that part of the road, but are fine with low beams for the left hand side of the road.....

so what is the biggest issue with skylines and other rhd cars......?

GENERAL PUBLIC MISINFORMATION!

[Lotus97]

Do the people that contact you about their "dislike" of them outnumber the enthusiasts and number RHD vehicles you see on the road?

Are you going after Postal Vehicles, Bylaw Enforcement Vehicles and Garbage Trucks and other RHD vehicles next?

Pick up any newspaper, and you see whack jobs complaining about the most ridiculous things in letters to the editor all the time.

I also work for a gov't agency and see members of the public complaining all the time.

I can tell you right now that the loudest and most vocal complainers are usually either off their rocker (crazy old guy who hates everything), serving their own self-interests (in this case, I'm sure it's Toyota dealers complaining to you because they have angry customers that don't know how to source the right parts when they come in for service), and definitely do not represent the majority (much like we need to prove they are safe, I'd need to see a proper survey done before this statement that the general public wants them gone are accepted as gospel).

All this screams to me is that your department is overtaxed with the influx of automobiles and you don't have the budget to handle it properly. So instead, you take the middle ground, try to get people fearing RHD vehicles (by the article from the CBC about not being able to see when passing), finding clauses in the act to nitpick certain features, as a way to get the burden lifted.

They pick on Skylines saying you need the headlights to conform. Easy one to nail because there is no NA equivalent to swap with. Go read the Land Cruiser forum, they solved the headlight issues for the most part, but inspectors now give them grief about the taillights ... that'll be next once you've splurged for legal headlights, they'll point at the taillights next.

It will never end until they get what *THEY* want, unless we can get the politicians and public speaking about it in PUBLIC.

[WRick]

i sure hope that they dont change the laws before i get my skyline either this summer or next summer so they better not change or ill just get some minister to import it and transfer names :P i say we should show up and take some ministers and TC workers out for a drive in skylines, show them how safe they really are.

m'yeah....