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

[Trace]

From what I heard at the other site, TSS DOT approved headlights are supposed to be ready in mid-Feb. However, I've been waiting from late Sept, then mid Nov, then before Christmas and now mid Feb. Let's hope this will at least slightly ease off the TC actions.

Trace: I agree with you 100%. It's principle.

I talked to someone at The Skyline Shop and the DOT approved lights are set to be brought in at the end of febuary. Originally they were set to be brought in by December but it's a big project and manufacturing does take time.

I got off the phone with Glenn again and two things I should mention to you guys now:

1) People have tried to circumvent the headlight issue by placing DOT stamped glass inside the headlight to try and pass the inspection. Not a nice thing to do and definately doesn't reflect well on us.

2) The guy who's spearheading the operation will be taking emails. Just heard it from the horses mouth.

I did tell Glenn that the DOT stamped headlights are going to be in at the end of Febuary and ready for distribution. I believe that once we get our own sets we'll not have any real issues after that.

I think that we, as a community should really step up and show these guys we're willing to work with them in preventing this stupid possible 25 year rule, or if anything, show them that there's a lot of responcible owners and we're willing to do what every it legally takes to keep our cars up to snuff.


I almost feel like I'm working for them now or something...>_< All in all, I want the same thing we all want: Legally drivable Skylines with no issues in the future!

[Maverick]

From what I heard at the other site, TSS DOT approved headlights are supposed to be ready in mid-Feb. However, I've been waiting from late Sept, then mid Nov, then before Christmas and now mid Feb. Let's hope this will at least slightly ease off the TC actions.

Trace: I agree with you 100%. It's principle.

[Trace]

I just got off the phone with Glenn.

I have to say he sounds like a good guy. He actually admires the Skylines as well, but the issue at hand that concerns the most is the headlights not being DOT stapmed as well as the brake lights and the lack of side markers.

I can understand some of his concerns with the headlights and everything like that. Albeit I don't personally think it's too large of an issue but to the inspection facilities it's the biggest one. He said that it's because the lights swing into incoming traffic which was the issue.

I asked him that if people got together and bought the DOT stamped headlights for the Skylines then would TC get off our backs. He said that it'd make things a lot easier for us as owners of these cars. Side markers for the rear are easy enough....but I'd like to know personally when these DOT modified headlights are coming into the market so I can buy a set.

He also said that he thinks that if they do put the importation rule to 25 years then it's to buy time for a proper study. Not that I doubt that he thinks that, but I still doubt that this is the real reason.


So...again, my concern is the headlights. I know I won't get VIed or made to reinspect, but it's a principle...you know?

[shawley]

While the RHD headlight thing might seem like its Blinding people on paper..
I have never had anyone complain,, or flash or anything..

Ugh..

I have also never had anyone ever flash their lights at me, and i drive alot and alot at night

the only problem i had, was a fellow skyline owner in the city was driving towards me on a road with his aftermarket HID HIGHBEAMS on and that blinded me but thats was the only time i've noticed it, but then again any car with their high beams on would blind me aswell



and very well written letter Paradis

[Murphy]

Not bad.

One thing though.

Let's not all jump on Mr. Taylor's email/phone/fax at once. I'm sure Martin and Christopher will keep us posted now. We don't want to swamp the poor dude with our concerns; that'll only be counterproductive.

[dah_hunter]

sounds good.

[Paradis]

i sent out an email to him today, though i know he has no real push or pull on the decision being made, i figured we have to start somewhere, and who knows, maybe he'll steer us in the right direction (sweet pun!)

here's what i sent, we'll see if he responds. hopefully he does.

"Good Day Glen,

My name Christopher Paradis, and i reside in the City of Red Deer Alberta, and i am actively involved in my city and provinces' political affairs. I was hoping you could aid me in tackling an escalating issue in Alberta, that of Transport Canada's rising concerns about the number of automobiles being imported from Japan.

It has come to my attention that the now current 15 year rule regarding the importation of vehicles is under possible revision to go to a 25 year law instead. Now my personal opinion on this issue aside, i have been asked to relay some interesting concerns regarding this decision to you as i understand you are in a position that directly deals with this galvanised industry.

The main question surrounding this decision is what is the motivational force behind the desire to change this Law. All fluff and flair aside, the RHD argument would never hold up in a court battle as there is no statistical data to support any sort of significant problem with the headlights, which seem to be the only rope that any political or transportation department are grabing.
RHD drive cars, with their calibrated headlights, are by the millions everyday present in LHD countries within Europe. Extensive studies and statistical analysis have never shown any sort of correlation between the driver behing positioned on the right side of the vehicle, nor have the headlights caused any concern with oncoming traffic.
Infact standard headlights issued on all pickup models have a brilliance level that is only a few shades below the Hi-Beam threshold, and more complaints have been catalogued regarding this problem then RHD headlights.

So the question remains, what is the motivational reason for changing this rule? Given the lack of any significant data to support those reasons mentioned above, it begins to appear like an issue that is fueled by misrepresentation and a lash out against the often socially profiled individuals who own these vehicles. There is no doubt that many of the turbocharged automobiles carry with it a need for road safe conscientiousness, and in some cases, younger and older individuals neglect this responsibility, and that is an issue that we as a society have been trying to tackle since the first gasoline pump was erected. We as a country have always prided ourselves on being an open minded and even-keeled group of citizens, and acting in such a fashion so as to basically ban this cars does not seem to act in accordance with those beliefs.

I for one do not pretend to have the answers to that problem, though increasing the scrutiny to which we allow this vehicles into the country to ensure the highest quality car is being imported seems like a reasonable place to start. Surely, there must be other solutions to this problem, as i don't see how in 25 years that the world will suddenly change making Canada a better place for RHD cars then it was 10 years previous. The Citizens of Japan have been able to live their lives out quite comfortably with turbocharged cars on the streets everyday, and i don't see how our society is so mal prepared that we cannot handle that dimension of vehicular enhancement.

The most interesting angle to this whole case is the demand for these cars. If i were a member of the Canadian government, or part of a body governing the regulation of transportation in Canada, the first thing i would investigate is why there is so much demand and excitment surrounding this vehicles, and then to look at how we can all benifit from this. Companies to supply complaint headlights creates jobs, money, industry. Taxing the cars, or starting sanctioned companies to regulate this industry will only aid the economy as well as help to assert some control over this rapidly expanding sector of automobile activity.

So in summary Glen, i am not trying to ostricize you, nor lambaste you in any form or fashion. I am relaying the concerns of Drivers who are well versed in this concern and are looking for ways to approach this topic in a constructive manner. I have made a copy of this email and send it out to the many bodies who contacted me to address this. At this point they are interested to hear your thoughts, and i hope that you won't dissapoint them by ignoring this email, and explore this subject with us.

thank you for your time,
-Christopher

[Murphy]

^ a very good point.

This is however still closer than we've been before to credible information.

[lucky_cefiro]

The thing about this gentlemen is he's still an underling, he doesn't make policy he does what he's told.

Find a source at head office, a minister whatever. This would be like me saying GTRC is closing down and being a credible source because i'm a member.

Fact is it's just a rumor still.

And don't take offense, i really didn't intend any.

[Murphy]

While the RHD headlight thing might seem like its Blinding people on paper..
I have never had anyone complain,, or flash or anything..

Ugh..

Funny, I get that a lot. Mind you I drive SW20, beam pattern will be different. Still designed for RHD though. I should probably swap my lights ...

[Paradis]

Hmm, interesting.

MWracing,

If you have contact with this individual, you would be good to ascertain as much information as possible pertaining to who is "spearheading" this campaign and who we can talk to.

My greatest fear is that importation rules will change based on the RHD factor, which could be easily denounced with a little evidence support from europe which sees MILLIONS of RHD cars in LHD countries everyday.

[SmegEad]

I think we all knew it was a matter of "when" not "if".

Thanks, Martin for providing "real" info, from a real source in the know, rather than heresay and innuendo. It's important to note that most of our vehicles already here are probably safe, but we may have to take some steps to ensure compliance.

[dah_hunter]

While the RHD headlight thing might seem like its Blinding people on paper..
I have never had anyone complain,, or flash or anything..

Ugh..

[B.GTR]

Re: You heard it from the source. GLENN TAYLOR

People also do not seem to understand the headlight issue. Cars designed for operation on the right hand side of the road have headlights designed to point slightly right under low beam. When high beam is selected the beam reflects off a different part of the headlight, moving the beam of light to the left, creating better visibility. On a RHD vehicle the light bias is backwards, so under low beam power, the beam of light will be pointing into oncoming traffic and when high beam is selected, the beam of light will move towards the ditch. No amount of aiming will fix this, it is a design characteristic.

This part really gets to me and for one reason. The reason being that most of the new trucks out there have extremely bright headlights that no matter what you do you are blinded from a truck coming towards you or even from behind you.

In the case of a truck blinding you with his light coming from behind you, if you are in a skyline u could just flick a switch your good fold them mirrors in hence blocking out the light.

[fastbmw7]

Did Glenn mention the reasoning behind the intent to change the importation law to 25 years? Also, who in the government is actually responsible for spearheading an attempt at chaanging the law? Which MP? Will it be tabled as a private members bill?
If the intent of the change is to prevent right hand drive cars from being imported into Canada, I fail to understand how the change in the permitted vehicle's age will eliminate rhd vehicles from being imported? (Sorry to sound ignorant, but there are 25 year old cars still on the planet that are right hand drive, the last time I checked).
Thanks for posting this correspondence from Mr. Taylor.