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

[Dragon Humper]

1)Where do I start. JDM headlights do not conform to our requirements and has been proven by an engineer. The lights might have a great cutoff for use on the left hand side of the road, but we don't do that here.

2)I'm not going to bebate what 172(2) states, because it says what it says and the signals are supposed to be approved by who they say they should be approved by.

3)You keep talking about what rdh's are like to drive on our roads and that left hand drive cars are fine when operated on the left hand side of the road. who are you haveing this debate with cause I never mentioned that. Now that you bring it up I would ask why a right vs left hand seating position is picked over the other at the time of manufacture.

4)Lastly ( again I can't believe we are still talking about this) you are correct that vehicles over 15 years of age are exempt from the Federal requirements. You must comply simply with the provincial regulations. In BC we have adopted the federal regulations for lights ( and other things) into our legislation. I don't get how that is hard to understand.

Oh Relax, it has been a long time since this topic has been discused and I needed to vent a little, mostly because of the rediculous BS that is going on in Manitoba (and to some extent continuing in BC).


1)The engineer in question was lazy, the lights that I have seen (a freaking lot of them, how many did this "engineer" test) and the ones that I have are perfectly acceptible in a LHD world. There is no issue, never has been. There is NO KICKUP TO THE CURB like DOT lights have so there is no issue using them in a LHD world.

2)What debate, you brought it up and it's as lame now as it was 10 years ago, if you have electric or mechanical turn signals you can operate a RHD vehicle WITHOUT using hand signals (because you can't use hand signals in a RHD). Your little toothpick didn't stir a shotglass let alone a pot.

3)I really don't know what you are trying to say there. If you are wondering why certain contries pick RHD or LHD you can blame the Brits on that one, those Limeys were pushing their goofy pre-ocupation to hang on to the old world of horse-riding with your sword in your hand to all it's territorries (Japan traded with them more than the US back in the first 1/4 of the 20th century). The only reason the Brits were pushing that was because the US went the other way, probably because the Brits were insisting on theirs.....LOL.

4)The only reason I mention that is because, the regs. are a complete waste of time. They are not going to make anything safer, if anything they make things less safe because of the goofy things that need to be modified to make it work. Fenders will rust out faster because holes are being cut where there was never ment to be a hole so there is not sufficent drainage in case of a leak, headlights are being botched in to satisfy some obsurd request to fix an issue that doesn't exist, the list goes on and on. Some people do good work and make this stuff look like it was ment to be there, some really do not. The sad part is the really crappy work is technically acceptable for inspection, it just completely fukced up a mint 30k km cream puff.


I know full well what is needed to pass inspection in BC, I've done it twice now and the inspection facility had no idea what I did or didn't do because it was that seamless (except for the headlights because you really can't pollish a turd in most cases with those lights). I just think it is pointless when there are thousands of POS muffler draggers polluting our air and putting our lives at risk (ironically all of which are DOT compliant).




Jon.

[quadracer111]

Nothing has changed in at least the last 15 years there.

Ahh, that was the rhd sticker thing... My bad.

That says the thing about electric/mechanical signal lights, but nothing about they have to be approved iirc.

I think the whole thing is just stupid. Sure, I understand lhd lights, but I have not had an issue with either my GC8 or r32 with factory lights, I have never been flashed once. I had a friend drive my car towards me on the highway in my car, I was in his, it did not blind me at all, I have more of an issue with any truck or big car. Slapping in some honda accord lights is a lot more dangerous because the aim is all messed up, can't see anything. The headlights are not made for the car at all, no matter how you mount them they will always be shitty.

And don't get me started on tail lights, if it reflects light, and lights up, is that not good enough? A magical DOT stamp isn't going to change anything. The Japanese are way more strict than us with vehicles (general population seems to be smarter too, not a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers), I think they know how to make a tail light light up and reflect. Look at the vehicles on our roads compared to theirs, all I see are rusted out pieces of **** with exhausts dragging on the ground, missing a headlight with blown struts swaying all over the road. RHD's should be the least of your worry, at least they are good shape. I think it's time to give them some credit lol.

Side markers are a joke too... But whatever.

EDIT: And don't forget about all the shitty drivers! Get rid of those if you want to do something productive

[GT]

This must of been changed within the last couple years, the whole "approved by the lieutenant blah blah blah" was not there before.

Nothing has changed in at least the last 15 years there.

[GT]

The no markings part was an afterthought, I have seen taillights with only JIC on them, no DOT. Like I said, if JIC 2010 is good to go, then they all should be. The compliance sticker is proof positive that JIC is just as good as DOT and not model specific (because DOT is somehow "model specific"?)

I was LOLing at the side marker and tail marker part in the reg., it's so lame, like a freak accident happened when a taillight was out and someone plowed into the side of the vehicle near the backend even though the reflector was still OK. Then the Government had a little freakout and mandated that the rear marker and the taillight must be seperated so that "could never possibly happen again". I can just hear them patting themselves on the back...."harumph, harumph...good job Johnson"....... And yes, in 1990 there were indeed vehicles that were built that had the side marker and the taillight as the same thing (combined "optically").

The light blockers that I saw were far from temperary, you would need a freaking chainsaw to get them off. They were epoxied on or something. Judging by your comment, sounds like it would be a waste of time. Just have to keep putting in ill fitting, crappy beam DOT lights.

JDM lights have a far better cutoff that does not blind on-coming traffic (here), I don't care what anyone of "authority" says about it. The Japanese public is very sensitive to light at nite for some reason, they will turn off their lights when at a stop light, the taillights are a little dimmer and the head lights DO NOT kick up to light up road signs because roadsigns in Japan are not reflective and people on bicycles would be blinded (many ride into oncoming traffic, it's crazy, you should try driving here sometime). I have looked at about 2000 different headlights ranging in age from new to 30 years old in the last 3 weeks and can tell you that they have a very definite cutoff and are absolutely flat, no kickup to the curbside.

172(2)? Give me a break, that's what turn signals are for (or semiphores if you want to own an old Citroen), I see no mention of a "Letter of Compliance". How about the "Vehicle is Right Hand Drive" stickers??? Don't we need those??....LOL.

Do you know what they do to US buit cars in Japan....NOTHING, that's what. One thing that I have seen is the amber fender marker between the front tire and the door....but not always. LHD vehicles are all over the place, US and European. I walked around a car lot 2 days ago with brand spanking new 300Cs, Camaros, Suburbans (try driving one of those around Japan on the wrong side) and people do just fine with them. It's like our government is trying to say that Canadians are to STUPID to be able to drive a RHD safely on Canadian roads.......how insulting.

Again, I go back to the fact that 15year old JDM vehicles are exempt from complying to DOT/SAE standards. So says the Federal Government. And don't try and feed me that same old crap about keeping the roads of BC safe for the general public, if that were even remotely true the CADA and the BC Libs would be paying to have Smart cars (just as safe as a Kai car, right?) driven around by peace officers with the authority to pull the rusted, smoking, bouncing, muffler dragging, quarter panel caved in, mouth breather driven piles of absolute SH1T off the road that are putting way more lives at stake than side markers EVER could. *yes that was a ramble-rant, yes I am out of breath......lol*

The regs are a joke, any two-bit lawer could argue for or against any one of them successfully, the wording is that vague and missleading. There is a GIANT swath of grey there with a smattering of black and white.



Jon.

Where do I start. JDM headlights do not conform to our requirements and has been proven by an engineer. I can't believe we are still talking about that. The lights might have a great cutoff for use on the left hand side of the road, but we don't do that here.

I'm not going to bebate what 172(2) states, because it says what it says and the signals are supposed to be approved by who they say they should be approved by.

You keep talking about what rdh's are like to drive on our roads and that left hand drive cars are fine when operated on the left hand side of the road. who are you haveing this debate with cause I never mentioned that. Now that you bring it up I would ask why a right vs left hand seating position is picked over the other at the time of manufacture.

Lastly ( again I can't believe we are still talking about this) you are correct that vehicles over 15 years of age are exempt from the Federal requirements. You must comply simply with the provincial regulations. In BC we have adopted the federal regulations for lights ( and other things) into our legislation. I don't get how that is hard to understand.

I posted them before but here they are AGAIN;

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.]

[Dragon Humper]

The difference between a vehicle manufactured for here with no lens markings and a JDM vehicle is a decal of compliance showing it complies with all the applicable regs and standards.

The no markings part was an afterthought, I have seen taillights with only JIC on them, no DOT. Like I said, if JIC 2010 is good to go, then they all should be. The compliance sticker is proof positive that JIC is just as good as DOT and not model specific (because DOT is somehow "model specific"?)

I was LOLing at the side marker and tail marker part in the reg., it's so lame, like a freak accident happened when a taillight was out and someone plowed into the side of the vehicle near the backend even though the reflector was still OK. Then the Government had a little freakout and mandated that the rear marker and the taillight must be seperated so that "could never possibly happen again". I can just hear them patting themselves on the back...."harumph, harumph...good job Johnson"....... And yes, in 1990 there were indeed vehicles that were built that had the side marker and the taillight as the same thing (combined "optically").

The light blockers that I saw were far from temperary, you would need a freaking chainsaw to get them off. They were epoxied on or something. Judging by your comment, sounds like it would be a waste of time. Just have to keep putting in ill fitting, crappy beam DOT lights.

JDM lights have a far better cutoff that does not blind on-coming traffic (here), I don't care what anyone of "authority" says about it. The Japanese public is very sensitive to light at nite for some reason, they will turn off their lights when at a stop light, the taillights are a little dimmer and the head lights DO NOT kick up to light up road signs because roadsigns in Japan are not reflective and people on bicycles would be blinded (many ride into oncoming traffic, it's crazy, you should try driving here sometime). I have looked at about 2000 different headlights ranging in age from new to 30 years old in the last 3 weeks and can tell you that they have a very definite cutoff and are absolutely flat, no kickup to the curbside.

172(2)? Give me a break, that's what turn signals are for (or semiphores if you want to own an old Citroen), I see no mention of a "Letter of Compliance". How about the "Vehicle is Right Hand Drive" stickers??? Don't we need those??....LOL.

Do you know what they do to US buit cars in Japan....NOTHING, that's what. One thing that I have seen is the amber fender marker between the front tire and the door....but not always. LHD vehicles are all over the place, US and European. I walked around a car lot 2 days ago with brand spanking new 300Cs, Camaros, Suburbans (try driving one of those around Japan on the wrong side) and people do just fine with them. It's like our government is trying to say that Canadians are to STUPID to be able to drive a RHD safely on Canadian roads.......how insulting.

Again, I go back to the fact that 15year old JDM vehicles are exempt from complying to DOT/SAE standards. So says the Federal Government. And don't try and feed me that same old crap about keeping the roads of BC safe for the general public, if that were even remotely true the CADA and the BC Libs would be paying to have Smart cars (just as safe as a Kai car, right?) driven around by peace officers with the authority to pull the rusted, smoking, bouncing, muffler dragging, quarter panel caved in, mouth breather driven piles of absolute SH1T off the road that are putting way more lives at stake than side markers EVER could. *yes that was a ramble-rant, yes I am out of breath......lol*

The regs are a joke, any two-bit lawer could argue for or against any one of them successfully, the wording is that vague and missleading. There is a GIANT swath of grey there with a smattering of black and white.



Jon.

[quadracer111]

If I wanted to really stir the pot I start checking BC vehicles for their approval letter for compliance with this law;

Left hand drive signals
172 (1) When a driver of a left hand drive vehicle gives a signal by hand and arm, the driver must do so from the left side, and must signify

(a) a left turn by extending his or her left hand and arm horizontally from the vehicle,

(b) a right turn by extending his or her left hand and arm out and upward from the vehicle, and

(c) a stop or decrease in speed by extending his or her left hand and arm out and downward from the vehicle.

(2) A person must not drive a right hand drive vehicle on a highway unless it is equipped with a mechanical or electrical signalling device approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

This must of been changed within the last couple years, the whole "approved by the lieutenant blah blah blah" was not there before.

[GT]

Actually, EVERY province should already have a similar report because there are several models of cars being sold new that I have seen in the last 5 years or so that only have the JIS markings, or none at all. All someone needs to do (I'm looking at you Manitoba) is find a new vehicle that has JIS marked lights and ask for the report concerning that model. If that JIS light is good, they ALL must be good.

That would be like saying, "sure, your DOT marked light from 1977 was OK then, but it's no good now, you must change it to something newer".

Ummmm......no. You can't have it both ways. And again, that goes back to the spirit of the wording in the MVA reg. about lighting conforming to the standards at the time of manufacture. If JIS 2010 is good, then JIS 1990 must also be good.



Jon.

The difference between a vehicle manufactured for here with no lens markings and a JDM vehicle is a decal of compliance showing it complies with all the applicable regs and standards.

[GT]

Would someone be able to use an engineers report that says that light benders/blockers that they use in Europe are good enough to change anyones mind that the lights need to be changed out? Or would that just be a waste of time? They have been in use in Europe for a very long time.

(b) I like that one, do you have any idea how many vehicles have that very thing and are still on the road, we are talking about aprox. 100 models spanning at least 70 years. Yet no-one is pulling them off the road to be "retro-fitted". Fat chance getting someone with a $100,000 '57 BelAir to do that. Why do we have to add them, they were not orig. equiped on our cars at time of manufacture. Same with the 3rd brake light (although I think they are a good idea). I don't think they are living up to the spirit of these regs, they just seem to pick and choose (selectively distort?) things to make it harder to bring these vehicles in. Manitoba is just getting stupid with this crap.

(5) The director may, but not even if his soul depended on it, exempt JDM vehicles from the requirements of this section.........LOL. (I couldn't help myself..... ).

Jon.

As far as "light benders" if I remember corrdctly they were a TEMPORARY stick on device that was applied to allow the vehicles in for a short amount of time without having to change headlights. If someone wants to pay an engineer somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 to tell them that they work for 30 days, then have at it.

Vehicles need to comply with whatever rules that were in affect at the time of manufacture, so no retrofitting needs to take place ( if the vehicle was compiantly built in the first place). The difference with rhd's ( postal and garbage aside) is they were never available here in the first place. You could not have bought a 1993 ( just an example) new in Canada that did not have side markers, reflectors or DRL's. As an import it must meet all the applicable laws for that year of vehicle and in BC that includes many things that the rhd's never had. You want an exemption that applies to every other vehicel on the road. It's not a conspiracy theory, it has been in place for ever ( 100years??) and has never changed, contrary to theories that "we" have made things harder.

If I wanted to really stir the pot I start checking BC vehicles for their approval letter for compliance with this law;

Left hand drive signals
172 (1) When a driver of a left hand drive vehicle gives a signal by hand and arm, the driver must do so from the left side, and must signify

(a) a left turn by extending his or her left hand and arm horizontally from the vehicle,

(b) a right turn by extending his or her left hand and arm out and upward from the vehicle, and

(c) a stop or decrease in speed by extending his or her left hand and arm out and downward from the vehicle.

(2) A person must not drive a right hand drive vehicle on a highway unless it is equipped with a mechanical or electrical signalling device approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

[Snake556]

Actually, EVERY province should already have a similar report because there are several models of cars being sold new that I have seen in the last 5 years or so that only have the JIS markings, or none at all. All someone needs to do (I'm looking at you Manitoba) is find a new vehicle that has JIS marked lights and ask for the report concerning that model. If that JIS light is good, they ALL must be good.

That would be like saying, "sure, your DOT marked light from 1977 was OK then, but it's no good now, you must change it to something newer".

Ummmm......no. You can't have it both ways. And again, that goes back to the spirit of the wording in the MVA reg. about lighting conforming to the standards at the time of manufacture. If JIS 2010 is good, then JIS 1990 must also be good.




Jon.

This man speaks the truth! We must use this!

[Dragon Humper]

I can't speak for other provinces but here in BC our regs state that all lamps and lenses must bear DOT/SAE or the appropriate ECODE ( or a federal decal of compliance). We have a copy of an engineers report that shows the rear lamps of the JDM vehicles meet the majority of our standards ( bulbs may need to be changed and side marker/reflectors may need to be added) so we will accept rear lamps without DOT/SAE markings provided they bear the Japanese mark of compliance ( JIS markings).

Actually, EVERY province should already have a similar report because there are several models of cars being sold new that I have seen in the last 5 years or so that only have the JIS markings, or none at all. All someone needs to do (I'm looking at you Manitoba) is find a new vehicle that has JIS marked lights and ask for the report concerning that model. If that JIS light is good, they ALL must be good.

That would be like saying, "sure, your DOT marked light from 1977 was OK then, but it's no good now, you must change it to something newer".

Ummmm......no. You can't have it both ways. And again, that goes back to the spirit of the wording in the MVA reg. about lighting conforming to the standards at the time of manufacture. If JIS 2010 is good, then JIS 1990 must also be good.




Jon.

[Dragon Humper]

.

As the engineers report cost money, it is not something that can be shared ( a private individual paid for the report). The engineers report also showed without a doubt that the original headlamps must be changed ( unless it is a switchable projector style which I have never seen) and no amount of aiming will allow them to comply.

(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.

Would someone be able to use an engineers report that says that light benders/blockers that they use in Europe are good enough to change anyones mind that the lights need to be changed out? Or would that just be a waste of time? They have been in use in Europe for a very long time.

(b) I like that one, do you have any idea how many vehicles have that very thing and are still on the road, we are talking about aprox. 100 models spanning at least 70 years. Yet no-one is pulling them off the road to be "retro-fitted". Fat chance getting someone with a $100,000 '57 BelAir to do that. Why do we have to add them, they were not orig. equiped on our cars at time of manufacture. Same with the 3rd brake light (although I think they are a good idea). I don't think they are living up to the spirit of these regs, they just seem to pick and choose (selectively distort?) things to make it harder to bring these vehicles in. Manitoba is just getting stupid with this crap.

(5) The director may, but not even if his soul depended on it, exempt JDM vehicles from the requirements of this section.........LOL. (I couldn't help myself..... ).




Isn't all this moot though, imported vehicles over 15 years old are exempt from meeting DOT/SAE standards.....so says the feds. How can the province override the fed when a vehicle can be driven on a FEDERAL road.....like the #1 highway.




Jon.

[quadracer111]

I can't speak for other provinces but here in BC our regs state that all lamps and lenses must bear DOT/SAE or the appropriate ECODE ( or a federal decal of compliance). We have a copy of an engineers report that shows the rear lamps of the JDM vehicles meet the majority of our standards ( bulbs may need to be changed and side marker/reflectors may need to be added) so we will accept rear lamps without DOT/SAE markings provided they bear the Japanese mark of compliance ( JIS markings).

As the engineers report cost money, it is not something that can be shared ( a private individual paid for the report). The engineers report also showed without a doubt that the original headlamps must be changed ( unless it is a switchable projector style which I have never seen) and no amount of aiming will allow them to comply.

Here is the wording from our regs which adopts the federal standards for lighting;

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.

Thanks for the straight up answer! I appreciate it. Makes sense.

[GT]

I can't speak for other provinces but here in BC our regs state that all lamps and lenses must bear DOT/SAE or the appropriate ECODE ( or a federal decal of compliance). We have a copy of an engineers report that shows the rear lamps of the JDM vehicles meet the majority of our standards ( bulbs may need to be changed and side marker/reflectors may need to be added) so we will accept rear lamps without DOT/SAE markings provided they bear the Japanese mark of compliance ( JIS markings).

As the engineers report cost money, it is not something that can be shared ( a private individual paid for the report). The engineers report also showed without a doubt that the original headlamps must be changed ( unless it is a switchable projector style which I have never seen) and no amount of aiming will allow them to comply.

Here is the wording from our regs which adopts the federal standards for lighting;

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.

[quadracer111]

Holy old post Batman!!!

I forgot I was "The Source!"

This goes to show that rumours are many times, just rumours, even when you get it from "the source".

For the record, I have heard of no "new" rumours of a 25 year ban, although "we" don't work directly with the feds. We also had no prior information to Quebec going the way they did.

I have a question for you that I have been wondering about.
Regarding tail lights, I know here in SK "the book" says nothing about DOT tail lights, but apparently in other provinces people have been hassled for this. If the tail light is visible, shines red, and has a reflector is this not good enough? I don't get how a dot stamp would make it all that much better (which is the USA's standards no?). Not meant to start a flame war, just one of those things I am curious about that doesn't make sense in my head.

[GT]

Holy old post Batman!!!

I forgot I was "The Source!"

This goes to show that rumours are many times, just rumours, even when you get it from "the source".

For the record, I have heard of no "new" rumours of a 25 year ban, although "we" don't work directly with the feds. We also had no prior information to Quebec going the way they did.