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

[mwracing]

quite the post i have started.

[jhmed]

quite the post i have started.

I'll say. This needs to be discussed and solutions found. There's some good progress being made on another board for Cruisers...

http://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=126970

Long read, but worth it. They've got cards to hand out to the community so more people know what's happening.

[Shadao]

so when will " www.SAVERHD.ca " start? build enough momentum and im sure we could have a full info site on RHD vs LHD facts figures, use this as a big tool, colaberate info with foregin nations. and show that the WORLD WIDE FIGURES show that RHD is just as safe/dangerous as LHD

[mdrive]

TO GLENN

TO GLEN Taylor:

Glen:

There are many aspects those I believe to be wrong in terms of compliance of RHD imports as contained in your write up in this forum. You have mentioned that only some Land Cruiser Models do comply, however, cars like Hilux, Pajero, Skylines don't comply with Canadian Standard at all. I wish to bring to your kind attention that cars like Hilux, Pajero, Soarer to name a few besides many commercial Trucks such as Dyna, Atlas, Hiace etc DO comply with Canadian Standards. If headlights & tail lights are the issue, one can buy all the headlights in Canada and USA. Many vehicles come with E coded tail lamps which are very much accepted in Canada (for example, Mercedes Benz Smart Car). If private importers, registered importers & dealers are not changing them and finally inspection facilities are not following the guidelines strictly, it is CVSE’s failure. Failure to implement the regulation through inspection facilities does not mean that most vehicles do not comply with Canadian Standard. Practically, you should emphasize on enforcing the regulation strictly rather than put a stop on the RHD units.

Every Single vehicle is possible to comply with the local standard. “Implementation” is an issue which should be conducted under any circumstance regardless. For example, I created the first legal headlight for Skylines in Canada. The reason was the intention to comply.

The most important issue is that all the cars should be brought under compliance. If RHD units are not inspecting properly that means inspection facilities are not inspecting local cars & taxis properly. If there is a problem with implementation (by the proper authority), certainly the mode of implementation / application needs to be rectified for the reason that there would be more unforeseen issues not necessarily with the RHD units only that will endanger public safety and security. At this point, I believe that all the inspectors should be enlightened (not only instructed via fax) in regards to compliance. Also, going through few emails/fax which have been posted here in this forum as well in others suggest me that many CVSE officials are not properly informed about most of the vehicles those are being imported from Japan.

Last but not the least….many of the buyers of the imported used vehicles opt to buy these units in lieu of used local vehicles for some valid reasons. Not everybody is adventurous or speedster; its stringent reality that most can not go beyond a budget of $10,000 or so for a LOW KM, RUST FREE,4WD & Diesel vehicle which is not luxury, rather a bare NEED. Local cars do not meet any of the criteria! The economic reality of this quite a huge population should be considered.

I believe if compliance is the only issue, it can resolved easily by forming a committee with TC Officials bona fide Dealers & Importers, Vehicle Inspectors & Consumers.

[SmegEad]

Misinformation and rumour continue to circulate - I overheard a conversation in an Army Surplus store yesterday. The owner was saying he was told (by his customs broker) that all offshore imports have been cutoff effective immediately.

He decided that as he could no longer import his treasured "European army surplus vehicles" the blame lay with those "japanese sports cars".

Point being there is plenty of rumour circulation about, most of it from unreliable sources or from people who should know better. As a special interest group, the best thing we can do is gather information as best we can, disect it to glean whatever modicum of truth lies therin and then appeal, as an organized and mature group of enthusiasts, to the right people.

[mdrive]

We already have a group for forming an organigation. Please join yahoo group RHDTLC

[GT]

Wow, huge thread already!!

Ok, I'll try and answer what I can.

Psilosn, yes flatbeds which are put on after the fact (box removed) with lights that are not equivalent do not comply. Having said that, there are trucks which can be ordered as an incomplete cab and chassis (no box or lights). These vehicles are finished by a secondary manufacturer (who install bed, lights etc). They also install a decal of compliance and have gotten approval for most of the style lights I think you are talking about.

Also, please don't stop posting because of me. I don't think your posts are derogatory, it's just that I do get my back up when it seems to get personal. I will do my best to "let it run off my back" as I know there is a lot at stake here.

rockcrete,

I have given you the actual legislation that shows the manual is part of the MVA. I don't know what else to do. I have prosecuted this in court before so if it isn't law there are quite a few provincial JP's that might want to know the are handling cases that aren't real. It's got nothing to do with CMVSS except that it has been adopted as a standard in certain areas for ease.

Mdrive,

Let me clarify the comment I made about certain vehicles being compliant. Most were modified to be compliant. As far as other vehicles being compliant to Canadian laws (if you mean unmodified) the only way that is true is if it were to bear a Canadian Decal of Compliance or and engineers report showing all aspects comply. I have said before that some rear tailight lenses that were not marked DOT/SAE were checked by an engineer($$$$$) and proved to meet the standards. The lights that you speak of that are E Coded that are accepted (I'll speak of BC) here are on vehicles which bear a Canadian decal of compliance, so the lights meet the same standards.

The issue right now is compliance. That should be everyones first order. You guys really do need to form together and try to deal with Transport Canada because they will be the ones who ultimatley make the decision on what comes in and when.

[Shadao]

Glenn thank you for your continuing aid in cooling the issues and showing us a lil on the inside, of what is going on, without you there would be alot more speculation and rumors abound..... have you seen this????

http://www.luxuryimports.ca/faq/joinfight.php

im sure that you will be able to help us with this article of information...

[GT]

I have read some of it. I will read it all come Monday.

Is it good or bad?? I would try and get my hands on as many studies as I could. As we all know, the outcome of some studies can relate directly to what they are trying to find. :wink:

Also I have talked to Wayne at Luxury Imports on the phone. Sounds like a real good guy who I think does understand the issues and is trying his best to work with what we have. I think he "made" some compliant tailights for a model of Cruiser. Good guy to have on "your side". Either that or I got him all wrong and he's a complete ass. :wink: Just kidding.

Talk about rumours, I had someone approach me on the street today and ask me about the proposed 30 year import rule. He said he knew someone from Transport Canada and he had told them they were going for 30 years. Before everyone freaks just remember the source is someone I have never met and may have just been trying to stir the pot.

[Paradis]

Glenn thank you for your continuing aid in cooling the issues and showing us a lil on the inside, of what is going on, without you there would be alot more speculation and rumors abound..... have you seen this????

http://www.luxuryimports.ca/faq/joinfight.php

im sure that you will be able to help us with this article of information...

Hmm, Its very unnerving to think that poeple in important places will read that letter without the converse side being outlined for them....

i wrote Mike Woods a small email, this time with a different approach. I simply told who i was, my thoughts on the rising hysteria over this law, and asked him to give me his thoughts on some of the more common issues.
We'll see where he goes from here.

Good day Mike, How are you doing? Good i trust. My name is Christopher Paradis, and i am an active member of the city of Red Deer AB and its political forums. I was asked to contact you in hopes of touching base with some connected to the following issue, and discuss a few concerns. So hopefully we can achieve that here.

Basically, I wanted to speak you with candidately regarding the escalating situation involving the importation of vehicles primarely from Japan.
From a legislative and legal stand point, it has been merely a topic of significant interest, addressed by a select few, and now gained some headway.
The community of owners of these imported cars however, have experienced this situation from a much different angle, one that has exploded from purely speculative, to full blown salem witch hunt.
Largely this can be attributed to fact that most owners feel like walking around in the dark. There appears to be alot of confusion on the owners side pertaining to what law applies where, what jurisdication has control over what ( i.e. federal vs provincial ), or in some cases, many just feel plain helpless to do anything as all the absolute power resides within individuals who are for the most part, far removed from public's eye.

Put all this together and you have a large body of citizens who are looking for some direction and explanation. Hopefully the importee community can organize effectively soon to address this, but such is the current status. The results of this can be seen on any message board, online community, enthusiast groups meetings, or in a plain old gas station between a clerk and customer. You may have already spoken to Glenn taylor about this, who has recently being gracious enough to engage the GTRC forums and try to answer some questions. Now i don't personally know how much of this you've seen or heard from, but i wanted to take this opportunity to try something different as i understand you are someone who is in a relatively meaningful position in all of this, so i'd like to your thoughts. I've got listed below a few of the common concerns and issues by which many are basing their retaliation on, so i'd like to give you the floor to hear your thoughts on them before others tell you what they think and why you need to withdraw your campaign against RHD cars.

If you could relay your thoughts and motifs, and i can't emphasize those two enough, regarding the following concerns, we would all not only greatly appreciate it, but it certainly help us to collectively talk with those involved a little more effective than simply making accusations or false assumptions.

1) Why does pushing the law back another 10 years help? What do you expect to have happen that will signifcantly change canada's approach? Why not work through these problems now as they arise.

2) Why is Europe able to effective negotiate with having both RHD and LHD cars in transit. What is it the citizens of Europe are cognitively able to do that we as canadians are not?

3) There are several companies who are currently on the verge of unveiling a line of headlights and markers that will for all intensive purposes, allow all imported vehicles to meet the compliance standards. Your thoughts on this, is that not enough?

4) If its RHD that is truly the concern, and studies show no correlation between that and safety, what grounds are there to stop the importation of vehicles?

In summary Mike, we greatly appreciate your honest response to those issues, and many look forward to reading your thoughts on this affair.

Thank you for your time Mike
-Christopher

[Shadao]

well the first page makes rhd cars out to be bad, but then when you read the rest of it and see the tables and figures they have assembled you get to see that the numbers work for rather than against us....

the biggest problem is that cars that are passing inspection shouldnt have passed, this is a result in the failure of the inspection process, its not your fault, its the fault of people in your position not properly trained and informed to know what to look for.... and that the majority of these imported cars are in better condition than domestic cars of the same age that are not being inspected....

there is are two age categories(table 23) that shows drivers of imported cars have a high collision rate than all vehicles, and thats the under 20 crowd and 55-64, which has a very high collision rate because of lack of driver experience, or getting old.... the rest of the categories shows that drivers of imported cars have a lower collistion rate than all other vehicles, so unless your a newlywed or nearly dead driving an imported car 15yrs or older your a safer driver than the rest....

it all boils down to the driver, not the car,

my fav point is on the fist page paragrpah 8

in the span of 5 yrs from 2000-2004 25,500 15yrold or older cars have been imported into Canada, of those cars 80 have been involved in collisions( it doesnt say whos at fault or not) 1 person has died and 1 person has had serious injury, yet these imported cars as suposedly responsible for increasing casualty rates....

i wonder if someone can find out how many people from 2000-2004 have moved to canada, i bet there are way more people than cars...

the more you read it the more you will see that TC saying these 15yr old imported cars are not safe, is a bunch of BS.

it makes me see more clearly that this entire fiasco is driven by the BIG 3 auto companies and there losing out on millions of dollars, rather than making money from it they want to make it so no one can make anything....

its the whole " if i cant have it, no one can "

[speedfreak]

Are any of the one piece headlamps that the Honda boys switch over too with the projectors and angeleyes in them DOT'd?
If they are can we contact a manufacturer and see it they can fab something up?

[mwracing]

im pretty sure the integra and civic angel eyes and one piece after market models are not DOT approved. because most companies state not for use on highway, not for use on street or off road use only

[SmegEad]

I understand where TC is coming from. I don't agree with it, but I get it. There are more RHD cars on the road now than they ever dreamed of. Hell, there are more RHD cars on the road than I ever dreamed there would be. I thought there would be some measure of exclusivity, but I can't drive from Kelowna to Vernon or Kelowna to Penticton without seeing 5 - 10 RHD vehicles EVERY time. Whether it's other Skylines, JDM Civics, Land Rovers, Land Cruisers or Hilux (my God ... those damn Hilux are everywhere!) - I'm amazed at how much "our" little industry has caught on.

The sheer volume and popularity of our vehicles (I use the collective our to include all imports under the 15 year rule) has got TC running scared. After all, the only control over the quality of the vehicle entering Canada is, and has been, the inspection vacilities. The very vacilities that, by their own admission, have probably let in vehicles that they shouldn't have.

Now, because "some" unworthy/unsafe vehicles have made it into Canada, TC feels they have no choice but to crack down. The best and easiest way that they can get all of us (again, the collective "us") is to pursue the headlight issue. Some of us, such as the Land Cruisers, Civics and 180's have it easy - but others, such as us Skyliners - with no USDM equivalent to plunder - don't have it so easy.

TC also knows, that as enthusiasts, we're going to adapt to anything they throw at us. Sure, their efforts will weed out some of those without the time/energy/cash/love to endure, but the enthusiast will endure and prosper. This is where the threatened change to 25 years comes in. 25 years means less appealing/affordable vehicles which equals less headaches for TC.

Fair? No. Reasonable? Hell, no. But typical, just the same.

[solid_88]

One aspect of TC's movement to end importation would be to preserve our economy, or at least I think so. Our hard-earned money is going over to Japan. Although Canada still receives quite a bit of tax through customs and whatnot, most of our dollar is heading overseas.