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

[Caithness]

Simply put, I want to know a date when and if they plan to close the ports to imports.

I might want to sell an import and bring another one in, but I definitely don't want to sell it and then be stuck with no time to bring another one in...


...I woulld also keep it if it is a certainty that imports are closing.

[JZ]

Wow, I go away for a week on vacation and this is the reading I have to catch up on?

Nice thread and I have read all of it.

I think all of the issues have been discussed ad nauseum, and I commend GT for taking the time to field our questions but also for his sense of fairness. Yes, its his job to answer questions, but he doesn't have to feel the need to register on an online forum on his own weekend time. I commend you on that.

I do think this is an issue that will affect the entire country as BC is the entry port for most of our cars. As a dentist I can certainly understand the concept of how the entry point affects the entire health of the body.

Aside from some short quips in the beginning (regarding PS2's) I commend everyone for keeping this thread mature and on topic. GTRCers are the class of the field imho. Keep it civil and you earn the respect of those who you'd wish to persuade. Get into arguments and you get closed doors and ears.

I think one of the very first posts regarding us working with them and not arguing is the best plan of attack. Responsible driving and organization is key. I will see what I can do on my end in that respect.

We can argue all day with our own interpretations on the wording of the legalities but the bottom line is that these people have been charged with the job of keeping these cars compliant and we have no real choice but to work with them to keep our cars legal in their eyes and avoid the 25 year expansion. I don't think there are much more sinister conspiracies. As soon as they see us working hard to comply, it will do much to make us look responsible and less like pariahs.

Respectively submitted,
JZ
Admin

[Maverick]

Well said, JZ.

Let's work together and try to solve this problem. I want to keep driving these wonderful 15years old RHD cars. Skyline is my first one and I don't want it to be my last one, do you?

Also, I would like to thank you for all fellow members who have contributed into this matter.

Keep the class and we may have a chance.

[Caithness]

I think some of us are losing our "class" becuz we are not being given any answers.

I'm getting really frustrated that officials are letting slip little remarks such as GT as "The rule will probably change this year"...

...all fine and dandy, but probably and sometime don't cut it.

Give us a date or give us nothing at all and let our stress level lower.

[rockcrete]

The most aggravating thing is, that if we are to believe all these sections they cite as supporting there rules, they also state that they have the discretion to apply or exempt us from them at will, and despite the ease of making the existing beam pattern compliant, they will not accept this easy solution. I have actually looked at the vehicle inspection book, and there is provision in there for individual inspection stations to issue you with a decal, even if you don't pass the test, if they consider the offending items not to significantly affect the safety of the vehicle. They are playing hardball with us in a very unfair manner, even though the inspection manual which they claim is a legislated act has flexibility written right into it. I'm sure there are some unsafe vehicles that have slipped through too, with frame damage, etc, but picking on everyone else's headlights is not the answer. Incidentally, they would do far more in the interest of public safety to visit all these crappy little used car dealers that have bodyshops hidden out back where they are patching together wrecked cars that have no business being on the road and are a legitimate hazard, I know a number of people that have purchased vehicles that have massive frame damage barely held together with shoddy welding and braces.

[Stevo_323]

I think some of us are losing our "class" becuz we are not being given any answers.

I'm getting really frustrated that officials are letting slip little remarks such as GT as "The rule will probably change this year"...

...all fine and dandy, but probably and sometime don't cut it.

Give us a date or give us nothing at all and let our stress level lower.

I agree I emailed Mike Woods about a week ago with a few questions that Gleen Taylor couldn't answer and he still hasn't gotten back to me. we all just need to stay civil and work to try and "comply" with what they want, so that we can keep our cars on the road

[GT]

I think some of us are losing our "class" becuz we are not being given any answers.

I'm getting really frustrated that officials are letting slip little remarks such as GT as "The rule will probably change this year"...

...all fine and dandy, but probably and sometime don't cut it.

Give us a date or give us nothing at all and let our stress level lower.

How can I answer something I have no bearing on? You do realize the answers you want are based on when Transport Canada decides what to do don't you? If there was a date it would already be known.

"letting little remarks slip"..... give me a break. :roll:

[Lotus97]

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200612/20061222.html

Part 2.

It's the source of the quick CBC article that was circulating. Its a reporter that has mixed (almost negative) feelings towards them .. a happy owner .. Mike Woods speaks ...

[GT]

The most aggravating thing is, that if we are to believe all these sections they cite as supporting there rules, they also state that they have the discretion to apply or exempt us from them at will, and despite the ease of making the existing beam pattern compliant, they will not accept this easy solution. I have actually looked at the vehicle inspection book, and there is provision in there for individual inspection stations to issue you with a decal, even if you don't pass the test, if they consider the offending items not to significantly affect the safety of the vehicle. They are playing hardball with us in a very unfair manner, even though the inspection manual which they claim is a legislated act has flexibility written right into it. I'm sure there are some unsafe vehicles that have slipped through too, with frame damage, etc, but picking on everyone else's headlights is not the answer. Incidentally, they would do far more in the interest of public safety to visit all these crappy little used car dealers that have bodyshops hidden out back where they are patching together wrecked cars that have no business being on the road and are a legitimate hazard, I know a number of people that have purchased vehicles that have massive frame damage barely held together with shoddy welding and braces.

The one place that seems to allow the headlight stickers seems to only do so for temporary purposes (holiday travel).

How can you possibly say we are playing unfair? RHD vehicles are the only vehicles out there with non-compliant headlights. Everything else has the required lamps.

Like I've said before, there is curretly no issue with a RHD vehicle that is compliant with our laws. They are out there. Everything else on the road has to comply with the same rules, why do you think rhd's should be exempt??

[GT]

I have actually looked at the vehicle inspection book, and there is provision in there for individual inspection stations to issue you with a decal, even if you don't pass the test, if they consider the offending items not to significantly affect the safety of the vehicle.

There is only one provision of what you speak of. It is an Interim decal and does not apply to any private vehicle, only commercial vehicles. The intent is to allow a commercial vehicle to work if a minor fail item would not affect the safe operation of the vehicle. The interim decal is also only valid for 14 days.

A liitle better homework might benefit everyone, rockcrete.

[Stevo_323]

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200612/20061222.html

Part 2.

It's the source of the quick CBC article that was circulating. Its a reporter that has mixed (almost negative) feelings towards them .. a happy owner .. Mike Woods speaks ...

about 3 min in,. problems parallel parking?!?!??! WTF! thats way easier in RHD than in a LHD?! is he a tard?

[Shadao]

i live in Castlegar BC which is located very close to Nelson BC, im gonna talk to that reporter personally to get his support, he has access to the media and is in a perfect position to help change that "general public" veiw of rhd cars as dangerous.

[Touring240]

"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"


Glenn, thank you posting here and providing us with more information.

I am curious what is required for the two Skylines above to pass inspection. If the owners install DOT lights from a Canadian car which fit in the headlight openings, and add side markers, will these cars pass inspection?

[modis]

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200612/20061222.html

Part 2.

It's the source of the quick CBC article that was circulating. Its a reporter that has mixed (almost negative) feelings towards them .. a happy owner .. Mike Woods speaks ...

thanks for the link.

while they do try to show both sides they failed to mention

- in japan and various european countries there are both rhd and lhd cars
- what happened when australia ended their 15 year rule

other than that though they did make some decent points while others were most certainly skewed (to be expected).

[Shadao]

ive emailed the CBC everything all the little pieces of information requesting that Gregor Craigie contact me, if he doesnt contact me i will contact him, the truth needs to be told about imported cars, about the rise in automobile casualties stemming from rapid population growth and not as a result of cars being imported into canada. TC needs to own up to the fact that they are under pressure from the BIG3 automakers to amend the importation laws,,,, if this was all in the interest of public safety then they would be requiring us to import cars to replace our aging domestic stock of junk cars that are not safe for our roads. they need to own up to the fact that it is THE DRIVER NOT THE CAR that causes an accident, especially when pertaining to imported cars as only 3 of 25,550 had mechanical failure resulting in an accident