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

[Shadao]

we also need to get random people that are friends and family to bring this in and show the results, make it look like to our MPs and MLAs that there is a public outcry to keep the laws the same rather than there being a fake public outcry for the laws to be changed

[woody]

In order for the inspection manual and letters to be law, there has to be legislation in place that specifies that this manual supercedes the CMVSS.

According to the CMVSS as long as the beam produced by the headlight complies, then the headlight complies.

If it cannot be adjusted to comply, then that is the end of the story, if it complies, then again, that is the end of it.

Also, pulling over every RHD vehicle, thinking it is easy pickings is simply harrassment. Like racial profiling for cars.

I have contacted the minister responsible for transportation and also the trade minister as well. I certainly hope for a response. If anyone needs, I can provide the 2 page document I sent to them, outlining the issue, the confusion everyone has over the law, the potential resolutions, and the market impact this has to Canada. PM me your email, and I will send you a copy, if you wish, insert your own name and send it along.

Even better, print it out and sign it, and mail it to your MP and your local paper. There are no safety issues that cannot be resolved, and this is not GT's problem, he is just enforcing what he is told. He is not a lawyer, or judge, or policymaker. Contact his boss, not him.

[rockcrete]

Glenn, I'd appreciate your thoughts and opinions on us Skyline owners using the 240SX headlights for compliance mentioned in my previous post. If these wouldn't pass, what would be the EXACT reason(s) these would fail? I'm still not too clear on this.

I will forewarn you, this should be OK within the intention of the law, but you cannot cut the light to make it fit, and the light must be properly secured to stop a change in aim caused by vibration or movement. This means no tie wired in, duct taped lights that are just installed to get you through the inspection. I have been looking at this issue from every possible angle, and I have an OEM LHD Nissan light that is almost a perfect match, that comes from the Y32 chassis which is closely related to the R32. Some of the mounts on it are slightly different, but the R32 may have provisions for it, I will know as soon as I receive it probably at the end on next week and will post the results.

[rockcrete]

He has never given any definitive proof, this stuff is NOT in the BCMVA, it is in his inspection manual, which I am still not convinced is the law, it is a handy users reference to the law, but doesn't differentiate between what is CMVSS and what is BCMVA regs.

[Danno]

...you have finally admitted that we aren't governed by CMVSS, which is where you are finding all the rules to stop us, you won't accept them, because you don't have to....

rockcrete, if you read a few pages back you would see an explaination of how these rules you think are from CMVSS are actually from BCMVA. To my understanding Glenn is not citing from CMVSS but from BCMVA, which have very similar rules and regulations, causing the confusion here.

If I'm way off base, someone correct me here.


Glenn, I'd appreciate your thoughts and opinions on us Skyline owners using the 240SX headlights for compliance mentioned in my previous post. If these wouldn't pass, what would be the EXACT reason(s) these would fail? I'm still not too clear on this.

Thanks!
Dan

[rockcrete]

Just an item for thought......... if they will not accept anything different than what was factory installed regardless of whether it is DOT approved or not, how does anybody register a kit car? He's trying to tell us that the vehicle the light is on makes a difference. Also, I would like to point out, how many Cobra kit cars are out there that have DRL, side markers, and 3rd brakelights? Answer: none, because they are compliant with BCMVA requirements.

[rockcrete]

The housing itself is not a light, the lights are contained within that housing, it is entirely possible to upgrade the lights and have a 100% compliant beam pattern, I am not looking to drive around with RHD lights, and neither is anyone else. End of story. We all want safe vehicles, you just don't want us on the road and will use whatever excuse suits your purposes at that point in time. One second you will say something is irrelevant, it is over ridden by something else, the next second you have switched completely to something different. You are very fast and loose with your interpretations when it comes to denying us, yet absolutely unyielding when we have something valid. This is like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, you move it on us every single time. I have a DOT consultant that has told us how to get CMVSS compliant lighting, yet all of a sudden, you have finally admitted that we aren't governed by CMVSS, which is where you are finding all the rules to stop us, you won't accept them, because you don't have to. It's very clear that safety is not the issue at all.

[BMXER]

GT ,
If you scan back afew posts , maybe a page I asked you some questions , could I ask you to please read my post & reply.
Thank you
Jason

page 12 to be exact

[GT]

All DOT/SAE stamped lights do not produce the same light pattern. I am not sure where you get that from. A light bearing DOT/SAE simply means it meets a standard.

As far as me not making sense, I guess my comments are more towards rockcrete in that he thinks his RHD headlamps are going to get approval and that I am acting the part of the "99% of us that don't know what we are doing". I apologise for the generalization.

[psilosin]

Once again, I can't comprehend why you guys feel that your RHD should not have to comply with the same rules that every other car on the road has to comply with.

You are not making any sense with this comment. Noone has said that at all. What we are arguing about is some interpretations that are in effect preventing compliance that are illogical. How you can think that that the light output of one SAE approved headlamp can be FUNCTIONALY different than another SAE headlamp based on the differnce in shape of the headlamp makes no sense. An SAE beam pattern is a defined beam pattern that is described mathematically....how that resultant beam pattern is created is irrelevent...photons of light do not care.

Where in the CMVSS does it say JDM lights with a cutout meet the requirements??

It doesn't say that they don't...and it doesn't need to either. See above...an SAE beam pattern is mathmatical description it is not a visual design.

[turbodiesel]

yo mate! I got the e-mail from Mr. Taylor... looks like we can direct our concerns to Transport Canada directly. I didn't realize that Transport Canada and Ministry of Transport are kinda "seperated" in terms of federal and provincial stuff...

oh well at least I tried. maybe my next move is to disucss with Ministry of Transport in Ontario... anyone from Toronto would wanna do it too?

ask TC to consider:
- does 25-yr-rule consider technology advancement for automotive industry in past decade?
- is it justified to outlaw any car that is LHD but not yet DOT/SAE approved? (perhaps it's approved in Europe, say, TUV from Germany)
- will it be benificial to outlaw all gray imports once and for all, resulting less tax revenue?
- if RHD needs to be outlawed, then why bother having red double-decker (tourism purpose) in the first place!?
- is altering to meeting Canadian standard be justified?

anyways, i'm in y'all side. JDM cars should have a place in Canada, not as "second class immigrant"

[rockcrete]

Also, Glenn, equivalent can be interpreted in many ways, and you know as well as I do, the intention of the law is FUNCTIONALLY equivalent, the law doesn't care how things look.

[rockcrete]

Glenn, I'm no longer even going to waste my breath on you, the person I deal with checked with your head office and Victoria and was given the OK on these issues. If more than 1% of your people knew what they were doing, there wouldn't be a problem. This whole situation is a joke. If this was legitimately about safety, you would already know that DOT has finally admitted their headlamp regualtions are unsafe, which is why Canada has now recognised the ECE standards as a first move away from DOT, who are currently trying to figure out a new standard. What is your enforcement position going to be on all these admittedly unsafe lights on the road? They are a proven hazard if you look at the tests, but nothing will be done to solve the problem because it was a government mistake, if the problem was caused by the automakers, there would be no problem forcing a recall, but it wasn't.

[GT]

Installing DOT lights from another car is not enough?

Thats right. If the 'equivalent to OEM' clause is interpreted as GT has stated, then the replacement lights hane to be almost identical in shape/size as the original AS WELL as meet SAE/DOT specs for function (ie beam pattern). As such, neither Maximum Overdrive's custom headlamp or swapping in a Corsica headlamp would be considered acceptable EVEN THOUGH the beam pattern emmitted from the replacement headlights meets all SAE functional specs (assuming they are installed and aimed correctly).

Personally I think it is a retarded component of the lighting laws since the size/shape of a lamp is irrelevant to its function (ie one lamps SAE approved beam should equal another lamps SAE approved beam) and thats what point I have unsuccesfully been trying to make to GT. Although I guess even if GT accepted my logic, it still wouldn't matter since that clause is in the MVA and that is how it is apparently interpreted.

However, from GT's latest response what I gather is that if the replacement lighting is not 'equivalent to OEM' in size/shape but is SAE compliant, it will still be acceptable but ONLY if accomplanied by an engineering certficate. Is that right GT?

And some of you guys said I was making an issue out of nothing... :roll:

This is why the MVA wants equivalent lights. The OEM ones pass the standard. If it is replaced with one that is "equivalent" (remember, virtually Identical as per the dictionary you posted) then it would obviously pass the same standard. If they are not equivalent we do not know if they meet the same standard. Hence the engineers appoval.

Once again, I can't comprehend why you guys feel that your RHD should not have to comply with the same rules that every other car on the road has to comply with.

[GT]

The BCMVA clearly spells out an acceptable beam pattern for un-marked headlamps, if they are unacceptable, why does the MVA list an acceptable beam pattern for them? Also the CMVSS accepts headlights that meet ECE requirements, which a JDM headlamp with a European spec cutout shield does, and further on, the CMVSS adds the caveat that no "E" marking is required on these headlamps, go check, I have read the Euro standards, and the CMVSS.

What are you going on about now??

What section of the MVA are you talking about??

Where in the CMVSS does it say JDM lights with a cutout meet the requirements??