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

[GT]

I'm now off for the weeknd and on my own nickel, so I will make a few posts. I'm sure Paradis is getting tired of being the middle man. You can guess who I am from my cleverly picked username :wink:

First off, Rockcrete, I guess I've made soem headwaves cause you still not trying to argue that the manual isn't law.

Show me one post where I apply the rules of the CMVSS or move the goal posts. I've read and re-read but can't really figure out what the heck you are talking about. Yes, imports older than 15 years are exempt from federal rules, although some of our pieces of legislation adopt certain parts where it fits. I didn't think I had made it that hard to understand, but I guess somehwere (help me out here) I did. what CMVSS rules are you talking about that WE can't get passed and where did you get that from?? I'm baffled by your post :?:

There is one more post that I sent to Paradis before I was off for the day. Maybe some of what I said will be of assistance.

Fire away!!

[SmegEad]

What everyone fails to understand is that Grant (and others like him) is empowered to interpret and apply the law as he sees fit. Arguing the point with Grant just wastes time and energy, including Grant's.

To register a vehicle in Grant's area, you must comply to his interpretation of the law, PERIOD. To affect change, we need to be further up the chain of command, much like fighting a traffic ticket.

If we are told that we must have DOT/SAE headlights, taillights, markers etc, then so be it. We don't think twice about dumping $$ into a new turbo.

My only concern is - where does it end? If it is a vendetta against RHD will we continually be tagged for re-inspection by every "peace officer" with a bee in his bonnet, regardless of compliance?

[Lotus97]

Smeg, I understand what you are saying, but as I said, if you've read the recent CBC news article, they're upping the ante and moving beyond the DOT headlights being the only issue they have with them.

They're now attacking RHD in general, by saying its unsafe to have them on the road because of the seating position.

I bring up postal vehicles etc to justify RHD on the road. I am not talking about DOT headlights on postal vehicles, I'm talking about the fact that they are RHD.

There's nothing you can do about that, and that's what I keep trying to say.

[rockcrete]

If the real issue here is having a correct headlight beam pattern and tail light / sidemarker visibility, which, I do not deny is important, although in practice, the headlight aim is really almost unnoticeable if you go and place yourself in front of the car at a proper seat height. It would be very easy to test the correct aim of each vehicle individually, this is what is done in all other countries dealing with LHD/RHD issues, and this is where I initially learned about modifying the cutouts in projector lamps. The DOT / SAE standards for lighting are quite readily measureable on a vehicle, and if we were dealt with fairly on this issue we wouldn't complain. If the manual is law, why does it disagree with the BCMVA which is also law, does this mean you can select which law to obey? The manual was created by basiclly spelling out what the CMVSS says so that inspection shops would know what they were looking for. It was not created with the idea that vehicles that weren't governed by CMVSS would ever be inspected under it. I still believe I am correct, but if a proper, fair, workable solution can be reached and then legislated, I have no trouble working with, or complying with it.

[SmegEad]

That's what I'm saying as well. If it is a vendetta against RHD, where does it end?

My concern remains can I expect to be pulled over on a constant basis regardless of compliance? If I meet compliance now, will that change again in the future? If my headlights are a problem now, will my seats be the same next week?

The rules need to be clear, concise and uniform. We need to be assured that, once compliant, we will be unhassled on the road like any other Tom, Richard (haha, I got bleeped for "****") or Harry. Therefore, we need to be further up the chain of command, speaking in a unified voice to affect change.

On a side note, I would hope that we're all mature enough to not be flaming Glenn, either in open posts or PMs, as that will accomplish nothing but hurt our cause.

[Shadao]

his name is glenn..... and as far as i can tell he is trying to help us.

personally i do not see how changing the date to 25 yrs from 15 will make it any easier in 10 yrs, if this is a big issue it should be dealth with prior to that, perhaps....

also someone here who has power on this website should be maybe contacting the UK and finding out info, im sure they would want to work with us and help out, maybe talk to some in the uk that have gone through this..... this has happend before in other countries so lets get there help

[psilosin]

Arguing about headlight legislature is trite and quite frankly poorly timed right now.

No actually it is important if you need to develop a replacement headlight/tail light/turn light. Might be a non-issue for Skylines since you have custom units on the way from TSS. I personally don't care myself since all my RHD units had CDN equivalents but I would like clear answers to these issues should I choose to bring in a Toyota Sera and have to have a custom headlamp designed.

It is very straight forward. Equivalent lights to what the manufacturer had to put in to comply with the standards at time of manufacture. How you can figure that square beams are equivalent to a big molded light is beyond me.

Because whether a light is big and molded or if it is a square or if it is a circle does not have anything to do with its FUNCTION which is what a headlamp has to comply to. They should both have the same resultant beam pattern if they are both SAE/DOT stamped and thus light up the highway equally. There is no 'standard' saying in 1991 you had to have unique designed big molded headlamp for some visual good looks standard....just that it meets SAE standards for 1991 for FUNCTION. Generic rectangular headlamps unchanged from who knows when are still being used on some new vehicles in 2006 so there beam pattern must be OK. Can we get a ruling from you Glenn if the head lamps created by Maximum Overdrive would be acceptable? Instead of a one piece molded design with a projector style lamp as the original, they have dual seperate small circular lamps (look like ATV headlamps) housed in an solid (ie non transparent) plastic frame that fills the rest of the gaps....a very different overall design. If that design is OK then that does leave people with design options and you have just been exagerating how stringent your interpretation of the 'equivalent to oem' requirement is.

Original headlamps:


Max Overdrive headlamps:


Also will you just please answer my question about flat bed tail lights. They are definately not 'equivalent lights to what the manufacturer had to put in to comply with the standards at time of manufacture' by your definition. Using your statement, how you can figure that square off the shelf modular trailer tail lights are the same as the big compound units molded into the original bed are beyond me. Really, take a '92 Ford Ranger...standard tailights are vertical above the bed plane in the sides of the tail area of teh box, if you build a flatdeck bed your taillights are typically mounted horizontally and below the bed plane. So not only are they different in shape/size they are in a different mounting location. Straight answer please...I actually want to build a flat deck. I am NOT attacking you I just want an answer.

Just for the record, I'm glad you made your post because then other RHD owners can see the ATTITUDES that I have to deal with. You guys are sometimes your own worst enemies.

My attitude, your attitude, Aunt Betsy's attitude has nothing to do with the law and its deliverance. Or are you saying the descision to push for a 25 year import law is because of personal vendetta's of some MOT officials to teach us a lesson? (jk of course) Of course we have attitudes, its our lives being affected. Not sure if you are married but if my RHD vehicles get yanked off the road...I'll be sleeping on the couch for the rest of my life!!! Its not directed at you personally Glenn, I know you have no authority in the scheme of things to make changes, you are just told what to do and do it to the best of your ability no dought. You did state earlier that you do believe that RHD vehicles should be taken off the road until safety studies are completed so I don't understand why others on this forum think you are here to help them. To conduct a new properly designed study could take YEARS people (and would be hard to do if no RHD vehicles were still allowed on the road lol).

Anyway I'll stop posting here on this topic if its viewed as derogatory. After all, after a fair expense and time, all my RHD vehicles should be in full compliance to existing standards (SAE headlights, DRLs, etc etc) so I should have no problems anyway unless they do ban RHD altogether until studies are completed. But I want the option to continue importing vehicles that are able to be modified to meet existing standards so I am against the proposed 25 year rule change.

[Paradis]

an interesting response to this issue from a well versed and spoken advicator..


You are asking some very good questions.

To be bluntly honest I feel they have just shot themselves n the foot. We now know that just because they have taken a step back on enforcement of the SAE/DOT compliance random inspection, which gave the BC persons a false sense of hope, was just a ruse so they could try a different angle.
With this information reaching the headlines there is hope that finally the owners of RHD cars and trucks will rise up and fight this movement. A call to action per says.

Even though a request has been made, and we know already that BC had initiated a request long before now, Transport Canada confirmed that it would be a minimum of 2 years to implement. To add to the situation the other provinces do not back the feelings of the BC government mostly because THERE IS NOT PROOF as admitted in the link above by the BC government.

IF they had proof then their case would be much stronger, what we need to do is get motivated to take action to stop this movement in its infancy. (Actually we should have started 2 years ago but the fear and hope that the BC government would come to its senses kept many from doing so) If we can petition the Canadian Government to gets proof that the RHD units accident rate is smaller per capita than LHD units we will be able to squash this.

Alberta has stood up to the movement by BC (for now) but there are no guarantees in life. This might take another reversal again so to assume Alberta is risk free is foolishness. But this being said we have a province that is one our side (for now) and we should take advantage of this while we still can.

The government cannot outlaw the RHD units that have already made it to Canadian soil but the government insurance run provinces could make the premiums too high to actually insure the units or they might put a ban on insuring the units at all. The private brokers on the other hand will still insure the units till there is proof they are more of a risk than the LHD counterparts.

What can we do?

Drive responsibly would be the first and easiest action we can take.

Organize ourselves into a group that is working together, a group of RHD owners, not as a group of importers. A nation wide club, I have lawyers, cops, forestry, oil workers, Geological Engineer, Park Warden, Doctors that I have sold trucks to that would come on board if there was such a group started. I have a lawyer that is willing to take on a case to fight this. We could become a force to be reckoned with, one thing the government loves is apathy and Canadians in general are apathetic. If this was happening in America there would be action taken a year ago, here they are counting on us to sit back and go "Oh Well"

DON”T PANIC, if we panic then all rationality heads out the door and they have won. It will be 2 years before they will be able to have the door shut IF they can but if we panic then irrational behavior will result. All this post does is alert us that the BC government DOES NOT HAVE PROOF of what they are applying for. If they could have kept this under wraps until they blind-sided us with the actions it would have been much easier for them.

Don’t panic buy, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. There are going to be Importers that are going to use this information to “Pressure Sell” to the public. DO NOT SUCCUME to the pressure. We will get more accurate information over the next 2 years, hearsay and rumors will abound and get blown all out of proportion especially by importers trying to fuel the fire to instill fear into the buying public.

What will this mean to value of the RHD import? IF the BC Government operated insurance company did decide to stop insuring RHD units then the value of course to a BC resident is minimal but to the other Canadian provinces with independent brokers the RHD value will still be a constant. The government will not be able to stop the sale of DOT/SAE compliant vehicles but the ones that were registered illegally then these will need to be made to comply or once again there is a fear of a very expensive front lawn ornament.

If you are in the position to buy and want a RHD unit then do so but if you need to put your families happiness in jeopardy or make your families budget too tight then DO NOT BUY at this time. There is still 2 years before we have anything to worry about. Once we feel there is urgency we will let the buying public know WITH FACTS not hearsay. This letter is a wake up call, nothing else. There are no new facts contained in this posting.

Once again, we need to DRIVE RESPONSIBLY, ORGANISE and DO NOT PANIC.

The BC government never did back down but we can make it extremely hard for them to proceed if we group together. Do not wait for your buddy to make the decision for you, it is your enjoyment that the government is trying to take away, your freedom of choice is being threatened so do something about it.

As more information cone to light we will be posting it up.

Cheers and Happy Holidays

[SmegEad]

an interesting response to this issue from a well versed and spoken advicator..


You are asking some very good questions.

To be bluntly honest I feel they have just shot themselves n the foot. We now know that just because they have taken a step back on enforcement of the SAE/DOT compliance random inspection, which gave the BC persons a false sense of hope, was just a ruse so they could try a different angle.
With this information reaching the headlines there is hope that finally the owners of RHD cars and trucks will rise up and fight this movement. A call to action per says.

EDIT

Once again, we need to DRIVE RESPONSIBLY, ORGANISE and DO NOT PANIC.

The BC government never did back down but we can make it extremely hard for them to proceed if we group together. Do not wait for your buddy to make the decision for you, it is your enjoyment that the government is trying to take away, your freedom of choice is being threatened so do something about it.

As more information cone to light we will be posting it up.

Cheers and Happy Holidays

Fantastic post and great advise!

[rockcrete]

Well spoken Paradis, and I have no doubt that Glen believes he is doing his job either, but I do not believe he is correct in his interpretation of what is a law or not, he is getting hung up on items that are CMVSS regulations, like I said before, the manual did not anticipate vehicles that weren't required to comply with CMVSS, and if they had anticipated that, they certainly would have changed the laws back then. And quite honestly, let's just face it CMVSS and the US FMVSS are the biggest load of crap going that was purely designed with the goal of protecting the North American auto industry (which incidentally is mostly in the US now, after all the plant closures here) and has very little to do with any real safety issues. Those reasons are the same reason Australia pulled the plug on their 15 year rule too, it's entirely to protect their domestic auto industry, if you go to New Zealand (where they have access to virtually whatever they like), cars are probably about 1/8 the price they are in Australia, and perhaps, surprisingly, European cars far outnumber the North American vehicles there, because nobody wants them, they're gas guzzling piles of junk next to vehicles from anywhere else. Safety is just the number one excuse to use in the public spotlight that makes the average person think the government is trying to protect them instead of screw them, they'll agree with virtually anything that is made out to be a public safety issue.

[Shadao]

and with a letter like that, im feeling very inspired to go talk to my local MP, as well as group together a couple RHD cruisers i have seen in town here... and see what we can do... perhaps someone with the know how should make up a petition letter that can be copied and printed for people to use, supporting RHD cars, and abolishing the myth about how dangerous they are due to dirver positioning......

we and i mean everyone who has one or wants a RHD car needs to get people who dont have one or care to get them to support us and get rid of the "general public wants them off the road " BS

we need to get people in power on our side govt officals, city workers, police, parents in the PTA, SPCA you name it get them, heck the one person we need more than anyone else on our side is big ol Jim Pattison.... if we can get him on our side the gov't will not change the rules regarding importing... the rules of importing are not the problem, the problems are :

1) NON DOT/SAE compliant lights, which will become a non issue soon enough

2) public misinformation

3) VIN's that have been forged etc

4) improperly trained inspectors at inspection fascilities not knowing what they are looking at,

how do we fix those problems. the first one is on its way, the second would be to put in papers, news, radio etc etc etc PROPER AND TRUE information about RHD and having a credible person give out the information, the third gov't regulated importation, making only certified places eligble for importing cars, now that wouldnt mean you cant get the car you want, you would just have to go to a certified importer. 4th well thats where this problem has started now isnt it get these people trained as well as any other civil worker that has any power over to be properly trained and educated on RHD cars/trucks. it shouldnt take long heck i bet they could do it online.

if the govt were to change the laws and all that jazz and make it suck for us, they would be working backwards and putting people out of work as well as squash an rising industry, that they can make tax dollars on...

id say that the importation of cars not just RHD cars would be so adversly affected by change that millions of dollars would be lost...... car insurance, gas, parts, labor, the car itself and taxs on all of it would be lost.... perhaps the finance minister of BC should be on our side.

i know if we got jim pattison on our side it would be a no brainer, because he is currently against us, because of all the lost revenue he is facing because of these cars, the NA equivalant of most of these cars are in worse shape than the japanese counter parts and they cost the same if not more. he is one of the keys to keeping this issue on the table and as such one of them that will be able to take it off the table.... if he were to see the true potential of having his hand in the market rather than his hand in closing the market he would become an even richer man....

this is gonna be like prohibition, if you take it away we'll do it anyways, until they realise that they can make more money off this rather than making ZERO from ending it..... or keeping it away from us,

[Paradis]

Well spoken Paradis, and I have no doubt that Glen believes he is doing his job either, but I do not believe he is correct in his interpretation of what is a law or not, he is getting hung up on items that are CMVSS regulations, like I said before, the manual did not anticipate vehicles that weren't required to comply with CMVSS, and if they had anticipated that, they certainly would have changed the laws back then. And quite honestly, let's just face it CMVSS and the US FMVSS are the biggest load of crap going that was purely designed with the goal of protecting the North American auto industry (which incidentally is mostly in the US now, after all the plant closures here) and has very little to do with any real safety issues. Those reasons are the same reason Australia pulled the plug on their 15 year rule too, it's entirely to protect their domestic auto industry, if you go to New Zealand (where they have access to virtually whatever they like), cars are probably about 1/8 the price they are in Australia, and perhaps, surprisingly, European cars far outnumber the North American vehicles there, because nobody wants them, they're gas guzzling piles of junk next to vehicles from anywhere else. Safety is just the number one excuse to use in the public spotlight that makes the average person think the government is trying to protect them instead of screw them, they'll agree with virtually anything that is made out to be a public safety issue.

well what we really need is an assembly where we can have chosen deligates to express and portray these notions. I don't live in metro BC or otherwise i would for sure try to get more involved

[rockcrete]

Glen is only doing what he believes is right, I honestly don't think he's a bad guy, however, I have spoken to other people in the same job position as him that can understand what I am saying and agree with me, the key is not to spend time arguing with people, it get's you nowhere, just move on to the next person, and keep talking. Arguing with any government person in a position of authority is completely pointless, they can be as abusive and rude to you as they like and prevent you from doing anything they want to wether they have the right to or not and suffer no consequences for it. I have in the past had daily disputes with ICBC over all kinds of things that are "required by law" that in fact aren't, and learned a long time ago how to just keep quietly talking to people until you get put on to the right person that can and will help you. I would love to see RHD car owners gather in front of the legislature, it would generate some real media coverage and allow us to have spokespeople be interviewed by the media. The only downside I worry about is having every local vehicle inspector with an attitude turn up and start issuing VI notices. If anyone has some good contacts with the police in Victoria, I suggest we try organizing something, or, maybe if Jim Pattison is really the one against us, we should just picket his dealerships

[jhmed]

I've read every post in this thread, and as much as I don't want to admit it, Glenn is right in a lot of what he's said. I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know a Goddamn thing about Nissans, Hondas are my passion. But here's what I have figured out and learned and know from my own experiences with my little JDM Honda.

Last May there was a letter that was circulated from Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation to the shops that perform OOPs in Alberta. It outlined some of the areas Japanese cars were deficient in meeting the safety standards, and was advising shops to begin to look for these when qualifying a vehicle to be deemed 'safe' in an OOP.

I was offended that someone would dare to call my car unsafe, and just because I drive a Honda doesn't mean I love it any less than you do your Skylines LOL. But nonetheless, I looked at my car, and checked these items. Some of them were indeed missing. I felt the same way as most of you. My car is my life, and I'm an enthusiast to the core. I began to do my research. I obtained copies of the OOP manual and read it, I called Alberta Infrastructure and had several conversations with Terry MacDonald, and I called Transport Canada looking for any way I could to keep my car on the road.

The government kinda has us by the short and curlys on some of their issues regarding RHDs. I will argue to the death about RHD vehicles being deemed unsafe by the government if their argument is based ONLY ON THE POSITION OF THE DRIVER. That argument has more holes than a block of Swiss Cheese. But their argument isn't based solely on that point.

Their first issue was the one of safety.
Safety isn't just determined by the fact that all your lightbulbs work, your wipers move water and you've got good brakes. There are many other dimensions and facets to safety that are incorporated into the modern automobile, and a lot of them aren't clearly visible like a rearview mirror, for example. The Canadian government dictates what they require from automobile manufacturers thru the CMVSS. Now, I'm not saying that RHDs are deathtraps or a coffin on wheels, don't get me wrong... Remember, I love my JDM more than my wife and I really don't know what I would do if I couldn't drive it anymore.

--

OK, the Canadian government sucks. I think we can all agree on that much... (sorry Glen) And most of the agencies in the Federal Government don't have a clue. They wait for the U.S. to do something and then we copy them. Transport Canada adopted the FMVSS and re-badged it, tweaked it a bit and then called it the CMVSS. They made an amendment that said any vehicle over 15 years doesn't have to apply to the CMVSS to enter the country...

BUT... Transport Canada are the ones who say what can enter the country. They are not in charge of what can be on the roads... that's up to the province. You think the Federal Government doesn't have a clue? Whew, you should see Provincial Governments... They get to say what's allowed on the roads, but they can't figure it out. So they adopt the CMVSS from Transport Canada, change the title and tweaked it a little and voila... the pickle we're all in suddenly appears: Technically, our cars *do* have to meet CMVSS standards in a way... just not a direct way. They *don't* have to comply with CMVSS to get here, but since they *do* have to comply with Provincial standards and since the CMVSS is where the Province got their safety standards from in the first place, they got us by the short and curlys. Catch-22 in full effect.

--

So, as I was saying, they realized some JDMs were deficient and that the licensed technicians they authorized to do OOP inspections may or may not have realized that these cars were in fact not compliant with Provincial standards. They issue that letter in hopes that these cars will be made to be compliant. The letter probably worked a little, but not enough for them... The cars are still getting onto the roads. The province obviously can't handle the situation effectively since we've proved the inspection process is a failure in a lot of ways, so the Federal and Provincial government must come up with another way to get these technically "unsafe" vehicles off the roads. What better Province to lead the way than BC? I lived there for many years, and nowhere (except maybe Ontario) have I seen a government try as hard as BC to keep that tight a grip on the general population. Regulations and red tape up the wahzoo.

--

We're easy to pick on because of where we sit. Let's be honest. We could argue all day long about eBay projector headlights, JDM front end conversions, and all the other mods people do every day to their North American cars not being compliant with CMVSS and Provincial standards... it doesn't change the fact that we're an easier target to point out because we draw attention to ourselves simply because of where we sit. It's not fair, but like it or not it's the truth. No one would ever say a word to me if I sat on the left of my CR-X. No one would question the safety of my car or doubt if I had rebar behind my front bumper if my car were LHD. Not many of us would be able to point out Germany-imported VWs or Benzos...

--

So, as I was saying, we've proved their flawed inspection process doesn't work and they can't stop or slow the JDMs from coming, and so they've turned to TC for assistance. They've decided to go after the RHD at its core... driver position. I am still trying very very hard to find statistical data from countries around the world where LHD and RHD share borders but so far have been unsuccessful. I haven't found so much as shred to shed light on the argument FOR or AGAINST this fight. But I have not given up.

And rest assured the government won't either. This proposal will go thru, and not because they can prove the orientation of the driver is unsafe. That's just to justify their actions to the rest of the sheep. It will go thru because the U.S. is already doing the 25 years thing and Canada must follow our real 'leaders'. I'm kidding there, but seriously, the age limit will be increased in order to 'slow' the waves of imports flooding into Canada. Who wants an '82 Civic or Skyline? (hell, I don't even know if they made Skylines in 1982) They need to buy themselves more time. They need more time to lobby the Insurance industry to make it tougher to get insurance on RHDs, and to try and figure out the logistics of getting us all back to take our OOPs again so they can get us off the road.

You know the ones it really hurts? The collectors and enthusiasts. Those people who restore the classic Euro cars and show them off. Those of us who aren't in it because we wanted a 'reliable car for the wife and kids' but the ones who truly care about the car itself. Not lil' Johnny who wants to get ***** because he drives a Fast and Furious car.

Why does the government have a hate-on for us so bad? Lots of reasons I guess. My opinion is because too many have abused the system for too long. The law was meant to allow maybe 100 cars in for some of the collectors, not 2000 a month for everyday use. This 15yo law wasn't meant to be a carte blanche to create a thriving new auto market in this country. Too many, too fast caught the wrong people's attention. Now the governments are trying to shut it down.

I also think that aggresive driving and the whole Street Racer or Tuner profiling is probably playing a big part in some urban areas like Vancouver and Toronto, fuelling the fight against all Skyline and Honda owners who modify their cars whether we race them or not. The bad apple syndrome is certainly in effect here. All it takes are a few to ruin it.

I've been hearing the same arguments the same confusion and the same questions being asked time and time again. There are few loopholes. Our cars must comply to Provincial safety standards set forth in the inspection manual, and no amount of whining or arguing is going to change that. It's a dead issue. We must modify our vehicles to conform to the safety standards. If the government's system had worked and what was required to comply had been noted and done in the first place then we probably wouldn't be where we're at today.

Who pays for the government not anticipating the JDM craze and this issue? We do. Who pays for the inadequecies of the OOPs & the carelessness of the inspectors? We do. Is it fair? Nope. But sometimes life isn't fair. Life hands you lemons, make the best damn lemaide you can. We have to pick our battles. The bigger issue before us now is how to make sure that the government cannot use the 'driver position' argument to lobby for tougher insurance premiums or a total ban on the operation of RHDs for pleasure use. I believe that is an argument we can win. We will not be able to successfully lobby TC and the Provincial governments for the whole country to suddenly relax safety regulations that have been in place for years... How could they justify it to the citizens of Canada who own NA LHDs? "We're going to relax our safety standards because these people say JDMs are safe, and they showed us reports that say people die less on Japan's highways." That will not happen at the grassroots level. It wouldn't happen even if someone on here wins the 649 and pays for the lawyers. Plus it would take so long to fight we'd be too old to enjoy our vehicles.

I have a question: if there was a company who manufactured Skyline Compliance Kits that included rebars, reinforcements, all new AS-certified glass, SAE lighting and it meant that you could continue to drive your car without fear of government harassment, and it meant that more Skylines could come into this country and everyone was happy, but it cost like $8000 to buy, would you spend the cash? Do you love you car that much? If the answer is yes, then you HAVE to get involved. You *must* join the fight. If the answer is no, then I urge you to please do us a very small favor and drive safely. Don't give them any more ammunition against us. How we conduct ourselves in the coming months/years will determine a lot.

Sorry for the rant... I know people will begin flaming me and my opinions the moment this is posted so: "Have fun!"

I've certainly given you lots to read and talk about...

[Trace]

My personal math....this doesn't reflect or merit my opinion as it's just something I've done on my own. I excelled in Calc and mathematics in high school and some post secondary.


I'm glad that all of us as group members and an organization have been showing rational behavior up to this point and I'd like for it to stay railroaded as we are. I saw that we've reached page 5 and I was looking for the flames and deragatory comments.

I've spoken to Steve from TSS and he said that the DOT approved headlights will be undergoing inspection pretty soon to see if it'll meet the DOT standards out here in B.C. Another reason why the delays are what they are is that their are 500 being made and this is costing Steve quite a bit of his own cash to get this underway. March looks like to be the deadline the lights will be brought to us. While I'm not worried my car, as will others will be grounded (a la grandfather rule if the 25 year placement does commence, but it's doubtful it will) it's the issue at hand and people will agree with me here that the headlights aren't DOT approved for road standards.

I won't go in quotations on certain TC guidelines or the "he said/she saids" because we can honestly spend the entire time it takes to argue whereas this precious time can be used to be resourceful and comply to help make our cars roadworth according to these standards.

I firmly believe that non-compliant cars shouldn't be on the roads now. However, my bias of non-compliant means removal of key equipment such as cat converters, loud noisy mufflers and cars in general. Headlights are something of a manufacturing issue. They aren't so much illegal as they aren't according to our standards. Apparently the beam veers into oncoming traffic...but I've been running my own tests to see if people do get effected from the non DOT headlights and, in my non professional opinion, the beam seems to go more straight than into oncoming traffic. This isn't trying to save face, but the issue is mainly that there's no DOT stamp on the headlights. I personally have had no qualms driving my RHD as I find I drive just as good on the left.

I should also mention (if it means anything) that I measured the headlight beam from left to right, and it also seems centered from the distance of the car to the wall. Had my measuring tape out, did the math and calculated that my (just mine, can't be sure of anyone elses as all GTS headlights ARE the same built compaired to the GTR headlamps) beam is at least close to 1.5 inches to the left.

I know that the GTR headlamps are designed different. The ones I've seen look much different than on my GTS. I'm going to be borrowing a GTR overnight on my next day off and running my own little compairson to see how much the beam veers off to the left. I also know that it isn't obstructing anyone elses vision on the road into oncoming traffic. I personally would of been pulled over or been subjected to highbeaming on the other end. My Prelude's headlights were veering off big time to the left a few years back and I remember how many people kept highbeaming me...maybe people are just being nice now...I don't know.

This doesn't mean I will be fighting the fact that the original headlights should be allowed. This isn't a notable difference on the road as the beam does look more focused centered on the road. If I'm required to buy the modified DOT headlights I will comply. No questions asked. As a government worker (rec center) I would like to set an example as one and a safe driver.

I know you guys are fustrated...and this does suck, but remember that our cars are drivable. We've got em on the road and unless we do something stupid like race or stick out like a sore thumb with mods or anything like that then we'll be fine. I also believe that we should all work as two groups to make sure that our voices are not only heard, but proven that we are the most organized and responcible drivers on the road not just as RHD owners but as drivers in general.

I wish I could offer more legal advice...my mathematics are what they are. The beam doesn't veer off much, barely at all to the left. The headlights are what they are and I will comply if need be as I am sure anyone with enough rationale will do the same.


Also, to Jhamed: While you may be right about the issue of being able to drive on our roads, there's a principle. It's a small price to pay for clarity and to keep the 15 year rule in play. As small as it is, we need rational voices...

Thanks for hearin' me out guys. Once again, this isn't my opinion but just my own observations.