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

[JDM QUEBEC]

i now have a question. i used to own a 1988 Mazda Rx-7 and i can tell you for a FACT that 1. it did NOT have any day time running lights, 2. and it did not have any neutral safety switch.
now why do i need all this stuff when my rx7 which was made right here in canada not need it? i understand about the head lights and all that jazz. but i do not see the point or understand why DRL are needed as 1. my rx7 didnt have them, and 2. there are alot of new cars out there that dont have them...

In case you dont know, DRL are only required on cars manufactured after December 1989, hope this will answer your question.

[Stinky_1]

Corey,

I am not GT, but I will confirm that you should not pass the OOP or even a saftey inspection if your car is newer than 90 and does NOT have functioning DRL's. Thats the law all across the board. ANd you can make ANY car have DRL with a relay, some wire and about 30 minutes of time. Thats not a big issue and is so simply to comply to I do not think its worth an argument over.

Some 89's I know did not have DRL's, but most cars back then started early so they were ready when it became law. If you know of newer cars that have them you are either buying in the US where they are not required, or someone had dissabled them and the inspector did not notice.

[RixR32]

Not to be combatative or anything, cause reading your whole post you seem to have a level head on your shoulders, but these questions and concerns of yours are elementary, and if you'd have read this entire thread or 1 or 2 from the legalese forum, your questions are answered. Exhaustingly answered i might add.
I always find it quite surprising when ppl are misinformed or uninformed about these types of issues. the first thing i did when i considered importing was read the hell of the legal forum as that was the major concern and area that one wants a to be sure about before acting.

Ya, I know. No offence taken, but yea, the stuff that seems the most elementary usually causes the biggest problems. 1 set of rules, how hard is that?? Obviously too hard for people that run a country. :roll:

Mine is registered and on the road so no worries here , but I always find it frustrating about different rules in (and from) different places regarding the same thing. It's let into this country exempt from certain rules, then certain provinces say no? BS!

Why should my friend registering the SAME CAR have different problems, or have to do something different to it to get things going??
Is my car unsafe now? NO IT IS NOT.
It's safer than my crap beater that got put on the road no problem.

Rick

[musashi13]

Law vs. Regulation

I do not post often but some of you know me very well. I have been helping some of you import cars for the last three years. I am currently working at a very well established law firm and have been in contact with various workers at Transport Canada. I was told last year by Pierre Tremblay and Jean-Leon Morin from TC that import regulations would change in 2007 but they did not give me a precise date. Keep in mind, the last thing I want is to spread rumours and influence some of you towards purchasing vehicles and what not. Some importers have been using this info to influence people to by cars before the change happens. I simply want people to understand the difference between a Government regulation and a law.

A regulation is made in the following way.

The ministry responsible for the governing statute produces a draft regulation. (Transport Canada for example)

The draft regulation is reviewed by the Clerk of the Privy Council in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice.

Proposed regulations are published in the Canada Gazette Part I, together with a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. This provides an opportunity for public comment on the proposed regulation. (It is important for you to verify the Canada Gazette)

Once the regulation is in final form, a draft Order in Council is prepared for signature by the Governor General. I worked for parliament and this is now a short process.

This being said, the federal government could with ease , without bringing this issue before parliament change the regulation to 25 years. From my understanding, they do not need to consult importers. Some regulations are changed very quickly and with limited consultation. In conclusion, and this is my point of view, they would not need to go through the entire legislative process to amend the (change the 15 year old rule.) On the other hand, I think the ministry is quite busy right now with Airport and Border Security and we are not on the agenda. Accidents caused by RHD vehicles and problems with local governments will certainly affect our position. Vehicle importantion is also on the Top Ten List of Transport Canada's website. And with all the junk skylines coming in lately, we do need more safety on our streets anyway. If ICBC wants change, they will certainly get it. Last, I would be worrying about insurance costs before the law ever changes. Fewer insurance providers are selling insurance especialy to younger vehicle owners when it comes to RHD cars.

This is my point of view. Enjoy.

[MyGTR]

Okay, I've been reading for a while and there are a couple of things I think we need to keep clear in our minds as we try to discuss the issues intelligently and respectfully with TC.

I think we have to make a deliberate and immediate effort to stop referring to our cars as RHD cars in our discussions.

Instead, it may be more appropriate to just use the term "non-compliant" and keep the discussion to the lights until we officially hear of any other issue.

Let's not confuse RHD with non-compliant lighting. Theoretically, a guy could take a LHD car and put RHD headlights in the car (that aren't DOT approved) and the car would not pass inspection. The issue, as far as we know from the discussions with TC and the inspection guys, isn't where the steering wheel is.

Any car after December 1989 without the third brake light , etc, would also fail inspection regardless if it was RHD or LHD.

One other thing we could consider is the Australian model which allows newer cars into the country if they are modified to be compliant. This may be our back up plan if they want to go to the 25 year rule.

Lastly, if the skyline shop will only sell the headlights to customers that buy their full compliance kit (which would be unfortunate but their right) we have to collectively find a way as a community to get DOT headlights manufactured just like they have.

The only issue at present time are the headlights and that can be solved. Let's not artifically include the discussion on RHD before it needs to be.

At that point we can be sure all the 70 year old guys with Morgans and what not are included in the RHD discussion.

[SmegEad]

Lastly, if the skyline shop will only sell the headlights to customers that buy their full compliance kit (which would be unfortunate but their right) we have to collectively find a way as a community to get DOT headlights manufactured just like they have.

DOT headlights are available from Maximum Overdrive. May not be to everybody's taste, but the fact remains that they are available & apparantly DOT and therefore compliant.

[Murphy]

Theoretically, a guy could take a LHD car and put RHD headlights in the car (that aren't DOT approved) and the car would not pass inspection.

More than theoretically - all the S13 guys running around with Silvia fronts, and Integra guys with JDM Type-R fronts, are in this exact position.

At that point we can be sure all the 70 year old guys with Morgans and what not are included in the RHD discussion.

They're off the radar, but if they import, they will be included in the effects of government changes, and should therefore be recruited as allies now.

[Stinky_1]

who says the maximum overdrive lights are dot aproved? Usually those guys say "off road and show use only" because they are NOT dot aproved. Really the scope of this included everyone who buys an aftermarket housing on ebay that is not OEM. Since I would suggest that 99.9% of those are "made in korea" products that never have even applied for the dot aproval.

[rockcrete]

A lot of those ebay lights actually have DOT on the lenses, although I am almost positive they have never actually been tested, but who's to know seeing as all anyone is apparently looking for as a marking and they can't be bothered, and probably aren't equipped to actually test the beam pattern.

[MyGTR]

Theoretically, a guy could take a LHD car and put RHD headlights in the car (that aren't DOT approved) and the car would not pass inspection.

More than theoretically - all the S13 guys running around with Silvia fronts, and Integra guys with JDM Type-R fronts, are in this exact position..

EXACTLY!

At that point we can be sure all the 70 year old guys with Morgans and what not are included in the RHD discussion.

They're off the radar, but if they import, they will be included in the effects of government changes, and should therefore be recruited as allies now.

Only if the changes have to deal with RHD and not just focused on headlights. But I suppose someone in Vancouver can go to the British Car Field meet next spring and talk to them and see what they think.

[Touring240]

I received a reply from Mike Woods. I asked when the change to 25 years would be taking place and if there are plans to re-inspect all imports that have entered under the 15 year rule. ( I wanted piece of mind) Of course an officer in BC can pull over any vehicle at any time for any reason to give a Vehicle Inspection notice.

----------------------

Hello Ian

Before a change can be made to the federal regulations a process must be
implemented. Please check the attached web site

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/index-e.html

Currently there is no plan to recall vehicles for re-inspection .
However, any police officer can direct the vehicle for an inspection if
he/she have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the vehicle does
not meet provincial standards.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Woods
Manager, Vehicle Safety and Standards
Commercial Vehicle Safety & Enforcement Branch
Ministry of Transportation
Phone: (250) 953 4040
Fax: (250) 952 0578
Check Out Our Web Site:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/vehicle_inspections.htm

Improving Road Safety in British Columbia

[psilosin]

The Max Overdrive headlights might be DOT approved but they might not meet the 'equivalent to OEM' clause I have been argueing about with Glenn for a looooong time....

Glenn I posted some side by side pics of the original vs Max Overdrive headlamps in my earlier post in this thread. Can you please make a call on them in your opinion whether they would be approved or not.

[and thanks for posting a reply regarding flatbed truck lights...if they are in fact illegal on a homemade flatbed and only legal on company installed kits that include a compliance decal then that takes the some wind out of my argument . Although I dought any get trucks with homemade flatbeds get taken off the road because of it...]

[jhmed]

The only issue at present time are the headlights and that can be solved. Let's not artifically include the discussion on RHD before it needs to be.

That is not true. The RHD issue is and should be front and center. Please re-read the CBC news article that has initiated much of this debate.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/12/22/japanesecars.html

"... used right-hand-drive vehicles from Japan are raising safety concerns in British Columbia.

Provincial officials are concerned the vehicles might be dangerous in passing situations and have asked Transport Canada to step in.

Mike Woods, manager for vehicle inspections in the province, said that while there's no evidence of accidents caused by right-hand-drive vehicles, officials need more time to determine their safety record."


"Some officials worry the cars may be dangerous when passing because the driver's range of vision is limited on the outside of the road."



There is no mention in that article about headlights at the moment, although compliance with Provincial standards is paramount... They are going after RHD at its core. Driver position. Their underlying concern (aka hidden agenda) is the fact that their OOP technicians haven't been doing their jobs and are issuing certification to vehicles which do not meet provincial safety standards, and they want to slow/halt importation to buy themselves time to figure out their next move. The system is antiquated and failing when it comes to inspections of out of country vehicles. Their only recourse is to try and prove they are unsafe because of driver position, which is a very precarious 'position' (no pun intended) for the government to take in my opinion.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: It's also a smart one too. All it will take is one careless RHD owner in the coming months to get into a serious collision and the media will flock to this issue. The public will get involved and people who've never sat in a RHD will be spouting off about how unsafe they are, thus agreeing with the government and encouraging that kind of thought.

DRIVE SAFE EVERYONE!

[MyGTR]

I made that suggestion based on Mike's extensive discussion about the headlights. Aside from this quote I haven't seen anything in the previous posts referencing concerns with RHD vehicle safety specifically with passing other vehicles.

Of course if we hear anthing official about the seating position then it is a seating position issue. But it seems to me that all they are concerned about officially and within CURRENT laws is the headlights.

Perhaps the headlight issue is only the tip of the iceberg and TC is keeping the rest of the discussion unofficial and "quiet". I suppose in that case we need to have the discussions about RHD irrespective of the headlights.


p.s. don't put much stock into media reports. To illustrate, iIjust re-read a media report from 1987 from CBC claiming the big tornado that hid Edmoton "swept through downtown" and killed "at least" 30 people. Both of which weren't true.

[Shadao]

well considering the CBC has a corespondent in Nelson BC(which is only 30-45 min away from where i live) named Gregor Craigie, who drives a RHD vehicle, we have someone in a position to voice our side of the story.... there are only two scenarios that make RHD harder than LHD, passing, and left hand turns...

keeping that in mind, are you gonna make a left hand turn regardless of what vehicle you are in if you cant tell if its safe to procede or not? same goes for passing.... most of the time you will have a second lane to go into in order to pass, and if you dont then you are passing on a dotted yellow line, and if you cant tell if its safe or not are you gonna risk passing?

TC is using speculation not fact, they said it themselves, they need more time to tell if RHD vehicles pose a threat to the safety of the general public....

they have already proven that imported vehicles, are in better running condition, according to the report.... how ever.... because of this stir up in our lives, some importers are cashing in on buyer panic, resulting in unsafe vehicles being imported.... whats the way around this???? have only certified gov't regulated importers,,, no more basement importers at least none without gov't certification..... this will ensure quality vehicles, so what if they cost a few thousand more, we still get our car and we know it would be safe

as for TSS not selling just the headlights to non tss customers.... come on you guys think about it, they are selling complaince packages, which makes it so you have ALL of what you need, instead of piecing it all together( if you ever do that is ) by selling compliance packages they are actually protecting themselves. this way people cant then go after them when the DOT comes along and says you've got the head lights what about the rest?? pick on someone who is trying to find a loop hole in the system not someone who is complying with it....

one thing that needs to be shown clearly to the gov't and the general public, is the same thing about guns

guns dont kill people, people kill people,

its the same with vehicles, cars dont kill people, people kill people.....

i am all for TC yanking unsafe cars off the road, and to say you arent WOW,,,,, but TC needs to attack ALL unsafe vehicles, currently they are cracking down on imported vehicles because many have snuck past unsafe... so logically they are the first target, but the second BIGGER target needs to be ALL domestic vehicles 10yrs or older, because from what i have seen domestic vehicles are not nearly as safe as imported vehicles, but again the few that have snuck past are ruining it for all