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

[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.

[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

[crushers]

. 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.

please send a copy to
wayne@luxuryimports.ca
i would like to help out in this issue if possible
cheers

[GT]

Glenn,

I'm curious if you know where we in the Skyline community could find a engineer in the lower mainland to test a Skyline for CMVSS standards.
I have an 89 & would be willing to submit my car for testing ,aslong is it is in the same condition when I get it back.

Also from reading previous posts since my car is not registered yet & was built (first registered in japan) in Nov/89 I will be required
1. change headlights
2. install high mount brake lights
3. install rear markers
4. install front markers (unless deemed by engineer)
5. get taillights certified
as for neutral safety switch it is a manual transmission & did not have an oem one so it does not require one & because of it being a nov/89 car it just gets in without having to have dtrl's. The glass is good I checked & the cat converter is there. Am I correct in what I've listed above.

Thanks

Jason

Sorry for missing this one. I do not know which engineers in the lower mainland would do such testing. There has to be more than one though.

Everything else you have quoted is correct. I would check with the engineer before you go as it may be beneficial to have whatever you are going to use for lights already in place.

[GT]

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.

I'll try to explain one last time. Nothing has to supercede the Federal CMVSS rules because they do not apply to cars older than 15 years of age. Our inspection manual (which is legislated, I already listed how it ties together with actual legislation sections quoted ,217 (2)MVA) has adopted certain parts of the CMVSS instead of having to start from scratch. The inspection manual states than all lamps/lenses used must meet CMVSS satndards and be so marked. No obviously if an unmarked lens is proven to meet the standard, it will be excepted (like the lhd smart cars runnijng around).

As far as pulling over every single rhd over that is seen, a Peace Officer empowered to enforce the MVA and it's Regulations has the power to stop any vehicle at any time in order to ascertain compliance with the Mva and it's Regulations. If I see a RHD I lkaready know most have been improperly approved, so I will pull them over and check. If everything looks good, away they go. If it's not good I will send them back in for an inspection (also noting who has done the bad inspection). There is no harrassment there any different than me pulling over a truck with 10 inches of lift.

I won't even respond to rockcrete as I don't think it serves any useful purpose.

[turbodiesel]

got a reply from Mr. Taylor again... he's QUITE GENEROUS to give us the contacts OF Transport Canada...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/road/menu.htm

LET'S DO IT! SAVE JDM CARS! SAVE NOT-SOLD-IN-CANADA LHD CARS! (rawrrrrr...)

[LHD-GTR]

If I purchased 2 vehicles (1993) 3 months ago in Japan and had them stored in Japan till they are legal for export (next year) and the law changes before that. What happens?

Will I have lost my money?

[crushers]

it would be a risk on your part to asume you can still bring them over after (if) the change to 25 year rule. chances are you wil have to sell them in Japan or have the drivetrains pulled and shipped in a crate.

either way it could end up an expensive "ooops"...
to assume the government would leave a loop hole open for pre-existing sales might be a mistake. chances are there will be an anouncement about cut off date and then a door will shut.

want that cool 1993 unit? then "join the fight for what is right" and lets keep the door open...

[mdrive]

you have no clue

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.

Stinky, you have no idea what you are talking about. Out headlights are DOT and SAE approved. Why don't stop by at our showroom, I will walk you around.

[crushers]

http://delica.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93

intersting read

[sharkbait]

I'll try to explain one last time. Nothing has to supercede the Federal CMVSS rules because they do not apply to cars older than 15 years of age. Our inspection manual (which is legislated, I already listed how it ties together with actual legislation sections quoted ,217 (2)MVA) has adopted certain parts of the CMVSS instead of having to start from scratch. The inspection manual states than all lamps/lenses used must meet CMVSS satndards and be so marked. No obviously if an unmarked lens is proven to meet the standard, it will be excepted (like the lhd smart cars runnijng around).

I'm confused. You said that we are excempt from CMVSS rules but we must meet CMVSS standards. Are CMVSS rules the same as the standards or are they different? If they are the same then why do we have to meet something that we are excempt from?

[GT]

I'll try to explain one last time. Nothing has to supercede the Federal CMVSS rules because they do not apply to cars older than 15 years of age. Our inspection manual (which is legislated, I already listed how it ties together with actual legislation sections quoted ,217 (2)MVA) has adopted certain parts of the CMVSS instead of having to start from scratch. The inspection manual states than all lamps/lenses used must meet CMVSS satndards and be so marked. No obviously if an unmarked lens is proven to meet the standard, it will be excepted (like the lhd smart cars runnijng around).

I'm confused. You said that we are excempt from CMVSS rules but we must meet CMVSS standards. Are CMVSS rules the same as the standards or are they different? If they are the same then why do we have to meet something that we are excempt from?

Ya sorry, it is kind of confusing.

As these vehicles are older than 15 years of age they are exempt from the CMVSS standards as a whole (which they have to be or they would not be allowed, period). What does apply is Provincial Standards (MVA, including The Standards of Safety and Repair.) In our provincial standards we have used CMVSS as a standard we will accept for certain things (lights, seatbelts for example) instead of going through a lengthy process of creating our own. We could have made our own and called it something else which would have made it less confusing, but the goal is the same regardless of what we call it. We want all vehicles on the road to meet the same standard.

Hopefully that makes some sense.

[GT]

This will be my last post as I don't see anymore benefit to me continuing. I have recieved some emails with personal attacks in it which is where I have to draw the line.

People are posting things which are not true (I think in an attempt to get my goat) and it has worked.

Wayne has posted that I am in TC's back pocket by not approving lights to give them time to figure things out. Pure Crap. This suprises me coming from Wayne as I assumed he was a different type of gentleman. Wrong call I guess.

Rockcrete continues to post things such as the fact he says that inspectors can approve your vehicles if there are no safety concerns and that I am just being a hardnose. Also that the inspection manual isn't legislated even though O have provided actual legislation showing otherwise. He also had two words for me. :roll:

I also don't appreciate turbodiesels comments that I am somehow withholding contact numbers for Transport Canada after I have already stated that I have no affiliation with them, nor do I have any contact numbers. I guess all in an attempt to show I am "out to get ya".

If anyone would like to contact me they can do so during my work hours and work contacts. Donating my spare time to try and give answers is over. And whoever sent me the rude and obnoxious emails better be careful in what they write.

Cheers and good luck.

[crushers]

yes, it makes complete sense. you changed (added) the rules to fit BC TC desires.
very simple.

[rockcrete]

The whole problem is, he never actually read what anyone wrote here, he just superficially skimmed it and jumped to a conclusion, in much the same way as he reads and interprets the manual. I never once condoned driving with RHD aimed headlamps, yet thats what he decided I was saying and didn't look any further. He would also take any rule or implication from anywhere just to say "no" yet wouldn't accept anything from anywhere else that contradicted his "no" answer. Then in the end his final suggestion about having the lamps modified and tested is exactly what I suggested in the first place. He wonders why people get upset, he doesn't listen, he just keeps switching things around so he can say "no" and won't clearly spell out how to get a "yes" answer. Then if you look in another post, his boss has contradicted him. All any of us are looking for is somebody to work with us and constructively arrive at a solution. I don't want to drive around blinding anyone, and neither does anyone else.