Tweet
Dear ICBC:
We are extremely distressed that you seem to have so little regard for your policy holder's premiums that you continue utilizing valuable resources to promulgate myths and fears regarding right hand drive vehicles. It is apparent the only real purpose for doing so is to ultimately deny citizens the right to purchase vehicles from outside the domestic dealer network.
We consider the following outright lies and deceptions you are publishing on the ICBC website to be evidence of your biased agenda.
1. You assert that these are low-cost vehicles. Why is there no suggestion of setting a floor price instead of an outright ban? Most importers and collectors I know would have no problem meeting that threshold, as these collector vehicles tend to cost more than most vehicles of the same age or newer plugging up dealers lots.
2. The safety and environmental concerns you espouse are figments of a biased imagination. IVOAC and CAVI met with you to discuss our concerns about this study, and learned you are unable to provide the data used for your study for a review. In lieu of fulfilling this request, you provided "representative" data that was both meaningless and flawed. Moreover, you have been unable to find any academic peers to independently review your study and replicate the results.
3. Even setting aside for a moment the flawed nature of your study, a 40% increase in the accident rate of right hand versus left hand drive vehicles, when considered to be less than .5% of all vehicles registered, amounts to less than the overall statistical margin of error for such a comparison.
4. Despite claims of an increased likelihood of being involved in an accident, there is research to suggest the actual incidence of death and serious injury where RHD have been involved (and not necessarily at fault), is actually lower.
5. The inference that the increased likelihood of accident can be attributed to the design of the vehicles has not been substantiated. Consequently, we do not hear you suggesting a removal of RHD municipal, postal or other vehicles form the highways.
6. We know from our conversations with Transport Canada that they have, in fact, no interest in reviewing legislation concerning the importation of RHD vehicles. In fact, Bill S-5 will facilitate the importation of vehicles that provide for more choices than currently made available by the domestic dealer network.
7. The Scrap-it program is a dreadful waste of taxpayer's money if the intention was to save the world as there have been no measurable results achieved, nor ever could have been achieved. Worse, the likely real intention of boosting motor vehicle dealer sales through this initiative has also been an abject failure. At least if we had some vehicle manufacturing here in BC we might have seen some benefit from this initiative rather than simply draining away valuable tax dollars.
8. The risk of injury from driving a motorcycle that is involved in a collision is many times greater than for someone operating a RHD vehicle.
9. Japanese and European vehicles tend to be smaller, more fuel efficient, and have had no difficulty passing Air Care inspection.
10. Finally, if the concern were really about safety and the environment, why not open the market to newer used imported vehicles that have the latest safety and pollution equipment, instead of advocating an increase in the age to 25 years.
The UK, France, Japan and many other countries with better road safety records than Canada and the USA routinely allow a mix of left and right drive vehicles with none of the angst you posses. If your goal really is to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the risk of accident and injury on BC highways you might wish to consider, instead of assault citizens transportation choices, requiring better training for ALL vehicle operators and more stringent licensing standards.
Otherwise, until you can produce a verifiable study showing that a ban on the registration of RHD vehicles would result in a measurable improvement in road safety, we ask that you restrain yourselves from continuing to misrepresent the facts. Alternatively, those of us who feel imported vehicles have been beneficial for consumers would appreciate using your influence with domestic vehicle manufacturers to build the kinds of vehicles more people want to buy.
Dale Leier, Managing Director
Canadian Association of Vehicle Importers
6 - 407 William St. Victoria BC V9A 3Y8
E: dale@cavi.ca www.cavi.ca
From the ICBC website: Right-hand drive vehicles – right for B.C.?
Canadian legislation currently allows vehicles older than 15 years to arrive in Canada exempt from the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to allow the importation of antique and other “collector” cars. Since about 2005, an increasing number of surplus Japanese vehicles have been showing up under this law, and local companies have started promoting the option of buying a used car in Japan via auction and shipping it to Canada.
The attractions are a unique, low-mileage, low-cost vehicle. But as the number of RHDVs in B.C. increases, so do the safety and environmental concerns. According to a 2007 ICBC study, RHDVs are 40 per cent more likely to be in an accident in a left-hand drive environment. In addition, older vehicles tend to emit more pollutants, and introducing more aging vehicles runs contrary to government programs like Scrap-It, which are aimed at removing older vehicles from the road.
Transport Canada is considering changing the rules to prohibit the importation of vehicles newer than 25 years of age, which would synchronize with current U.S. regulations. This would effectively stop the current market for low cost RHDV imports, but would require federal cooperation with all the provinces to enact. An association of imported vehicle owners has established itself to challenge changes to the current legislation (http://www.ivoac.ca).
What do you think? Should the importation of older RHDV to B.C. be allowed to continue? Or, should the minimum age for these types of imports be raised to 25? Send your comments to advocacy@bcaa.com .
We are extremely distressed that you seem to have so little regard for your policy holder's premiums that you continue utilizing valuable resources to promulgate myths and fears regarding right hand drive vehicles. It is apparent the only real purpose for doing so is to ultimately deny citizens the right to purchase vehicles from outside the domestic dealer network.
We consider the following outright lies and deceptions you are publishing on the ICBC website to be evidence of your biased agenda.
1. You assert that these are low-cost vehicles. Why is there no suggestion of setting a floor price instead of an outright ban? Most importers and collectors I know would have no problem meeting that threshold, as these collector vehicles tend to cost more than most vehicles of the same age or newer plugging up dealers lots.
2. The safety and environmental concerns you espouse are figments of a biased imagination. IVOAC and CAVI met with you to discuss our concerns about this study, and learned you are unable to provide the data used for your study for a review. In lieu of fulfilling this request, you provided "representative" data that was both meaningless and flawed. Moreover, you have been unable to find any academic peers to independently review your study and replicate the results.
3. Even setting aside for a moment the flawed nature of your study, a 40% increase in the accident rate of right hand versus left hand drive vehicles, when considered to be less than .5% of all vehicles registered, amounts to less than the overall statistical margin of error for such a comparison.
4. Despite claims of an increased likelihood of being involved in an accident, there is research to suggest the actual incidence of death and serious injury where RHD have been involved (and not necessarily at fault), is actually lower.
5. The inference that the increased likelihood of accident can be attributed to the design of the vehicles has not been substantiated. Consequently, we do not hear you suggesting a removal of RHD municipal, postal or other vehicles form the highways.
6. We know from our conversations with Transport Canada that they have, in fact, no interest in reviewing legislation concerning the importation of RHD vehicles. In fact, Bill S-5 will facilitate the importation of vehicles that provide for more choices than currently made available by the domestic dealer network.
7. The Scrap-it program is a dreadful waste of taxpayer's money if the intention was to save the world as there have been no measurable results achieved, nor ever could have been achieved. Worse, the likely real intention of boosting motor vehicle dealer sales through this initiative has also been an abject failure. At least if we had some vehicle manufacturing here in BC we might have seen some benefit from this initiative rather than simply draining away valuable tax dollars.
8. The risk of injury from driving a motorcycle that is involved in a collision is many times greater than for someone operating a RHD vehicle.
9. Japanese and European vehicles tend to be smaller, more fuel efficient, and have had no difficulty passing Air Care inspection.
10. Finally, if the concern were really about safety and the environment, why not open the market to newer used imported vehicles that have the latest safety and pollution equipment, instead of advocating an increase in the age to 25 years.
The UK, France, Japan and many other countries with better road safety records than Canada and the USA routinely allow a mix of left and right drive vehicles with none of the angst you posses. If your goal really is to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the risk of accident and injury on BC highways you might wish to consider, instead of assault citizens transportation choices, requiring better training for ALL vehicle operators and more stringent licensing standards.
Otherwise, until you can produce a verifiable study showing that a ban on the registration of RHD vehicles would result in a measurable improvement in road safety, we ask that you restrain yourselves from continuing to misrepresent the facts. Alternatively, those of us who feel imported vehicles have been beneficial for consumers would appreciate using your influence with domestic vehicle manufacturers to build the kinds of vehicles more people want to buy.
Dale Leier, Managing Director
Canadian Association of Vehicle Importers
6 - 407 William St. Victoria BC V9A 3Y8
E: dale@cavi.ca www.cavi.ca
From the ICBC website: Right-hand drive vehicles – right for B.C.?
Canadian legislation currently allows vehicles older than 15 years to arrive in Canada exempt from the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to allow the importation of antique and other “collector” cars. Since about 2005, an increasing number of surplus Japanese vehicles have been showing up under this law, and local companies have started promoting the option of buying a used car in Japan via auction and shipping it to Canada.
The attractions are a unique, low-mileage, low-cost vehicle. But as the number of RHDVs in B.C. increases, so do the safety and environmental concerns. According to a 2007 ICBC study, RHDVs are 40 per cent more likely to be in an accident in a left-hand drive environment. In addition, older vehicles tend to emit more pollutants, and introducing more aging vehicles runs contrary to government programs like Scrap-It, which are aimed at removing older vehicles from the road.
Transport Canada is considering changing the rules to prohibit the importation of vehicles newer than 25 years of age, which would synchronize with current U.S. regulations. This would effectively stop the current market for low cost RHDV imports, but would require federal cooperation with all the provinces to enact. An association of imported vehicle owners has established itself to challenge changes to the current legislation (http://www.ivoac.ca).
What do you think? Should the importation of older RHDV to B.C. be allowed to continue? Or, should the minimum age for these types of imports be raised to 25? Send your comments to advocacy@bcaa.com .