apathy of RHD JDM owners

[Fromage]

In the electrical industry we have CSA approved equipment. One used to get a special eqipment inpection from the province of BC, they were a pain in the ass. So now If I build a piece of equipment, I can get approval from CSA or equivalent, such as Wharnok-hersey.It is a special inspetion certification approval that can cost $100-$200. Is there such a thing for vehicles? Kit cars, altered vehicles engineering stamp of aproval agencies.

Not in Canada. In the States it is called grey market, or aftermarket certification. It doesn't work. In Canada, only the OEM can certify compliance at time of main assembly by affxing a compliance label.

 

[crushers]

They are. Change the lights. Problem solved.

actualy 'E' rated are not acceptable according to the memo.

 

[Fromage]

Edit.

 

[mreekster]

what I was wondering was can another body certify auto parts? There are alot of aftermarket parts in Canada, they must be certifed by someone without going to each province.

 

[crushers]

there are MANY uncertified aftermarket parts. once again allow me to warn everyone to ASK before purchasing tail lights if they are DOT/SAE approved AND stamped...
i talked with one supplier this morning and the word is that the consumer is responsible for what he buys and installs...
seriously, what are the chances of being pulled over in a BJ74? not too likely. but it would suck if you replaced that broken tail light with a non-dot approved unit and got the unit impounded because an inspector was having a bad day...
cheers

 

[mjohn7]

feel free to jump back out...
anyone that is reluctant to reveal their true name when requested is not welcome.

I was not aware this was your personal forum Wayne. I guess unless your part of the Good Old boys Club your are not welcome. As for my name I have sent you two personal e-mails over the last month, still no responce from you. (you may recall them, ***@gov.ab.ca.)

 

[crushers]

I have many emails that end with that designation and I do not have time to try and figure out who is who.
(If I decide I do not want to answer an email from someone I do not know then that is my prerogative, I own you nothing but you are one of the few that have earned my disrespect)
It is not my forum but it is my thread. If you do not want to be part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

 

[mjohn7]

Suggesting that items be submitted to the dept of transport to show they meet SAE, would in my opinon be part of a solution. As would E codes as well as cross referencing. Slaming curbers (sorry I'm not a curber, just a consumer)and operating without a listed salesman (AMVIC) may not assist your cause and may only add to the problems you as well as other owners of JDM may,and are facing. Given your apprant disrespect or distast for me as well as my opinons, I will not bother you with any future e-mails and will leave you to "your thread" .

 

[snowking]

NOW,NOW BOYS. This not going to work in finding a solution to our growing problem. As tax payer's , all we want is straight forward answers. How do expect people of this great nation to follow the rules if the goverment dept.'s can't even follow them or being on the same page. It is frustrating to say the least, however, having forums such as this,with people such as Wayne and many others taking the first step is a good thing. Opinions aside, (good ol boys club) is irrelevant ,lets remain focus on the task at hand.................

 

[crushers]

Rob,
This is EXACTLY what is frustrating. Not only do you have different provinces requesting various mods for compliance you have different inspectors with in each province interpreting the rules their own way.
If there were had and fast rules on the memo that was mandate across Canada then the frustration would be minimal.
When you do the research the third brake light is not mandatory on full-framed units till 1997 but BC is alluding that they want them on all units.
When I talked to Brad 3 months ago about this memo being circulated in BC his reply was "if it came off the dock then it is acceptable to me" now he is circulating the same memo and refuses to answer about "E" euro spec lights being acceptable or not.
It seems the only real issues we have is the headlights and the tail lights (in some rare cases the glass). I can understand the headlights not shining in the eyes of on coming drivers but what is wrong with re-aligning the lights and leaving them alone? If you need yet more light then add a set of aftermarket driving lights. This is not accepted at this time.
The idea that you can take 2 separate light lenses and set them side by side and not be able to tell which is DOT and which isn't from 10 feet is frustrating but according to the rules this is not acceptable.
I have approached a few engineers that are legal to sign that the tail lights meet the required specifications but when it came time to sign on the dotted line they walked away. It seems they did not want to take up the battle which is their right but still frustrating to say the least.
The battle goes on.
cheers

 

[Island Moose]

First step?

Cooler heads will hopefully prevail....


I'm wondering if a good first step is for someone here to compile a list of known regulations specific to province and production year. This list can then be printed by each owner, and used to do the work needed or simply carried in the vehicle to use if pulled over by a DOT employee. It seems from earlier posts that the "rules" are being interpreted on "the fly" in some cases....especially in regard to the third brake light, and running lights...both of which should be clearly based on production year. I'm a big fan of my rights, and the onus is on the DOT to prove how any of our vehicles do not comply.

 

[crushers]

i agree, a list of compliance rules would be great...
are you up to it?
cheers

 

[Island Moose]

i agree, a list of compliance rules would be great...
are you up to it?
cheers

I guess I could try to compile what has been quoted here online, maybe someone with more expereince could double-check the info.

I'll get started tonight.

 

[crushers]

that would be a great start, thanks for participating...
cheers

 

[Technikev]

It seems the only real issues we have is the headlights and the tail lights (in some rare cases the glass). I can understand the headlights not shining in the eyes of on coming drivers but what is wrong with re-aligning the lights and leaving them alone? If you need yet more light then add a set of aftermarket driving lights. This is not accepted at this time.
The idea that you can take 2 separate light lenses and set them side by side and not be able to tell which is DOT and which isn't from 10 feet is frustrating but according to the rules this is not acceptable.

Sorry, Wayne, but I disagree with the headlight point. Realigning the RHD headlights does not do the trick. I am pretty sure it's not a matter of how much light is being projected, but where the it is being projected.

The light patterns on a RHD and LHD are different. Just light em up in a vehicle and point them toward a wall, and then it becomes rather obvious. North American spec lights are somewhat poor in their illumination, but if you look at the pattern from, lets say that plain old Bosch light from Canadian Tire, the pattern is fairly flat with a kick up on the passenger (right) side to illuminate signs and other objects on the side of the road without blinding oncoming drivers. This is a typical E code pattern.

Now the Japanese or other RHD lights are similar, but they rise up to the LEFT, which in their native country is the passenger side. Again, this is away from the oncoming drivers and onto the side of the road for signs and other stuff.

Now if these lights are used in any left hand drive road system, the lights will kick up into the oncoming drivers eyes, no matter how they are realigned.

Most of the cruisers imported into NA use standard round or rectangular headlights, so are easy to replace with $10 units from Napa or CT. The 80 series pose another problem. The composite units are not easliy replaced with cheap, off the shelf lights. The only option is to replace with NA spec lights or the E code units. This is not an inexpensive proposition. A set of E codes will run about about 600 USD, and I have no idea what a new set is from Toyota. You could go used if you could find a set, but I suspect that there are more vehicles being imported than there are sitting in the wreckers.

Most of the crap the inspectors are going on about is, well, just that: crap. Being blinded by oncoming headlights, whether RHD or improperly aimed NA lights is a pain in the ass and in some instances a bit dangerous.

I guess my point is this: if you own a RHD vehicle, please ensure the headlights are matched to the LHD system, regardless of what some regulation says may or may not apply. This is just a bit of courtesy to other drivers.

-kevin

 

[crushers]

Sorry, Wayne, but I disagree with the headlight point. Realigning the RHD headlights does not do the trick. I am pretty sure it's not a matter of how much light is being projected, but where the it is being projected.

The light patterns on a RHD and LHD are different. Just light em up in a vehicle and point them toward a wall, and then it becomes rather obvious. North American spec lights are somewhat poor in their illumination, but if you look at the pattern from, lets say that plain old Bosch light from Canadian Tire, the pattern is fairly flat with a kick up on the passenger (right) side to illuminate signs and other objects on the side of the road without blinding oncoming drivers. This is a typical E code pattern.

Now the Japanese or other RHD lights are similar, but they rise up to the LEFT, which in their native country is the passenger side. Again, this is away from the oncoming drivers and onto the side of the road for signs and other stuff.

Now if these lights are used in any left hand drive road system, the lights will kick up into the oncoming drivers eyes, no matter how they are realigned.

Most of the cruisers imported into NA use standard round or rectangular headlights, so are easy to replace with $10 units from Napa or CT. The 80 series pose another problem. The composite units are not easliy replaced with cheap, off the shelf lights. The only option is to replace with NA spec lights or the E code units. This is not an inexpensive proposition. A set of E codes will run about about 600 USD, and I have no idea what a new set is from Toyota. You could go used if you could find a set, but I suspect that there are more vehicles being imported than there are sitting in the wreckers.

Most of the crap the inspectors are going on about is, well, just that: crap. Being blinded by oncoming headlights, whether RHD or improperly aimed NA lights is a pain in the ass and in some instances a bit dangerous.

I guess my point is this: if you own a RHD vehicle, please ensure the headlights are matched to the LHD system, regardless of what some regulation says may or may not apply. This is just a bit of courtesy to other drivers.

-kevin

my last set of dealer 80 series lights were $700 a pair. not cheap but a nessary expense.
i have watched as the headlights on some units were re-aimed on units that could not have a LHD replacement and once the light is moved (on some units) the glare to oncoming traffic was non-existant. some units ar not adjustable. what some brits do is cover the outer edge with tape to stop the light from shining into the on coming traffic when going from England to a LHD country...
i agree completely, if you can get a LHD counterpart then don't be cheap, go get the unit. if there isn't any LHD units to be found then be considerate and take precautions.
BUT according to the memo the headlights must be DOT approved as well. "E" code headlights are not acceptable according to the memo, at this time anyway...
good imput, thanks Kevin

 

[canadam]

For those who don't buy the headlight issue, here's a small figure to illustrate light dispersal patterns in a HID kid developed for RHD vehicles from TRD.

As you can see, it's not a simple adjustment, the entire light dispersal pattern differs.

 

[crushers]

nice illustration,
thanks

 

[light_duty]

Hey Everyone,

In real life I am a librarian, so I do have some experience working with government docs. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be willing to compile a list of relevant stats, regs, and TSDs and post them up on my website.

Also, what do people think about starting a Yahoo! group or the like for a JDM Owners Alliance group? I was originally thinking of starting one for LJ78 owners, since our situation is a little bit special, but since the issue seems to be expanding, perhaps it would be good to include any JDM Cruiser, Townace, etc. owners. We all share the same concerns. Anyway, a Yahoo group would give a place for people to post up their experiences and interactions with the powers that be, as well as orchestrate things like letter writing campaigns and other activities.

I've been thinking about this, and I believe that a good letter writing campaign would help the authorities realize that there are a lot of us out here, and that decisions they make have a direct impact on A LOT of lives.

Anyway, I don't want to take the job from your hands, Island Moose, but I'd seriously be totally happy to put this together. In fact, I'd be happy to take on some kind of lead role in organizing a JDM Owners Alliance, if you folks would have me do so.

Reply or PM me with thoughts.

Robin

 

[crushers]

in my eyes a couple doing this with some feed back from other's experences will ease the work load and be alble to stay on top of the changes.
thanks for offering Robin.

a Yahoo group might work but i am curious as to why we can't do that here?

if you are willing to lead the group you have my support.

cheers