BC government is at it again

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

It has been a h*ll of a day with a good chunk of it lost arguing with a local injection shop on what they had planned to gouge me. Got some satisfaction but not much.:mad:

I did get the draft letter for a template to the Minister of Transport done. I sent Wayne a copy it. I tried to include the key points of this thread without making it too long a document. I leave it up to Wayne to add or delete items. The rule of thumb is anything over two pages and it does not get read or is not retained by the reader. One page is ideal for an advocacy letter. Of course the letter could be slightly modified to send to any MP or MLA. Once it is done then Chris and Mat could then do the translation.

If people would like to see an action post card produced, I could start working on that next. The main question is who would get it printed and pay for it. I am sorry but the fuel injection guys just emptied my account, so I am not going to be much help.

Once Wayne has finished his paper, we should look at putting together a document which puts in a list key speaking points with supporting data. This can be used by people who want to write their own letters or speak to/write to the media.

Cheers, John
 
canucksafari said:
Personally, I do not mind a test if it means keeping my truck and insurance as it is now. However, I can see that many others would not support it - including those that use NA Production RHD (privately or commercially). If there is generall agreement from the RHD community (especially the JDM folks), I would be happy to have us propose a test. But, the government knows full well that every driver of a RHD vehicle - commercial or private - would have to do the test. It would not stand up against a constitutional challenge. I am not a lawyer but I do know our constituion and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am quite sure that someone would eventually take it to court and call it descrimination. The only example they would have to provide to a judge (or judges) is my motor home and trailer example verses a driving position of (as Wayne says) 27".
Click to expand...

Hello, I just registered, and I would have to say that this license thing is a good idea. It can just be like a new class of license, like they have for air brake vehicles and such. Pass a test and you are allowed to drive RHD vehicles. It isn't discriminatory, it is just a skill that must be learned to drive a specific type of vehicle.

Glad to hear that lots of people are on this
:)

P.S. I am from Victoria
​
 
canucksafari said:
It has been a h*ll of a day with a good chunk of it lost arguing with a local injection shop on what they had planned to gouge me. Got some satisfaction but not much.:mad:

I did get the draft letter for a template to the Minister of Transport done. I sent Wayne a copy it. I tried to include the key points of this thread without making it too long a document. I leave it up to Wayne to add or delete items. The rule of thumb is anything over two pages and it does not get read or is not retained by the reader. One page is ideal for an advocacy letter. Of course the letter could be slightly modified to send to any MP or MLA. Once it is done then Chris and Mat could then do the translation.

If people would like to see an action post card produced, I could start working on that next. The main question is who would get it printed and pay for it. I am sorry but the fuel injection guys just emptied my account, so I am not going to be much help.

Once Wayne has finished his paper, we should look at putting together a document which puts in a list key speaking points with supporting data. This can be used by people who want to write their own letters or speak to/write to the media.

Cheers, John
Click to expand...

Luxury is going to foot the bill for the cards once we give the go ahead on the design...
we are waiting for the new Import owners Association site to be created...
 
RHDSomething said:


Hello, I just registered, and I would have to say that this license thing is a good idea. It can just be like a new class of license, like they have for air brake vehicles and such. Pass a test and you are allowed to drive RHD vehicles. It isn't discriminatory, it is just a skill that must be learned to drive a specific type of vehicle.

Glad to hear that lots of people are on this
:)

P.S. I am from Victoria
​
Click to expand...

Hi RHD,
welcome, introduce yourself to us.
cheers
 
Hey guys, I go by Paradis at GTRC and i just wanted to extend my proverbial hand here to help with whatever i can.

I've already tried to contact my MP a couple of times, and so far no response, i may resort to more than emails soon. I've talked to both Glen and Mike of the BC inpectional offices (who've proved to be rigid and honest, but of little help with regards to actually leading us to those in TC). So far there has been some forward thinking progress over at GTRC, however, there are still too many owners and younger folk who are approaching this thing in very malpropo belligerent manner as they argue symantics and legistature that is what it is.

Yes i drive a Skyline (a hilux surf too), and i can sympathize with the growing stigma that has begun to follow the Nissan entourage, but such is life when 5 grande can get you a bucket of bolts with turbo strapped to it. I love my car, i love my hps, and i know how to drive responsibly.

That aside, its sickening to see how this issue is being handled thus far by those who have a hand the legislative office. There is an obvious lack of organization by RHD owners as most are not a collective community, and these TC inspired advocaters are taking advantage of that lack of organization and communication by quickly putting together a campaign that will be hard to defeat should we not amass a single focused mind between all of us importees.

Anyways, I'm located in Red Deer, and I will continue to make calls and send out emails in hopes of reaching some of "representatives", to which i hope to have them listen to my case which is that no current law be changed until valid statistically significant data say otherwise. I personally feel there is a cloak and dagger game going on here as to why we are chasing our tails with compliance issues, but for now, the real focus has to be stopping the representatives at TC displaying manipulated findings to show cause and effects that simply do not exist.

So, in summary, i'd like to help with anything in red deer, and will keep you informed of any progress.
 
I don't ever see myself owning a JDM, I would only want one for parts, but I support you guys, and once a template letter is completed and posted, will personalize it and send it to wherever I have to. I think this is BS and the government should be spending more money making the roads safer than wasting money on banning RHD for no good reason.
Cheers and good luck,
Deny
 
welcome Paradis,
if we all work together we have a good chance of winning.

Welcome aboard Deny,
if i can get all my facts straight with stats to back them up and with everyones support i think we have a very good chance to win this situation.

cheers
 
New Jan Printing of BC MVA

Today on the Delica forum, Glenn of Combs Country Auto said that the legal use of E coded head lights, was confirmed to him by Mike Woods. In another post today he said that "technical document #108" gave this direction. He also said that "this document is not supplied to inspection stations or inspectors". So, of course I went looking for it. I did not find it but found something new that seems to confirm it. Below are the findings I posted on the Delica thread. Interesting, eh?

John

http://delica.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1071#1071

Searching the MVA I did find this version of the MVA Jan 1, 2007: http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/M/MotorVehicle/26_58/26_58_01.htm#part_division4. Interestingly in Table 1 it does refer to "This standard is based on S.A.E. standardLighting Inspection Code and recommended headlamp tolerances for E.C.E. lamps
supplied by the Road and Motor Vehicles Safety Section, Transport Canada."

However, within the [text of the] act itself it still states the following: General lighting requirements
4.02 (1) A vehicle on a highway must only be equipped with and use lamps, reflectors or other illuminating devices authorized by this Division or authorized in writing by the director.

(2) A vehicle on a highway must be equipped with lamps equivalent to those provided by the original manufacturer in accordance with the requirements that applied under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), or a predecessor to that Act, at the time of vehicle manufacture.

(3) All lamps, lamp bulbs and reflectors required or permitted by this Division must comply with

(a) the approved standards established by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and the applicable SAE standards,

(b) the conditions of use described in this Division, and
(c) the requirements of Table 1 of the Schedule to this Division.

I am not sure where that leaves us. I can't believe they would speak about ECE standards in the table but not refer to it in the updated MVA. It looks like someone messed up. Glenn, I hope you can help us get a copy of this doc, as it does not show up anywhere on the site. Thanks, John
 
thanks for the update,
seems almost like another issue to confuse the masses though...
 
RHD accident yesterday:
there was an accident yesterday involving a RHD BJ74 in Calgary. according to BC MOT stats report this would become another reason to ban RHD but in the interest of statistics he is the driver of the RHD (Joe) report:

Joe's statment:
That was me. It seems my truck is cursed. That was the second major accident
this year (both of which were not my fault, for all you RHD haters). It's
been sitting in my garage for the last couple of months. I finally got
around to getting it road worthy a couple of days ago. Quite a few hours + a
bunch of cash down the drain. As if the write off wasn't enough, I had just
filled up about 10km before the accident. You may have seen the 80L or so
dumping out of the busted tank on the news.

Here's what happened.... Driving along NB on Bow Bottom, minding my own
business when a red sunfire traveling SB lost control and crossed the
median. It would have been a head on but I saw it coming and swerved to the
right. She took out my rear PS quarter and somehow put me on my side, DS
down, don't ask me how??? Then I got smoked by a mini van while I was
sliding down the road. 3 write offs and no injury's. Go figure. It all
happened so quick, but was in slow motion. Weird.

end report
if MOT of BC wants to have accurate statistics to give to TC when the time comes they should be required to determine how many of the 15-year imports acccidents (80 units) were at fault. just because a RHD is involved in an accident serves no purpose at all and to use these stats as they are posted now is showing BC MOT unsupported prejudice of these units.

cheers
 
crushers said:
RHD accident yesterday:
there was an accident yesterday involving a RHD BJ74 in Calgary. according to BC MOT stats report this would become another reason to ban RHD but in the interest of statistics he is the driver of the RHD (Joe) report:

Joe's statment:
That was me. It seems my truck is cursed. That was the second major accident
this year (both of which were not my fault, for all you RHD haters). It's
been sitting in my garage for the last couple of months. I finally got
around to getting it road worthy a couple of days ago. Quite a few hours + a
bunch of cash down the drain. As if the write off wasn't enough, I had just
filled up about 10km before the accident. You may have seen the 80L or so
dumping out of the busted tank on the news.

Here's what happened.... Driving along NB on Bow Bottom, minding my own
business when a red sunfire traveling SB lost control and crossed the
median. It would have been a head on but I saw it coming and swerved to the
right. She took out my rear PS quarter and somehow put me on my side, DS
down, don't ask me how??? Then I got smoked by a mini van while I was
sliding down the road. 3 write offs and no injury's. Go figure. It all
happened so quick, but was in slow motion. Weird.

end report
if MOT of BC wants to have accurate statistics to give to TC when the time comes they should be required to determine how many of the 15-year imports acccidents (80 units) were at fault. just because a RHD is involved in an accident serves no purpose at all and to use these stats as they are posted now is showing BC MOT unsupported prejudice of these units.

cheers
Click to expand...

I live a few blocks from there. My g/f saw all the commotion (after the fact) coming home on SB BBT. Sounds like the Sunfire, like a lot of people I saw yesterday, were driving too fast for road conditions. I'm very glad everyone was OK.

Moreover, we should be using this as a prime example of how RHDs are pretty safe, considering the accident details and how Joe wasn't hurt (physically). Financially is another matter. Can someone obtain a copy of the police report?
 
Last edited:
In cases like this the first vehicle, in this case the Sunfire, is the ONLY one that can be found faulty. If the RHD 'Cruiser would have been a lamp post it would have suffered the same fate and I don't think the B.C. government is out to ban lamp posts!
 
cruiser_guy said:
In cases like this the first vehicle, in this case the Sunfire, is the ONLY one that can be found faulty. If the RHD 'Cruiser would have been a lamp post it would have suffered the same fate and I don't think the B.C. government is out to ban lamp posts!
Click to expand...

Only if they are JDM lamp posts and some buddies will loose $$$ because the Japanese ones are better made ... :censor: ...
 
first i want to introduce myself, kenny from calgary , i own a JDM 90 Toyota landcruier FJ80, TC step up and try to change the vehicle imporation law to 25 yr or older may not because of older cars are more dangerous, they know JDM are safe to drive on canadian raods and reliable, they just trying to protect the Canadian Auto markets NA Auto makers. i think that is not fair for some of you as an importers. reason why i'm here to join the FIGHT. i hope to see more nice JDM units on our raods .

http://forums.780tuners.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=47

wayne you sould invite them to join the fight , it may help

kenny Calgary
 
I am the recent importer of 2 Nissan S-Cargo's that as far as I know are unlike anything ever offered in the North American marketplace. Driving them from Vancouver back to Victoria, at every place and traffic light I stopped at, people all around were looking, waving and most importantly, smiling.

All of the posters to this forum have some good points, even if a little misinformation and false supposition has crept in. In addition from some of the points made, from what I know here are a few facts worth keeping in mind as we debat the issue and formulate an action plan:

1). From as far back as the mid '70's, Canada has allow collectors and enthusiasts to import collector and special interest vehicles of at least 15 years of age from the USA. Originally the exemption was 25 years. Eventually, those restrictions were reduced, but the original rationale for keeping good used vehicles out of Canada was to project Canadian automobile manufacturers. Since that time, various Federal and Provincial Governments have invested billions in domestic vehicle production. Inexpensive, high-quality imported vehicles flooding into the Canadian market will be seen as a threat to existing interests, such as the CAW, steel producers, manufacturers, distributors, and of course, major retailers with huge investments in land and buildings.

2). I spoke with a representative if ICBC this week regarding the CBC news report and was advised that as a crown agency they have no mandate to lobby legislators. However, according to this source, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (of whom ICBC along with all the Provincial regulators plus Transport Canada are members) is lobbying Transport Canada to increase the age of exemption from 15 to 25 years.

(I know, the pretzel logic of this arrangement is painfully obvious, but can be rationalized away as being nothing more than a "Collaborative Process." Check out www.ccmta.ca).

Without good organization, we are beat. These people are paid with full-time, family-supporting pensionable salaries out of taxpayers hard-earned income to protect the public from itself. They will do whatever is necessary to protect those incomes, including snuffing out a nascent industry. The Ministry of Transport has been the bane of the Kit Car Industry for years, trotting out the same public-safety scare tactics and keeping Canadians from exercising the same transportation options enjoyed by residents in the USA and elsewhere around the world.

If you want to put a face on the enemy, the primary person at ground zero in the fight to limit your transportation choices is Harry Baergen, Senior Enforcement Office, Transport Canada (BAERGEH@tc.gc.ca, (613) 998 - 2320).

3. According to the person I spoke with at ICBC, the fight is not against RHD vehicles "per se" but against a flood of imports that do not meet the CMVSS as they may represent a threat to public safety. In an of itself, it's going to be very difficult to argue that public safety threats should be tolerated, but it may be possible to lobby to have some limited exemptions maintained as long at there is "no measureable threat".

Right now, TC maintains that only the manufacturer can state whether a vehicle complies with the CMVSS, and that a non-compliant vechicle cannot be modified to become compliant. Period. These are unreasonable positions for a regulator to take in a supposedly free and democratic society. What would be more reasonable is something like this:

a). Where the manufacturer is unable to state that a given vehicle does comply with the CMVSS, an independent firm with engineering qualifications should be able to make that determination.

b). That where a vehicle is not deemed to comply, that it may be modified by a qualifed person in order to ensure that the safety of the general public is protected.

c). That where modifcations are not possible in order to comply with the CMVSS, an owner/operator of a non-compliant vehicle may only operate such a vehicle for personal enjoyment (i.e. in non-commercial service.) Such vehicles would have to be clearly marked in a manner that indicates it's special status, much in the same way that homebuilt/experimental aircraft are labelled.

At the end of the day, regulators, bureaucrats and politicians alike all exist to protect the safety alright - the safety of their pensions. If we give them a way to be seen as doing their jobs without snuffing out individual rights and freedoms altogehter, we might have a chance to survive this.

After all, if Canadians are going to be faced with world prices for energy, we need to be allowed to access world transporation solutions!
 
canucksafari said:
Only if they are JDM lamp posts and some buddies will loose $$$ because the Japanese ones are better made ... :censor: ...
Click to expand...

I'm with you!! I'd sooner see the domestic crap banned than the stuff from overseas. I wish Toyota brought the good stuff over or at least let us order it special.
As I've said many times before, there is NO new CDM vehicle that I would consider buying, NONE, NADA!!
I'm 99% positive my next vehicle will be from overseas but until then my CDM '82 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 will be kept alive, and it's a lot older than 15 years.
Any manufacturer or regulatory agency that thinks that by changing the date to 25 years will encourage me to buy their crap is.... well, full of crap!!
 
Learjet said:
I the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (of whom ICBC along with all the Provincial regulators plus Transport Canada are members) is lobbying Transport Canada to increase the age of exemption from 15 to 25 years.

(I know, the pretzel logic of this arrangement is painfully obvious, but can be rationalized away as being nothing more than a "Collaborative Process." Check out www.ccmta.ca).

If you want to put a face on the enemy, the primary person at ground zero in the fight to limit your transportation choices is Harry Baergen, Senior Enforcement Office, Transport Canada (BAERGEH@tc.gc.ca, (613) 998 - 2320).
Click to expand...

that site is interesting, everything is password protected so once again the public is a mushroom.
i am especially interested in:

New Vehicle Information Statement (NVIS)
Unusual Vehicles
Vehicle Inspection Issues

thanks for your information, appreciated.
those Scargos are real cool rigs... i was warned about the over heating issue so watch the engine temps...

cheers
 
crushers said:
that site is interesting, everything is password protected so once again the public is a mushroom.
i am especially interested in:

New Vehicle Information Statement (NVIS)
Unusual Vehicles
Vehicle Inspection Issues

thanks for your information, appreciated.
those Scargos are real cool rigs... i was warned about the over heating issue so watch the engine temps...

cheers
Click to expand...

I also found it disturbing that a commitee that a "a non-profit organization comprising representatives of the provincial, territorial and federal governments of Canada which, through the collective consultative process, makes decisions on administration and operational matters dealing with licensing, registration and control of motor vehicle transportation and highway safety" can make these decisions arbitrarily without public consultation.

I say without public consultation because any information regarding anything other than the organization itself is password protected, like you said, Wayne.

Very interesting... I think it may be worth a phone call to see if they'll release information to very public they seem so driven (pardon the pun) to protect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom