and... this is a bad thing?
I think you misunderstood. I'm not trying to say its a bad thing...
You said: "curious, since there are 10,000% more cars on European roads at any one time than on Canadian roads how can they say our standards are better? There are many, many times more cars on Japan roads at any time than on our roads but the cars are not designed to be safe? are you serious?"
Well, in the cases of the JDM vehicles I've been exposed to, yeah, JDM cars are not equipped with identical/better safety equipment than their North American counterparts. It's been quite inferior (in my experience) as a matter of fact... Are they still designed to be safe? I would say that while being operated in the 'environment' in which they were designed to be driven, they probably are. Take them out of that 'environment' into one like ours, and not-so-much.
So having 'open roads' is not a bad thing for most of us here, but on narrow, traffic-congested roads I would imagine it is a lot harder to get the same velocities that we can over here. Safety equipment requirements therefore may be (and are) different in Europe and Japan than they are here (on most, if not all vehicles, I admittedly know little about the JDM LCs). Now, people can point to the Autobahn and the vids of 300+km/h Skylines all day long, but I would suggest those to be exceptions to the general rule.
I would also suggest that the North American society is more inclined to litigation so additional safety equipment to aid in the prevention of injury may be another factor in our 'standards' being higher than those of other regions. Not to mention the insurance companies, whose
modi operandi is based on high premiums with low payouts (where possible). If they pressure the auto manufacturers (which is what ultimately killed the Muscle Car, don't forget) to make a safer vehicle they will stand a good chance of payouts being less... resulting in higher profits for them!
I mean, you said it yourself when you quoted your TC source... "that European cars are not designed for Canadian roads and are unsafe in our enviroment..."
In the case of RHDs being driven on roads designed for LHD traffic, I don't think there's been a single one of us who would argue with ICBC's position that passing or left-turns can sometimes be a harrowing experience in a JDM, even downright dangerous for someone not accustomed to it. And you're absolutely right, an alert, responsible driver shouldn't have many problems navigating those situations successfully. But accidents aren't called 'on purposes'. Even the most responsible driver can make a wrong decision, and the responsible driver argument will definately not wash with the sport compact crowd who, let's face it, will undoubtedly ruin this for us all... Terry MacDonald (if I remember his last name correctly) of Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation told me that it was kids in Edmonton heavily modding Skylines and Silvias and driving wild that attracted their attention in the first place and prompted that letter to be released about the safety inspection requirements.
The more loopholes we find, the more ways the government will invent to try and shut it down. They don't have the proof right now to decide that RHD vehicles are dangerous, but when they get the proof this will happen. It doesn't matter whether it's started by Automobile Retailers Associations, the insurance industry, or a rash of automobile accidents. Once someone is hurt it will only a matter of time. Next step will be to go after the ability to insure. If no one with a JDM can get insurance, no one can drive them...
It's a bolt-in. 
