BC government is at it again
- Thread starter crushers
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Exactly. I have emailed a research company called TRL to request more concrete and more definative data. I'll post their response...
Subscribe, set your subscription to no e-mail (you can choose that have all e-mails for a day lumped together and sent in one e-mail once a day) then log in to the Yahoo group. You can then see the discussions.
There is also a document, and photo section.
hth's
gb
As a UK lady posted on the Yahool group, there are tens of thousands of LHDs from the Continent driving all over the UK, with no apparent safety problems. Anyone who's driven over there knows how hairy those country lanes can be, to say nothing of the morons on the motorways.
As a UK lady posted on the Yahool group, there are tens of thousands of LHDs from the Continent driving all over the UK, with no apparent safety problems. Anyone who's driven over there knows how hairy those country lanes can be, to say nothing of the morons on the motorways.
I read that too. That's how I came to start researching UK statistics. I'd really like to look into any studies from France and/or Germany since the UK/NZ/AUS are all opposite of our situation. I think it would make more of an impact if we can prove other countries with LHD cars have no issues with safety when RHD entered their roadways... but at this point I'll take anything I can find out!
Well I must be missing something because no matter what I try, Opera or IE, there is NO 'messages' section, just 'Home', 'Post', 'Files', 'Photos', 'Links', 'Polls', 'Calendar' and 'Promote'.
Hmmm!
Chris
I've done all that was suggested in later posts (thanks Greg), but still no joy. Opera and IE. I guess I have to reboot the computer to see any changes? (I selected 'no email')
Last edited:
Here is the report TC bases their argument on:
NB: Page numbers are odd as French text on even numbered pages has been removed.
Save copies if you want as it may have to go down.
NB: Page numbers are odd as French text on even numbered pages has been removed.
Save copies if you want as it may have to go down.
Previa - awsome study you found. From those results I can only ascertain that imported vehicles are safer than most others. By the looks of it we should be going after the domestic vehicles
This study is seriously flawed.
Previa, do you have the other pages of the document? pages 2,4,6,8,10,12 etc.?
fromthe looks of it the make some serious conclusions while only using choice parts of the study - parts to argue against imports only - they don't mention other valid points.
I hope TC is not basing their arguement on that document - that is easliy torn down.
This study is seriously flawed.Previa, do you have the other pages of the document? pages 2,4,6,8,10,12 etc.?
fromthe looks of it the make some serious conclusions while only using choice parts of the study - parts to argue against imports only - they don't mention other valid points.
I hope TC is not basing their arguement on that document - that is easliy torn down.
Last edited:
crushers
post ho
- Thread starter
- #115
Here is the report TC bases their argument on:
Save copies if you want as it may have to go down.
Previa,
i will post these up on my site... they will not remove them from there.
thanks for posting.
my take on this information is that this points to imports being SAFER than newer domestic units. the guy in Ottawa was trying to convince me that this was not true and that the domestic was safer for the first 10 years. i am assuming he was mistakenly using this information to try and back his claims.
anyone want to take this information and rewrite it to back our claims? using the same states that they do?
Previa, send me the rest of the pages and let me go over it...please.
cheers
cruiser_guy
Out of Africa / North Africa
Here is the report TC bases their argument on:
NB: Page numbers are odd as French text on even numbered pages has been removed.
Save copies if you want as it may have to go down.
This presumes that as the CDM vehicles are retired from service, those owners will purchase another CDM vehicle.
Personally, as I have stated before, THERE IS NO new CDM or US vehicle that even slightly interests me! My 25 year old CDM '82 LandCruiser BJ60 WILL be kept "alive" until either a CDM vehicle that interests me is offered or I decide to go with an import from outside of Canada/USA. As it is now my LandCruiser is running just fine but it is MUCH older and much higher mileage than the 15 year JDM's being imported.
According to Tables 1, 2 and 3, we should ban new vehicles as they ALL have a higher fatality and accident risk than other vehicles until the 15 year limit is reached!!
From what this report is saying - RHD is not an issue to them, the issue is that they think vehicles over 15 years old are simply more dangerous and mostly because of mechanical issues that may have resulted in one fatality.
The report doesn't say:
1. What the mechanical issues were.
2. Doesn't point out that the percent of fatalities is actually falling in vehicles over 15 years old.
3. Collisions per trilion kms travelled dropped in 2003.
4. That one fatality occured in an import, and 6247 deaths occured in CDM's
5. The number of fatalities in vehicles 15 years or older is about 60 percent of how many people are killed in 0-2 year old cars.
6. That drunk driving in vehicles over 15 years old is more of a problem than in newer cars - doesn't have anything to do with imports.
7. that fatalities and accidents caused by high risk action were about the same no matter the year of the car.
8. That more people died in vehicles over 15 years old because they were'nt wearing their seatbelts.
9. That there were only 80 accidents involving imports in a 4 year peiod - 1 resulting in death.
That is just a quick summary of what I can see. I'll be writing my MLA, MP, Minister or Transport and Ombudsman next week.
The report doesn't say:
1. What the mechanical issues were.
2. Doesn't point out that the percent of fatalities is actually falling in vehicles over 15 years old.
3. Collisions per trilion kms travelled dropped in 2003.
4. That one fatality occured in an import, and 6247 deaths occured in CDM's
5. The number of fatalities in vehicles 15 years or older is about 60 percent of how many people are killed in 0-2 year old cars.
6. That drunk driving in vehicles over 15 years old is more of a problem than in newer cars - doesn't have anything to do with imports.
7. that fatalities and accidents caused by high risk action were about the same no matter the year of the car.
8. That more people died in vehicles over 15 years old because they were'nt wearing their seatbelts.
9. That there were only 80 accidents involving imports in a 4 year peiod - 1 resulting in death.
That is just a quick summary of what I can see. I'll be writing my MLA, MP, Minister or Transport and Ombudsman next week.
Last edited:
Page two, sentence one, paragraph two. "None of these [15 year old] vehicles have to meet any standards."
That's B.S.. They have to meet Provincial automobile standards to be driven don't they?T he provinces don't have the resources to invent a motor vehicle safety document themselves so they've adopted the CMVSS and modified it slightly to their own specific needs. Hell, even Transport Canada adopted the US's FMVSS and tweaked it slightly to meet Canadian needs. If they don't meet the standards enforced by the OOP they they shouldn't be driven, therefore not able to hurt or kill people, right? If they are on the roads without meeting the standards, then that's an enforcement issue at the provincial level, and should have nothing to do with TC.
So, technically, these vehicles DO still need to be held to a standard, just not one that comes directly from Transport Canada but it is still their standards indirectly though.
I still find it disturbing that the majority of the accident data for the imports is shown lumped in (save for one small paragraph on page one) with vehicles 15 years and older and from all over Canada. A fifteen year old vehicle (generally) will be much less 'worn out' in the West than it would be in Nova Scotia for example because we do not have the same issues with rust.
That's B.S.. They have to meet Provincial automobile standards to be driven don't they?T he provinces don't have the resources to invent a motor vehicle safety document themselves so they've adopted the CMVSS and modified it slightly to their own specific needs. Hell, even Transport Canada adopted the US's FMVSS and tweaked it slightly to meet Canadian needs. If they don't meet the standards enforced by the OOP they they shouldn't be driven, therefore not able to hurt or kill people, right? If they are on the roads without meeting the standards, then that's an enforcement issue at the provincial level, and should have nothing to do with TC.
So, technically, these vehicles DO still need to be held to a standard, just not one that comes directly from Transport Canada but it is still their standards indirectly though.
I still find it disturbing that the majority of the accident data for the imports is shown lumped in (save for one small paragraph on page one) with vehicles 15 years and older and from all over Canada. A fifteen year old vehicle (generally) will be much less 'worn out' in the West than it would be in Nova Scotia for example because we do not have the same issues with rust.
Last edited:
This report is obviously "written to order".
Consider: the presence of tens of thousands of vehicles which 'do not meet CMVSS' on Canadian roads, without any decline in safety occuring, raises the question of why Canada needs to spend millions on it's own standards bureaucracy? Scary thought if you work for TC. Very scary. Suppose some cost-cutting politicians come along and decide we don't need all that bureaucracy anymore? Quick, bury those imports before anyone figures it out!
That's how the game is played.
So, this report is essentially a piece of propaganda. I have hand-written notes all over my copy; the line about "None of these vehicles have to meet any standards." being the most obvious example of misrepresentation.
Notice how three (trumpet fanfare) imported vehicles involved accidents had "mechanical defects", but by page 13 para. 3 this has become "collisions involving mechanical failure." Complete with "particularly astonishing" as a little adjectival flourish; repeated in para. 8.
If someone out there has a recent version of WP Office we could change the original .pdf file to .wp text and insert our comments for later collation into one critique.
Another reason why we need a dedicated bulletin board ASAP.
Consider: the presence of tens of thousands of vehicles which 'do not meet CMVSS' on Canadian roads, without any decline in safety occuring, raises the question of why Canada needs to spend millions on it's own standards bureaucracy? Scary thought if you work for TC. Very scary. Suppose some cost-cutting politicians come along and decide we don't need all that bureaucracy anymore? Quick, bury those imports before anyone figures it out!
That's how the game is played.
So, this report is essentially a piece of propaganda. I have hand-written notes all over my copy; the line about "None of these vehicles have to meet any standards." being the most obvious example of misrepresentation.
Notice how three (trumpet fanfare) imported vehicles involved accidents had "mechanical defects", but by page 13 para. 3 this has become "collisions involving mechanical failure." Complete with "particularly astonishing" as a little adjectival flourish; repeated in para. 8.
If someone out there has a recent version of WP Office we could change the original .pdf file to .wp text and insert our comments for later collation into one critique.
Another reason why we need a dedicated bulletin board ASAP.
Last edited:
I have my lawyer looking at it now, i think they are the largest firm in Canada now with an office in BC. I will see what course of action she thinks is best. I am betting that she will recommend a law office in BC to respond to that document, TC, and ICBC.
I am willing to pay up some cash for the cause - I will see if any other dealers are willing as well. Any dealers on here willing? This is not a pulpit thing or empire building, but I am willing to cough up.
It is possible that lawyers don't need to be called in yet, perhaps just a response letter is good enough.
Anyway, I will see what her recommendation is.
I am willing to pay up some cash for the cause - I will see if any other dealers are willing as well. Any dealers on here willing? This is not a pulpit thing or empire building, but I am willing to cough up.
It is possible that lawyers don't need to be called in yet, perhaps just a response letter is good enough.
Anyway, I will see what her recommendation is.
Last edited:
