DOT pulled my Japanese import over today. Need some help (1 Viewer)

[Gold Boy]

Is there anything I am missing with a 86 BJ74?

I have changed the head light lenses, everything else seems to have SAE/DOT stamps on including windows.

Thanks
GB

 

[jcolvin]

Is there anything I am missing with a 86 BJ74?

I have changed the head light lenses, everything else seems to have SAE/DOT stamps on including windows.

Thanks
GB

Windshield too? How about the side marker reqirement? When you turn the headlights on and stand to one side of the truck, can you see an amber light in front and a red one at the back?

 

[Gold Boy]

Windshield too? How about the side marker reqirement? When you turn the headlights on and stand to one side of the truck, can you see an amber light in front and a red one at the back?

Yes and yes... red at back can see, amber at front side marker just needs a clear bulb changed to amber... and hay-presto.. done

Thanks

GB

 

[jcolvin]

I've been all over my HDJ-81, it seems to be fully in compliance EXCEPT for the headlight and front signal lenses. The front signal lamps say "E13" on them, which I guess is the european standard, but don't say SAE or DOT. The RHD pattern headlights don't have any standard marks at all except the yin-yang squiggle.

The front windshield does have a DOT etching, even though it is practically invisible, the tail-lights have SAE/DOT, and the front and rear marker lights are visible from the side.

So it looks like technically for an HDJ-81 to be compliant all the front lenses need to be changed.

 

[Gold Boy]

Thats great.... Can you get the lenses?

GB

 

[Greg_B]

Yes and yes... red at back can see, amber at front side marker just needs a clear bulb changed to amber... and hay-presto.. done

Thanks

GB

I believe the regs say yellow or white for the front, so you are fine afaik, in regards to the color.

gb

 

[Gold Boy]

I believe the regs say yellow or white for the front, so you are fine afaik.

gb

Thanks gb

Perfecto

GB

 

[The Dude]

I was told by a TC official that "all it would take is one fatal accident" with a vehicle of this kind to shut down imports altogether.

We had a talk with a local peace officer last night about this whole import thing. It wasn't the "safety" of the vehicle (crash testing) that they appear to be worrried about. He used a motor bike as an example. He said their ( I would assume local office) concern is the RHD in a LHD country and hurting others...

 

[Greg_B]

Previa Diesel, clear your PM box.

Brad. Did they quote any studies, or was this off the cuff opinion from persons never having driven RHD?

gb

 

[The Dude]

Off the cuff...

 

[Previa Diesel]

He said their ( I would assume local office) concern is the RHD in a LHD country and hurting others...

This is exactly what I got from a recent conversation with a BC inspector; insofar as the "safety' issue is concerned.

These people really believe that RHD is less safe than LHD. I asked if there was any evidence to support that. He was not aware of any.

I pointed out that:

1. Cyclists coming up on the right is a major concern when making right turns in urban areas. In a LHD vehicle the only safe way to check for this is to look back over your right shoulder, thus loosing sight of what is happening in front. This method is actually specified in the commercial driver training manual. In a RHD you just drop your eyes to the right hand mirror for an instant and you can see everything to your right rear without losing sight of what is happening in front of your vehicle.

2. When turning left (particulary) in a LHD vehicle the left side windshield pillar is much closer to your eyes and therefore blocks more of your field of view. In a RHD the pillar is farther away and therefore blocks much less of the FOV. That windshield pillar can easily obscure a pedestrian when turning left through an intersection for example.

3. At night it is much easier to see and follow the white line on the right side of the road than trying to see the yellow line in the center against the headlights of oncoming traffic. By avoiding looking directly at the oncoming headlights one's night vision is better preserved and one is more likely to see pedestrians, cyclists or other hazards on the curb side which are frequently not seen by drivers in LHD vehicles.

4. In a head-on collision the impact is most likely to occur on the left front side; being seated on the right one is less likely to be injured.

5. When parallel parking visibility is much better.

6. The driver gets out of the vehicle on the curb side rather than the road side. Obviously much safer for the driver as wel as cyclists and other drivers.

For most people, driving a RHD in NA is very easy and quickly becomes 'second nature'. In fact you begin to wonder why we drive on the left at all, given the advantages to RHD...a historical ‘accident’ no doubt.

I got the impression that these points made sense to the person I spoke to. No doubt he was not aware of them - I certainly wasn’t until I started driving RHD.

I’d suggest inviting your local inspector out for a drive....

I also mentioned that Japan has proportionately many times more LHD vehicles being driven on the left with no apparent safety issues on roads that are much more difficult to drive on than most of ours. I'll be investigating Japanese accident statistics shortly.

 

[Gold Boy]

Previa Diesel

Thats a great post!

I am printing a copy of that and keeping it my LC along with some dot regs...
May be we should all do that?

Thanks

GB

 

[Fromage]

There is no "exemption" for any vehicle when it comes to the Motor Vehicle Act. A vehicle is exempted from meeting RIV requirements for importation, but that exemption does not speak to vehicle safety. At least that is how I understand it.




Robin

[edit: removed some stuff to keep from the prying eyes of the man]

Why, you worried about the man reading your thread? Hahaha

Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, vehicles over 15 years of age are exempted from otherwise applicable Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Federally speaking once it's 15 years old it doesn't need anything. It falls out from under TC's regulations. Provincially it's another story.

Under Transport Canada The Motor Vehicle Safety Act mandates compliance for vehicles through Schedule III. Schedule III specifies what standards apply to what vehicles. Standards such as CMVSS 108 - Lighting and retroreflective devices, CMVSS 1106 Noise, CMVSS 215 Bumpers, occupant protection, controls, braking. Have a look, there is a lot of stuff applicable. Go on, read CMVSS 121 for fun, or just for the hell of it, read CMVSS 301, especially the propane section. It cracks me up every time.

Some CMVSS reference a TSD - Technical Standards Document. This document is a much more technical standard that can be amended legally quicker than the CMVSS.

RIV has nothing to do with JDM. RIV is for importation of U.S. Vehicles younger than 15 yrs of age that can me altered to comply with CDN standards. It's a program that is run by a private company (livingston) under contract from TC. It works for the US spec FZJ80 you want to import - The OEM has stated that it complies with the large majority of CMVSS and can be altered to comply with all of them. DRLs and labelling, usually. Sometimes it gets into seat belts and child seat anchorages. Minor stuff.

Transport Canada handles the rest, which is mostly enforcing the 15 year rule, which is done with the assistance of the CBSA. I have heard that Transport Canada enforcement officers are all ex CIA guys that all wear long trench coats and have lazer beam vision and they rappel from helicopters when boneheads break the law. This is pure speculation though.

JDM vehicles cannot be altered to comply with all Canadian standards so they can't be imported in this manner. Only way is over 15 years of age. Although the CMVSS aren't applicable federally to over 15 year of age vehicles, the provincial authorities may mandate compliance to federal standards through their provincial Acts.

It is impossible to bring a JDM unit into compliance with all CMVSS. It doesn't have the correct VIN (CMVSS 115) so it ends right there. Therefore, if provinces start enforcing compliance to federal CMVSS for all vehicles, you are all SOL. I doubt they will be doing this on a grand scale, probably focusing on the standards that they can monitor such as lighting, noise, etc.

Also, some of you might be interested to know that there is no federal requirement for DOT markings on lenses. However, because the manufacturer has not certified JDM vehicles to CDN standards, it would be impossible for an owner to demonstrate compliance for lights (you would have to get records of testing, or test them yourself via lab, ugh). So the best bet is just to look for DOT markings and if there are none change the lights out.

Edit:

At the levels where it actually matters, the issue isn't so much LHD vs RHD. It's that the JDM stuff doesn't meet any Canadian requirements. it's essentially an alien vehicle that was never endorsed by the OEM as a CDN vehicle. Yeah, it might have DOT taillights and glass, but what about side door intrusion? Or fuel system integrity? Or occupant protection?

 

[M John Galt]

Up here most roads are sorta paved with what they call 'chip seal' or just gravel. The right shoulder can be rough; snow and ice only makes it worse. With RHD I have a real good view of the right shoulder and can very easily pull over as far as safely possible to avoid oncoming traffic. Especially when it's some idiot over the centre line. For this reason and the ones listed above, I consider RHD on our right drive roads to be much safer than the normal LHDs.

 

[Previa Diesel]

I should add that the inspector I spoke to also stated several times that the 15 year old imports were "not wanted on the road" in Japan and were not considered safe there, etc. We can assume that this represents the propaganda being put out by those trying to shut down importing. I was able to assure him that there are thousands of vehicles on the road in Japan older than 15 years, where the owners choose to keep them. Most do not for the simple reasons that car prices are low, their standard of living is higher, zero interest car loans are readily available and the $1500. + for the bi-annual licensing inspections make it more expensive to run an older vehicle in Japan.

As we all know, 90% of the imports are in far better condition than 90% of the 15 year old vehicles that were originally sold in NA.

The push to shut this down in coming from some segments of the industry in NA and perhaps Japan. This came through loud and clear. These people are of course fooling themselves if they think the Landcruiser or Nissan Skyline buyer is going to buy some piece of domestic junk instead. Just as Toyota is fooling themselves if they think someone who wants an 1HDT in their truck is going to buy a gas-hog FJ80.

 

[brownbear]

Sorry I have to pick this apart, cause It does not hold truth for me. See my red comments in the box below.

This is exactly what I got from a recent conversation with a BC inspector; insofar as the "safety' issue is concerned.

These people really believe that RHD is less safe than LHD. I asked if there was any evidence to support that. He was not aware of any.

I pointed out that:

1. Cyclists coming up on the right is a major concern when making right turns in urban areas. In a LHD vehicle the only safe way to check for this is to look back over your right shoulder, thus loosing sight of what is happening in front. This method is actually specified in the commercial driver training manual. In a RHD you just drop your eyes to the right hand mirror for an instant and you can see everything to your right rear without losing sight of what is happening in front of your vehicle. You can also have blind spot mirrors to see whats happening with cyclists. No matter what side of the vehicle your on blind spots exist.

2. When turning left (particulary) in a LHD vehicle the left side windshield pillar is much closer to your eyes and therefore blocks more of your field of view. In a RHD the pillar is farther away and therefore blocks much less of the FOV. That windshield pillar can easily obscure a pedestrian when turning left through an intersection for example. Come on! your sitting further away on the right, if you are facing a car in the opposite side who is alos turning you cannot see the oncoming lane with out nudging into it. Also what about you doing right turns, piller is there causing a blind spot on that turn.

3. At night it is much easier to see and follow the white line on the right side of the road than trying to see the yellow line in the center against the headlights of oncoming traffic. By avoiding looking directly at the oncoming headlights one's night vision is better preserved and one is more likely to see pedestrians, cyclists or other hazards on the curb side which are frequently not seen by drivers in LHD vehicles. your not supposed to stare at the ground directly infront of you for line reference. Instead you look further ahead. I cannot see how the minor little degrees of angle can be an asset.

4. In a head-on collision the impact is most likely to occur on the left front side; being seated on the right one is less likely to be injured. no evidence of that. so much for the passenger eh?

5. When parallel parking visibility is much better. until you try to pull out and cannot see oncoming traffic or behind traffic cause your blocked in, so you have to nudge out blind.

6. The driver gets out of the vehicle on the curb side rather than the road side. Obviously much safer for the driver as wel as cyclists and other drivers. again what about the passengers?

For most people, driving a RHD in NA is very easy and quickly becomes 'second nature'. In fact you begin to wonder why we drive on the left at all, given the advantages to RHD...a historical ‘accident’ no doubt. I do not doubt you can learn to be comfortable. and with precaustions safe. but there are limitations you have to accomadate for.

I got the impression that these points made sense to the person I spoke to. No doubt he was not aware of them - I certainly wasn’t until I started driving RHD.

I’d suggest inviting your local inspector out for a drive....

I also mentioned that Japan has proportionately many times more LHD vehicles being driven on the left with no apparent safety issues on roads that are much more difficult to drive on than most of ours. I'll be investigating Japanese accident statistics shortly.

I am also not trying to hassle you, just seeing it differently. I too think driving a RHD can be easy and safe. But there holes in the theory you said above. For me anyhow.

 

[crushers]

It is impossible to bring a JDM unit into compliance with all CMVSS. It doesn't have the correct VIN (CMVSS 115) so it ends right there. ?

say what?
hummm, in the freedon state of Alberta we use the original vin from Japan and it is completely legal and acceptable...
you must be talking the republic of Kolumbia here...

 

[M John Galt]

I respectfully disagree; those are not 'holes in the theory' but rather other factors to consider. Both RHD and LHD have advangages and disadvantages in a right lane world. Not everyone is adaptable to new ways of doing things if they've been driving LHD vehicles all their life. RHD isn't for everyone, but then neither is flying a small aircraft, riding a motorcycle, conning a sailboat, and a host of other things the general public never masters. "Specialization is for Insects" - Lazarus Long

The point is that RHD vehicles are not inherently unsafe in a right lane world.

 

[canadam]

Why does the Province of British Columbia offer B.C. Assigned VIN's for imported vehicles then ?

It is impossible to bring a JDM unit into compliance with all CMVSS. It doesn't have the correct VIN (CMVSS 115) so it ends right there.

 

[crushers]

the insurance company demands it...