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

[lshobie]

JDM dealers should form an association. We are going to get stepped all over in the next few short years I am sure and as long as we are divided we won't have a chance.

The main problem with that is most of the importers are not registered as dealers in thier home province - so kind of hard to form an association and be legitimate when it is made up of registered dealers and curbsiders.

If there were a solid association then we could combat idiotic attempts from local govt's to create problems for legitimate dealers.

This person responsible for giving all the JDM's in BC needs his hands slapped and should be told to sit in the corner. I understand legitimate concerns like safety/laminate glass, non blinding headlights etc., but DOT stamps on signals lens is getting a little out to lunch. Maybe they should go after all the 1940's vehicles in Canada to get them to conform as well.

We should unite!

 

[lshobie]

I posted this on another thread - with respect to that hateful inspection officer in BC:

This inspector should be reported for hs activities. I have heard that he has gone after tons of imports - and in a not so nice way.

There are ways to complain and everyone who has a problem should report this individual. Here are a couple of ways to do it.

http://www.ombudsman.bc.ca/

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/index.htm

Direct contact for the Office of the Superintendant of trnasportation - to find out complaint process against one of the inspectors.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/information/contact.htm

Al Peatt FPB Investigations Victoria Complaint Analyst 250 493-1194



Christine Morris OMBD Victoria Office VICTORIA Complaints Analyst 250 356-5723

Colleen M Meade FIN Contact Center Surrey Complaint & Inquiry Officer 604 953-5203

Diane Johnston OMBD Vancouver Office Vancouver Complaints Analyst 604 538-3735

Dirk Ryneveld Q.C. OPCC Victoria Office Victoria Police Complaint Commissioner 604 660-2385

General Enquiries OPCC Victoria Office Victoria Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner 604 660-2385

General Enquiries OPCC Vancouver Office Vancouver Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner 604 660-2385

Glen Pilling FPB Investigations Victoria Complaint Analyst 250 836-3895

Janet Hacker OMBD Victoria Office VICTORIA Complaints Analyst 250 356-5712

Kim Low FIN Credit Unions & Trusts Department Surrey Complaint & Information Officer 604 953-5340


Marilyn Alamanos FIN Contact Center Surrey Complaint & Inquiry Officer 604 953-5204

Patricia Cormie MCF Director CF and Community Services - KSA Victoria Complaints Resolution Consultant 250 952-4770

Peter Nagati FPB Investigations Victoria Complaint Analyst 250 356-1657
Quality Improvement MCF Quality Improvement - EAH Cranbrook Interior Regional Quality Improvement/ Complaints 250 417-4176

Rick Post FPB Investigations Victoria Complaint Analyst 250 542-6479

Rob Thomson FPB Investigations Victoria Complaint Analyst 604 504-4406

Tom Purgas SG Lower Mainland Headquarters & Regional Office Burnaby Complaint Coordinator Headquarters 604 660-5010


If one of those people can't help you - I am sure someone can.

Regards

 

[Mermaid.5]

Nick:

I think that the nuisance here is not necessarily the regulations, but the ignorance of some people who enforce those regulations.

Stone

I am one of the "ignorant" guys who looked at Nick's truck. I guess the ignorance lies elswhere in this case eh??

Lots of misinformation here.

Yes Nick's truck is older than the 15 year limitation on federal inspections. That's a good thing because it would not be allowed at all because the unit would have to meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards UNMODIFIED. What Nick is required to do has nothing to do with the Fedreral standards per se. What he does have to meet is Provincial standards which is determined with a BC Safety Inspection. That is where the requirements for daytime running lamps, properly marked lenses and glass, side markers etc. come into play.

ANY vehicle operated on BC roads at any time must be able to pass an inspection reagrdless of its home jurisdiction. If it won't it can be ordered in for an inspection immediately (box one, phone a tow truck, remove fgrom highway until such time as it passes an inspection) or a box 2 can be issued which requires that the vehicle owner to fix defects promptly and pass an inspection within 30 days. It's up to the officer to decide the correct course of action. Both of these orders are not violation tickets and are not disputeable in a court of law.

There is a discrepancy for the requirement of a high mounted stop lamp between federal and provincial regs. Federally it says CARS after Sept. 1985 and everything else under 10000kgs after Sept 1993. Provincially it wants them on everything after 1987. Obviously we are not going to require something that wasn't required for the legal sale of the vehicle in Canada to begin with. The Inspection manual is very outdated but it is a huge task to re-write and this is just one of a few areas that definetly need to be updated.

There you go. I'll hide back here behind the couch and see what responses this brings.

 

[Mermaid.5]

One last thing I forgot. If a driving lamp or fog lamp has the correct DOT/SAE markings on it, they don't have to be covered unless they are mounted at a height outside of what the regs permit.

 

[Psilosin]

Mermaid.5,

[First off, sarcasm not directed at you PERSONALLY, its directed at you as a representitive of the Evil Galactic CVSE Empire under the power of the robot Sith Lord S4B-1AN]

So what exactly is the deal on turn signal/ tail light lenses. Do they have to have a DOT/SAE stamp on them or not. Its a fact that these cannot be replaced on many imports because there were no Canadian or USA equivalents. Does the European coding system (ie E1, E6) cross-reference to DOT/SAE standards?. What is an acceptable work around considering there is NO WAY to get a replacement lens?? Does sticking a few DOT/SAE stamped reflectors in the right spot overcome the problem?

What are the DOT/SAE standards that these lenses are judged on anyways. Does it have to do with visibility/light pattern or how they break apart in a crash.

Maybe we should just smash all our lenses and use that red or yellow lens repair plastic tape they sell at Canadian Tire to make new ones. That would be safer for everyone I bet. Would I pass regulation then??

Even though I passed inspection already, I actually did add a few red reflectors to the side rear and am in the process of hooking up daytime running lights. Another question here...can I convert my non-DOT/SAE stamped 'city' lights to be my DRL's or should I just get a set of DOT/SAE stamped fog lights and hook them up as my DRL's. I don't want to mess up my factory wiring if its all in vain anyway but neither do I really want to drill into my bumper to install some ugly fog lights.

I just find it very frustrating that my vehicle can possibly be taken off the road by technicality when it is in excellent condition and day in day out I have to drive along side vehicles that are in obvious terrible safety condition that get no action against them. Next time I get nailed by an '81 Monte Carlo missing most its lights and windows, has its hood held down with duct tape and uses its dragging muffler as its only brake I think I'll look into how I can sue the CVSE for not doing its job.

 

[Hawke]

Maybe we should just smash all our lenses and use that red or yellow lens repair plastic tape they sell at Canadian Tire to make new ones. That would be safer for everyone I bet. Would I pass regulation then??

About 15 years ago a friend of mine (owns a motorcycle shop) imported some cheap (new) motorcycles from Russia. Canada Customs at the Port of Montreal smashed the headlights, signal and rear lights, and slashed the tires. The items didn't have the DOT stamp of approval. He had no notification of the action. The bikes were delivered to his shop in that condition.

 

[lshobie]

Mermaid,

I am curious, what will all the kei class cars have to do to become compliant in BC? the Suzukis I have here came with acceptable windshield, side, and rear glass, but the corner lenses don't have DOT stamps on them - so what what will the dealers in BC have to do to make sure their trucks are ready to go? Do they have to go to cdn tire and wire up some mickey mouse looking rear lights and blinkers?

Looking forward to your response, you can get out from behind the couch now

Regards.

 

[Previa Diesel]

About 15 years ago a friend of mine (owns a motorcycle shop) imported some cheap (new) motorcycles from Russia. Canada Customs at the Port of Montreal smashed the headlights, signal and rear lights, and slashed the tires.

Surely you mean Quebec Customs?

Or was it just a jealous competitor?

 

[Previa Diesel]

Mermaid,

I am curious, what will all the kei class cars have to do to become compliant in BC? the Suzukis I have here came with acceptable windshield, side, and rear glass, but the corner lenses don't have DOT stamps on them - so what what will the dealers in BC have to do to make sure their trucks are ready to go? Do they have to go to cdn tire and wire up some mickey mouse looking rear lights and blinkers?

Looking forward to your response, you can get out from behind the couch now

Regards.

Then there's the school buses in BC that just get the appropriate markings scratched into their windshields - approved by ICBC I'm told as the glass is laminated!

Nice to hear from someone on the enforcement side though - please don't take any of this personally - your comments will always be welcome as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Hawke]

Surely you mean Quebec Customs?

Or was it just a jealous competitor?

Pretty efficient way to deal with the matter, if you think about it. No paper work, inspections or follow-up. Non-compliance fixed within about 5 minutes. The bikes were crappy and cheap. Maybe the inspectors didn't want to get too deeply involved in the mess.

 

[crushers]

I am one of the "ignorant" guys who looked at Nick's truck. I guess the ignorance lies elswhere in this case eh??

Lots of misinformation here.

Yes Nick's truck is older than the 15 year limitation on federal inspections. That's a good thing because it would not be allowed at all because the unit would have to meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards UNMODIFIED. What Nick is required to do has nothing to do with the Fedreral standards per se. What he does have to meet is Provincial standards which is determined with a BC Safety Inspection. That is where the requirements for daytime running lamps, properly marked lenses and glass, side markers etc. come into play.

ANY vehicle operated on BC roads at any time must be able to pass an inspection reagrdless of its home jurisdiction. If it won't it can be ordered in for an inspection immediately (box one, phone a tow truck, remove fgrom highway until such time as it passes an inspection) or a box 2 can be issued which requires that the vehicle owner to fix defects promptly and pass an inspection within 30 days. It's up to the officer to decide the correct course of action. Both of these orders are not violation tickets and are not disputeable in a court of law.

There is a discrepancy for the requirement of a high mounted stop lamp between federal and provincial regs. Federally it says CARS after Sept. 1985 and everything else under 10000kgs after Sept 1993. Provincially it wants them on everything after 1987. Obviously we are not going to require something that wasn't required for the legal sale of the vehicle in Canada to begin with. The Inspection manual is very outdated but it is a huge task to re-write and this is just one of a few areas that definetly need to be updated.

There you go. I'll hide back here behind the couch and see what responses this brings.

so you say this is not a violation, if it is not a violation what authority do you have to pull a vehicle over? if i decide not to stop for your flashing lights then what can you do?
cheers

 

[crushers]

BTW, don't duck behind the couch, we won't hurt yah. it is good that someone has the guts to come here so we can discuss and try and understand where the BC goverment stands.

 

[Stone]

I am one of the "ignorant" guys who looked at Nick's truck. I guess the ignorance lies elswhere in this case eh??

Lots of misinformation here.

Yes Nick's truck is older than the 15 year limitation on federal inspections. That's a good thing because it would not be allowed at all because the unit would have to meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards UNMODIFIED. What Nick is required to do has nothing to do with the Fedreral standards per se. What he does have to meet is Provincial standards which is determined with a BC Safety Inspection. That is where the requirements for daytime running lamps, properly marked lenses and glass, side markers etc. come into play.

ANY vehicle operated on BC roads at any time must be able to pass an inspection reagrdless of its home jurisdiction. If it won't it can be ordered in for an inspection immediately (box one, phone a tow truck, remove fgrom highway until such time as it passes an inspection) or a box 2 can be issued which requires that the vehicle owner to fix defects promptly and pass an inspection within 30 days. It's up to the officer to decide the correct course of action. Both of these orders are not violation tickets and are not disputeable in a court of law.

There is a discrepancy for the requirement of a high mounted stop lamp between federal and provincial regs. Federally it says CARS after Sept. 1985 and everything else under 10000kgs after Sept 1993. Provincially it wants them on everything after 1987. Obviously we are not going to require something that wasn't required for the legal sale of the vehicle in Canada to begin with. The Inspection manual is very outdated but it is a huge task to re-write and this is just one of a few areas that definetly need to be updated.

There you go. I'll hide back here behind the couch and see what responses this brings.

So...there's nothing that you've divulged here that isn't already common knowledge. If you are going to take my remark about being one of the enforcement officers who are "ignorant" (I used the term "some", not "all")...then that is your business. I don't know you from a hole in the wall so I can't make a judgment on your abilities. What I will say is that no matter what occupation or profession it is, there are those who are good at it and there are those that suck at it. It's up to you to decide which category you fit into.

I'll hold my comments to that much, and see how the rest of this plays out. FWIW, I, like many Cruiser enthusiasts in this board, have gone out of our way to try to follow the Canadian standards as best as we can...even though there is some confusion about the different federal and provincial interprtations sometimes. I'm confident that my BJ74 meets all of these expectations, and in fact exceeds a lot of the domestic POS that are on the road out there in BC today.

 

[Stone]

...and as a short addendum: I think that if you are open to discussing the enforcement side of this whole issue, you will find that 99% of the people here will value your input.

And I notice that no one's given you the proper MUD salute yet:

 

[Mermaid.5]

...and as a short addendum: I think that if you are open to discussing the enforcement side of this whole issue, you will find that 99% of the people here will value your input.

And I notice that no one's given you the proper MUD salute yet:

A welcome like that makes me feel right at home!


First off, since every rhd vehicle I have stopped so far has gone through a BC inspection, I am not out to get the drivers of these vehicles like some sort of plague. Something I hear in court all the time is due dilligence. It certainly applies here. Since all of these vehicles have "passed" an inspection, the owners feel they are doing nothing wrong. The trouble is the Inspection facilities are doing their inspections without looking at their manuals. All the current problems should have been addresed (failed) at the time of inspection. All of the items listed in the CVSE bulletin are listed directly in the inspection manual and always have been. For vehicles without North American counterparts, compliance could be a impossible situation. I'd honestly hate to have to be the guy to tell someone on the roadside the use of their vehicle in BC is done, period. One thing to keep in mind is just because you have a unexpired "passed" inspection in hand it never exempts a person from operating a vehicle that isn't in compliance with the Regs, no matter who has missed something.

One part of the problem is having to comply withe the BC Motor vehicle Act and Regulations. Division 4 of the Regs says only lamps autorized by this division may be used and lamps and lenses must be "Equivalent to OEM". That's okay for round or square sealed beam headlights but for tailights it definetly could be a real issue. Same with the glass if it's not AS-1 or AS-2.

Luckily for most on the board it seems Landcruisers have very few issues gaining compliance.

 

[Mermaid.5]

so you say this is not a violation, if it is not a violation what authority do you have to pull a vehicle over? if i decide not to stop for your flashing lights then what can you do?
cheers

A Notice and Order # 1 or 2 issued under the Motor Vehicle Act is a direction given by a Peace Officer. It in itself is not a violation ticket. It does not mean that the issue being dealt with is not a violation. The issue of having a vehicle on the road that is not in compliance with the regs is a violation and a violation ticket COULD be issued.

Also, a Peace Officer (which we are) can stop ANY vehicle being operated at any time on the road to check for compliance with the Act and Regs. This can include mechanical checks, and licencing/insurance issues even if there are no apparent defects visible.

That'll get a reaction I'm sure.

If you fail to stop for my emergency vehicle you can/would get charged with failing to do so. Failing to stop on direction of a Peace Officer is serious business. It usually ends up with the Police being called as well. It can get real fun.

 

[Greg_B]

Both of these orders are not violation tickets and are not disputeable in a court of law.

What is the dispute mechanism if the courts of law in this free land are not an option?

Thanks

gb

 

[Psilosin]

One part of the problem is having to comply withe the BC Motor vehicle Act and Regulations. Division 4 of the Regs says only lamps autorized by this division may be used and lamps and lenses must be "Equivalent to OEM".

Hmmm...well wouldn't that mean then that as long as you have the original equipment that came on your vehicle from the factory you should be OK? IE: Toyota was the Original Equipment Manufacturer...the lights and lenses say TOYOTA on them...therefore the lights and lenses are not just "equivalent to OEM" they are OEM.

I would interpret that clause that you can't just design your own lights and lenses in your workshop and slap them on your vehicle and say yeeeeeehaw let there be light....

 

[Hawke]

Hmmm...well wouldn't that mean then that as long as you have the original equipment that came on your vehicle from the factory you should be OK? IE: Toyota was the Original Equipment Manufacturer...the lights and lenses say TOYOTA on them...therefore the lights and lenses are not just "equivalent to OEM" they are OEM.

I would interpret that clause that you can't just design your own lights and lenses in your workshop and slap them on your vehicle and say yeeeeeehaw let there be light....

Sounds good to me.

 

[Psilosin]

Is there a copy of the Inspection Manual guidlines avaiable on the internet? If not, where can one find a hardcopy to puruse at home.