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

[mjohn7]

Apart from my own opinion that RHD are not as safe as LHD from a visibilty standpoint and the way our highways are comnstructed I'm not sure what part you feel is "interpretive and self serving". If you could be more specific I'll try and respond.

Once again, there is no conflict or difference of opinion between Officers and the inspection facilities. The inspection facilities are not following the manual which clearly states all areas of compliance. The lens and widow marking sections couldn't be written any clearer.

I would say that if an inpsection facilty is passing a vehicle that an inspection Officer would deem not fit for the road that wolud be a conflict. As the vehilce owner has put his faith on the government approved Inspection to insure the vehicle is fit., he has meet his or her requierment by law.

When an officer interputs a section of the regs such as "OEM or Equivalent" at a roadside check he or she is now relying on thier judment or opinon based on passed experiance. This in itself can be self serving if the officer has a pre-concived bais for that vehile of it's owner.

As far a visabilty, Canada Post has RHD trucks, as well as Grabage Trucks. and try seeing out the back window of am itailan sports car.

 

[nickw]

Once again Mermaid,

Thanks for taking the tine to offer your advise to everyone on the board.
Its much appreciated.

Cheers,
Nick

 

[Psilosin]

Once again, there is no conflict or difference of opinion between Officers and the inspection facilities. The inspection facilities are not following the manual which clearly states all areas of compliance. The lens and widow marking sections couldn't be written any clearer.

Obviously it is not clear. If it was clear there woudn't be all the confusion. For example "equivalent to OEM" is hugely vague. As you saw I interpreted that very different from you. If the regulations were clear it would say something like tail light clusters must have a red lens minimum dimension of 5cm x 10cm with a candle power of X and an integrated reflector of size blah blah blah etc. Then someone could say OK here is what I have and here is what I have to change and come up with a plan of attack.

You were not able to even give a clear answer if adding items to the existing tail light cluster (an extra reflector to one missing it) would then satisfy safety regulations. You just said Tricky eh...how is that an example of clear regulations?

An inspector/enforement officer should have the ability to judge whether a lens meets requirements regardless of it having a SAE/DOT stamp or not. And he/she should be able to say exactly what needs to be added/changed/modified and how to do it.

Do you not think there has to be room for common sense and fair solutions? If not, why have specialized people do the inspection/enforcement if it takes no brains. Just have the ICBC insurance salesman check off a few safety boxes each year before you are allowed to be insured. Then at least everyone would be treated the same, all vehicles would be inspected yearly, and the province could save some money.

Again this isn't meant in a derogatory way toward you Mermaid.5, I appreciate your involvement here. And just because I don't agree with the interpretation of the rules and their enforcement in this situation doesn't mean I don't appreciate the importance of your job in trying to keep the roads as safe as possible.

 

[cruiser_guy]

They also however MUST bear the correct markings listed in the inspection manual, in this case SAE or DOT or both.

This item is also a concern of us folks with older Toyota Canada imports (ie: vehicles purchased new here such as my '82 BJ60 purchased new in Naniamo, B.C.). My question is specifically with the fact that as vehicles get older ICBC is loathe to authorize purchase of OEM parts in the event of an accident. Should we be INSISTING on OEM replacement of any part carrying some kind of approval stamp or marking? I assume that an aftermarket offshore light lens likely doesn't have the markings that you would be looking for thus making my vehicle also subject to a blue card (that would then have been caused by ICBC not approving replacement with approved correct parts that meet regulations). Is this an issue that comes up or do you not concern yourselves with it on "official" imports? We both know that OEM light lenses can cost upwards of $100 or more quite easily.

btw My truck is all OEM so it doesn't affect me at this time.

 

[Mermaid.5]

Obviously it is not clear. If it was clear there woudn't be all the confusion. For example "equivalent to OEM" is hugely vague. As you saw I interpreted that very different from you. If the regulations were clear it would say something like tail light clusters must have a red lens minimum dimension of 5cm x 10cm with a candle power of X and an integrated reflector of size blah blah blah etc. Then someone could say OK here is what I have and here is what I have to change and come up with a plan of attack.

You were not able to even give a clear answer if adding items to the existing tail light cluster (an extra reflector to one missing it) would then satisfy safety regulations. You just said Tricky eh...how is that an example of clear regulations?

An inspector/enforement officer should have the ability to judge whether a lens meets requirements regardless of it having a SAE/DOT stamp or not. And he/she should be able to say exactly what needs to be added/changed/modified and how to do it.

Do you not think there has to be room for common sense and fair solutions? If not, why have specialized people do the inspection/enforcement if it takes no brains. Just have the ICBC insurance salesman check off a few safety boxes each year before you are allowed to be insured. Then at least everyone would be treated the same, all vehicles would be inspected yearly, and the province could save some money.

Again this isn't meant in a derogatory way toward you Mermaid.5, I appreciate your involvement here. And just because I don't agree with the interpretation of the rules and their enforcement in this situation doesn't mean I don't appreciate the importance of your job in trying to keep the roads as safe as possible.

First off I am impressed so far as how civil everyone is being considering the anonymity of a board such as this.

I think equivalent to OEM is pretty straightforward. A round peg and a square peg are not equivalent. The lens has to be the same as the original and at the same time bear the correct markings. Like I said, vehicles which don't have a North American counter part are going to be in trouble.

As for the regs being clear on what size the lamp should be ( 5cms x 10cms) it goes farther than that. Equivalent to OEM. So measure up all the dimensions of the stock lamp and there you go.

As for an inspector being able to make a call as to what lens should work and what shouldn't without having any markings is crazy. If you want to make your brains hurt and your eyes bleed, check out Transport Canada's site, specifically TSD 108 and see what some of the tests look like for lights and what they have to go through to get approval. It's mind boggling. To expect us to know that for every vehicle along with everything else is just way too much to ask.

Except for Area and Senior Area vehicle inspectors, there is no requirment for any mechanical background in our jobs. Plus, the more areas you leave for judgement calls the more trouble you have with consistency. My biggest pet peeve.

In this case, there needs to be proper markings on the lenses and windows. Seems pretty straightforward to me. No interpretation required. Marked with SAE/DOT = Good, not marked = bad. If the Facilities would just look at the manuals that they are required to have , we wouldn't have all the "confusion".

 

[Mermaid.5]

i have been open about my location and business, may i politely ask your name, location and position. a phone number would be much appreciated as well.
i have a couple questions to ask and i really do suck at typing...
cheers

Definetly give me a call. More than happy to try and help.

I'm the guy who Nick gave you the number for.

 

[Mermaid.5]

This item is also a concern of us folks with older Toyota Canada imports (ie: vehicles purchased new here such as my '82 BJ60 purchased new in Naniamo, B.C.). My question is specifically with the fact that as vehicles get older ICBC is loathe to authorize purchase of OEM parts in the event of an accident. Should we be INSISTING on OEM replacement of any part carrying some kind of approval stamp or marking? I assume that an aftermarket offshore light lens likely doesn't have the markings that you would be looking for thus making my vehicle also subject to a blue card (that would then have been caused by ICBC not approving replacement with approved correct parts that meet regulations). Is this an issue that comes up or do you not concern yourselves with it on "official" imports? We both know that OEM light lenses can cost upwards of $100 or more quite easily.

btw My truck is all OEM so it doesn't affect me at this time.

Good answer!

I hear you on how much OEM stuff costs. If we all knew what the OEM companies paid to get their stuff aproved we'd know part of the reason why.

If I understand you correctly you are talking about lamp assemblies which have been produced by the aftermarket. All of the ones I have seen have the correct markings on them, unless they have been ordered from another continent?? The same rules apply to any vehicle operated on a public highway. Of course it may be hard to identify as you are going down the road which I guess relates to the other post about RHD's being easily identified.

 

[Greg_B]

What is your take on e-coded lights then...

Much stricter standards to pass over there, then here...

gb

 

[cruiser_guy]

Good answer!

I hear you on how much OEM stuff costs. If we all knew what the OEM companies paid to get their stuff aproved we'd know part of the reason why.

If I understand you correctly you are talking about lamp assemblies which have been produced by the aftermarket. All of the ones I have seen have the correct markings on them, unless they have been ordered from another continent?? The same rules apply to any vehicle operated on a public highway. Of course it may be hard to identify as you are going down the road which I guess relates to the other post about RHD's being easily identified.

That's what I was asking! I have never gone looking for aftermarket stuff for my '82 BJ60 'cause nothing has ever gone missing or been broken yet that I know of.

Any ideas where one could get information on what the '67 FJ45LV needs to have to be compliant? It was originally imported to Central America and obviously meets the 15 or even 25 year rule. When it's finished it will be coming north, I'd like to be sure I have no issues. My primary concern is items like glass that will need to be cut simply because it is no longer available (I have most but not all the glass).

 

[crushers]

Definetly give me a call. More than happy to try and help.

I'm the guy who Nick gave you the number for.

message left
thanks

 

[Psilosin]

Another question for you Mermaid.5...

As you are surely aware, as an example, Penticton Toyota is selling a variety of imports. Say I purchase one of these vehicles and say its a type of landcruiser for which I cannot get DOT/SAE lenses for...where does the onus of responsibility sit in the event you get ganked off the road by the CVSE?...with the consumer or the vendor? And if it is the Vendor, what kind of statute of limitations are there on their responsibility?

 

[Stone]

Another question for you Mermaid.5...

As you are surely aware, as an example, Penticton Toyota is selling a variety of imports. Say I purchase one of these vehicles and say its a type of landcruiser for which I cannot get DOT/SAE lenses for...where does the onus of responsibility sit in the event you get ganked off the road by the CVSE?...with the consumer or the vendor? And if it is the Vendor, what kind of statute of limitations are there on their responsibility?

Sounds more like a lawyer-type question than enforcement to me...

 

[Mermaid.5]

Another question for you Mermaid.5...

As you are surely aware, as an example, Penticton Toyota is selling a variety of imports. Say I purchase one of these vehicles and say its a type of landcruiser for which I cannot get DOT/SAE lenses for...where does the onus of responsibility sit in the event you get ganked off the road by the CVSE?...with the consumer or the vendor? And if it is the Vendor, what kind of statute of limitations are there on their responsibility?

The vehicle owner is always held responsible for the vehicle they are operating, period.

The facility who inspected it and " Improperly Approved" it would also be in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act Regs. Specifically Division 25.

As Stone suggests a lawyer may answer better as I don't who would be held "responsible" if a person went looking for compensation after the fact.

Nice avatar Stone!!

 

[light_duty]

how bout this

Mermaid.5,

I am one of those people with a Land Cruiser that was never sold in Canada, so there's no way I can get ahold of DOT/SAE lenses for my vehicle.

How about something like this? Can I put a set of these puppies on the back of my truck and be okay?

Assuming they're DOT approved, of course. These are the lights put on flat deck trucks, etc.

Could I add a set of these and be legal? Please advise.

 

[crushers]

First off I am impressed so far as how civil everyone is being considering the anonymity of a board such as this.

I think equivalent to OEM is pretty straightforward. A round peg and a square peg are not equivalent. The lens has to be the same as the original and at the same time bear the correct markings. Like I said, vehicles which don't have a North American counter part are going to be in trouble.

As for the regs being clear on what size the lamp should be ( 5cms x 10cms) it goes farther than that. Equivalent to OEM. So measure up all the dimensions of the stock lamp and there you go.

As for an inspector being able to make a call as to what lens should work and what shouldn't without having any markings is crazy. If you want to make your brains hurt and your eyes bleed, check out Transport Canada's site, specifically TSD 108 and see what some of the tests look like for lights and what they have to go through to get approval. It's mind boggling. To expect us to know that for every vehicle along with everything else is just way too much to ask.

Except for Area and Senior Area vehicle inspectors, there is no requirment for any mechanical background in our jobs. Plus, the more areas you leave for judgement calls the more trouble you have with consistency. My biggest pet peeve.

In this case, there needs to be proper markings on the lenses and windows. Seems pretty straightforward to me. No interpretation required. Marked with SAE/DOT = Good, not marked = bad. If the Facilities would just look at the manuals that they are required to have , we wouldn't have all the "confusion".

okay, i have a serious problem with what you just wrote.
i feel that if you are going to condemn a unit from being able to be imported because of lights not having the DOT/SAE insignia then you best be doing your homework and make SURE they do not meet the specifications of the TC site. it is your job to verify there is NOTHING that can be done to make them conform. it is not my job or any other importers, owners job to do this as, up to now, you are circumventing the code with your statements. it says "Equivalent to OEM", not MUST be OME, not MUST be DOT/SAE but "equivalent to", this is most important to units that were never imported to NA soil. it is your job to condemn on the basis of your findings after checking with the TC site.
it is not straight forward as you are leading us to beleive, you are taking the easy way out.
as a high end importer i am trying to make my units acceptable in all the provinces including the Republic of Kolumbia, i am not trying to circumvent the regulations but i want the regulations to be clear, if the regulations say "equivalent to" then i want the minimum clearly stated. i have units that have never been imported here and i want them to be allowed into BC, the Goverment of Canada has cleared these units at the dock for importation and you are stepping up and saying they are not allowed. i am saying then it is up to you to make sure they do NOT meet the minimum requirements...
you are saying we have no recourse once your findings are determined, this might be the case but i want your findings to be accurate.

as for RHD being unsafe, you still have not shown me/us how you have come to this conclusion. this is your "opinion" and i am sorry but with out evidence then that holds no water to me.
it is my opinion that a goverment official should be doing his job to the best of his ability... but then that is my opinion as well.
cheers

 

[Mermaid.5]

okay, i have a serious problem with what you just wrote.
i feel that if you are going to condemn a unit from being able to be imported because of lights not having the DOT/SAE insignia then you best be doing your homework and make SURE they do not meet the specifications of the TC site. it is your job to verify there is NOTHING that can be done to make them conform. it is not my job or any other importers, owners job to do this as, up to now, you are circumventing the code with your statements. it says "Equivalent to OEM", not MUST be OME, not MUST be DOT/SAE but "equivalent to", this is most important to units that were never imported to NA soil. it is your job to condemn on the basis of your findings after checking with the TC site.
it is not straight forward as you are leading us to beleive, you are taking the easy way out.
as a high end importer i am trying to make my units acceptable in all the provinces including the Republic of Kolumbia, i am not trying to circumvent the regulations but i want the regulations to be clear, if the regulations say "equivalent to" then i want the minimum clearly stated. i have units that have never been imported here and i want them to be allowed into BC, the Goverment of Canada has cleared these units at the dock for importation and you are stepping up and saying they are not allowed. i am saying then it is up to you to make sure they do NOT meet the minimum requirements...
you are saying we have no recourse once your findings are determined, this might be the case but i want your findings to be accurate.

as for RHD being unsafe, you still have not shown me/us how you have come to this conclusion. this is your "opinion" and i am sorry but with out evidence then that holds no water to me.
it is my opinion that a goverment official should be doing his job to the best of his ability... but then that is my opinion as well.
cheers

First of all I never "Condemned " anything, not on this site anyways. Secondly, you referred to the "TC" site a bunch of times. If the vehicle is older than 15 years the the federal Transport Canada importation rules do not apply.

What does apply is the BC Motor Vehicle Act Regulations and the Standards of Safety and Repair (the Inspection Manual). In these it does without a doubt say "must be equivalent to oem" or obviously OEM. It also, witout a doubt says "must be marked DOT or SAE".

It certainly is not my job to verify if something can be legally imported or not. Call me crazy but I'd think that would be the responsibilty of the person who imported the vehicle. Unfortunatley the Facilities have not done their job so the importers or whoever has dealt with the shops get a false sense of well being. It's fine that you want to be able to import lots of vehicles. Not all are going to comply.

I'm not sure what you mean by taking the easy way out.

Quote: "...if the regulations say "equivalent to" then I want the minimum cleary stated"

The minimum is cleary stated. It's "Equivalent". Equivalent means "the same", how could you possibly have different degress of the same????

For example, when clear lensed rear tailights first came out I stopped lots that diodn't bear SAE or DOT. They were "equivalent" in every other way but no markings, no go. I also stopped some that did have the correct markings. Equivalent in size and shape to oem plus the correct marking and they were good to go.

It is also nothing but my opinion on the safety of operating a rhd vehicle on roads designed for LHD.

 

[lshobie]

Equivalent means more than just the "same", it also means "similar" - not "obviously OEM" . That is where people make mistakes - through interpretation - you are making a mistake that can easily be cleared up by looking in the dictionary.

"must be equivalent to oem", means must be OEM or similar with the same characteristics - but not necessarily OEM.

This is a classic example of where his word beats ours on the road - but the ombudsman or judge, or spec investigations unit word beats his words. Unfortunatly we would have to take an officer to task in order to challenge him. That is why I posted all the contact numbers in an earlier post. The road inspector guys are definatly not the people who make the last call, they can just make life miserable. My advice when dealing with people of authority whether real authority or not is to act calm and not fail the attitudde test.

See the def or equivalent below.



e·quiv·a·lent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-kwv-lnt)
adj.

Equal, as in value, force, or meaning.
Having similar or identical effects.
Being essentially equal, all things considered: a wish that was equivalent to a command.
Mathematics.
Capable of being put into a one-to-one relationship. Used of two sets.
Having virtually identical or corresponding parts.
Of or relating to corresponding elements under an equivalence relation.
Chemistry. Having the same ability to combine.
Logic. Having equivalence: equivalent propositions

 

[crushers]

equivalent is not identical to, you are saying they have to be identical to but that is not what the regulations are saying. the regulations are saying "equivalent" which the definition is:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=equivalent
3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in EFFECT and FUNCTION

this is your error. if the function of the tail lights is identical to the NA counterpart or if there is no counterpart in NA then it must meet the guidelines set out in the regulations which it seems you do not wish to explore since "it is too much to ask" and is "mind boggling". i am sorry to say but this is your job, you job is to enforce the regulations, not as you see fit but as the regulations are being detailed for you in the manual.

the clear lensed units that you rejected where ,by this definition, acceptable

it is not the importer that must make sure the units pass the importation laws since according to Canadian importation laws and rulings ANYTHING over 15 years old are exempt from the rulings you are trying to enforce. That is the rulings here. what i am attempting to do is make my units acceptable to BC rulings and even though there is provision for this in the code book you have no intention of reviewing the codes.

in my mind, and correct me if i am wrong, you have an adversion to RHD units and you (and a couple of your buddies) are trying to curtail the importaion of these units into BC by trying to over ride the codes in the "BC Motor Vehicle Act Regulations and the Standards of Safety and Repair (the Inspection Manual)".

from everything i have read from your statements on this thread, even if it was proven to you that your views are incorrect you have no intention to change them. correct?

 

[Mermaid.5]

Equivalent means more than just the "same", it also means "similar" - not "obviously OEM" . That is where people make mistakes - through interpretation - you are making a mistake that can easily be cleared up by looking in the dictionary.

"must be equivalent to oem", means must be OEM or similar with the same characteristics - but not necessarily OEM.

When I stated "obviously OEM" I meant it in a way that, obviously OEM is accepted as well as stuff your statement about similar with same chracteristics. Otherwise the clear lensed ones wouldn't be allowed.

Gawd! (in my best Napoloeon Dynamite voice) ;p

 

[Mermaid.5]

equivalent is not identical to, you are saying they have to be identical to but that is not what the regulations are saying. the regulations are saying "equivalent" which the definition is:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=equivalent
3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in EFFECT and FUNCTION

this is your error. if the function of the tail lights is identical to the NA counterpart or if there is no counterpart in NA then it must meet the guidelines set out in the regulations which it seems you do not wish to explore since "it is too much to ask" and is "mind boggling". i am sorry to say but this is your job, you job is to enforce the regulations, not as you see fit but as the regulations are being detailed for you in the manual.

the clear lensed units that you rejected where ,by this definition, acceptable

it is not the importer that must make sure the units pass the importation laws since according to Canadian importation laws and rulings ANYTHING over 15 years old are exempt from the rulings you are trying to enforce. That is the rulings here. what i am attempting to do is make my units acceptable to BC rulings and even though there is provision for this in the code book you have no intention of reviewing the codes.

in my mind, and correct me if i am wrong, you have an adversion to RHD units and you (and a couple of your buddies) are trying to curtail the importaion of these units into BC by trying to over ride the codes in the "BC Motor Vehicle Act Regulations and the Standards of Safety and Repair (the Inspection Manual)".

from everything i have read from your statements on this thread, even if it was proven to you that your views are incorrect you have no intention to change them. correct?

Wow.

Okay, first read my last post then re-read the rest of my posts. The lamp/lenses MUST bear SAE or DOT. No, the clear lensed ones without SAE or DOT on them would not be okay, okay?

Yes, if they are functionally equivalent AND bear SAE or DOT they are acceptable. Think about what that lens would look like.

Once again, and hopefully for the last time, I am not enforcing federal importation rules which do not apply to vehicles over 15 years of age. Again re read my previous posts.

I also don't know of such "code book" you are referring to. I am enforcing the BC MOTOR VEHICLE ACT REGULATIONS.

I do not have an "adversion for RHD's" as I'm sure Nick will tell ya if he chimes in.

As a side story I had a look at my 66 Chev tonight and all the lamps and lenses have the correct markings as do the windows.

This is not new.

Anyhow, I told myself I'd try and help out with the subject on this site unless it got hostile or uneducated accusitions started flying. I'm also on my own dime while on here trying to help out.