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

[Mermaid.5]

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT REGULATIONS — Continued
B.C. Reg. 26/58

General lighting requirements

4.02 (1) A vehicle on a highway must only be equipped with and use lamps, reflectors or other illuminating devices authorized by this Division or authorized in writing by the director.
(2) A vehicle on a highway must be equipped with lamps equivalent to those provided by the original manufacturer in accordance with the requirements that applied under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), or a predecessor to that Act, at the time of vehicle manufacture.
(3) All lamps, lamp bulbs and reflectors required or permitted by this Division must comply with
(a) the approved standards established by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and the applicable SAE standards,
(b) the conditions of use described in this Division, and
(c) the requirements of Table 1 of the Schedule to this Division.
(4) The function of 2 or more lamps or reflectors may be combined if each function meets the following requirements:
(a) no turn signal lamp may be combined optically with a stop lamp unless the stop lamp is extinguished when the turn signal is flashing;
(b) a clearance lamp must not be combined optically with a tail-lamp or identification lamp.
(5)The director may exempt vehicles or classes of vehicles from the requirements of this section.
[en. B.C. Reg. 476/98, s. 2; am. B.C. Reg. 135/2003, s. 1.]


Look at (5)...seems that common sense can prevail...the director just has to like you...hmmm anyone know if the director would fancy a nice 2002 LaFrenz Merlot???

That section would cover and allow vehicles such as Graders, rubber tired loaders, bobcats etc. All allowed to be operated on the road if licenced and insured.

 

[light_duty]

interesting

Since I have a vested interest in this issue, I've been doing some checking around, and it looks like Transport Canada is moving to harmonize its recognized standards with European Standards:

Read this if you have the time for background: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20030201/html/regle10-e.html

Here is the some of the text from TSD 108.1, "Alternative Requirements for Headlamps": http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108_1.html

"108.1 (1) As an alternative to the headlamps required by section 108, a passenger car, three-wheeled vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, bus and truck may be equipped with headlamps that

(a) comply with
[...]
(v) ECE Regulation No. 112, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Motor Vehicle Headlamps Emitting an Asymmetrical Passing Beam or a Driving Beam or Both and Equipped with Filament Lamps, as amended from time to time;

(b) despite the requirements of the ECE Regulations referred to in this section, are set to be used on vehicles designed to travel on the right-hand side of the road;
(c) provide two upper beams and two lower beams;
(d) conform to

• (i) paragraphs S5.1.2, S5.5.9, S7.4(g) and (h), S7.8.2, S7.8.2.1(a) and (b), S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, S7.8.4 and S7.8.5.1(c) of TSD 108, and

(ii) subsections 108(29) and, if applicable, (30);
​

(e) comply with sections 5.1.2, 5.1.4 and, if applicable, 5.1.6 of SAE Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly (December 1986);
(f) are fitted with bulbs that conform to

(i) a document referred to in paragraph 108(5)(a) or the information provided pursuant to paragraph 108(5)(b), and
(ii) paragraph S7.7 of TSD 108, except that the "DOT" symbol referred to in paragraphs S7.7(a) and (e)(7) is not required; and
​

(g) when activated in a steady-burning state, do not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens."


The way I read this, you can run your H4s with the "E" marking as long as they were designed for LDH vehicles...


Anyway, it shows that they're moving aware from an insistence on SAE/DOT throw patterns and are moving toward the much better (and SAFER) E patterns.



​

 

[Greg_B]

Once again, you should re-read my previous posts. Would a round reflector be Equivalent to what was supplied originally??

If the surface area was the same...giving the same reflective area...why not?

There is letter of law...and intent of law. Common sense would dictate that intent is the important item, as the intent of legislation is typically to address concerns that have appeared a number of times, and then been dealt with through legislation and law making.

Thanks for showing up and giving your perspective. It is educational.

gb

 

[Mermaid.5]

Here is the section on powers relating to inspections;

Powers of peace officer

25.30 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle is, by reason of mechanical, structural or other defect, unsafe for use on a highway, whether or not the vehicle meets the standards prescribed under the Act, he or she may order the owner or operator of the vehicle, either immediately or within such time as is specified in the order, to do one or both of the following:
(a) remove it from the highway and keep it so removed until either
(i) repairs as may be set out in the order of the peace officer have been implemented, or
(ii) the peace officer revokes the order;
(b) surrender the vehicle licence or number plates, or both, for that vehicle to the corporation or to the peace officer.
(2) If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a motor vehicle is not operating under the provisions of an overload permit issued under the Commercial Transport Act and is unsafe for use on a highway because
(a) the motor vehicle is loaded in such manner that the gross weight carried by any of its axles exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating for that axle specified by the vehicle manufacturer, or
(b) the gross weight of the motor vehicle exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating for that vehicle specified by the vehicle manufacturer,
the peace officer may order the owner or operator of the vehicle to do one or both of the following things immediately, or within the time specified in the order:
(c) remove it from the highway until it meets the specifications of the manufacturer referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) surrender the vehicle licence or number plates, or both, for that vehicle to the corporation or to the peace officer.
(3) Subsection (2) applies only to motor vehicles
(a) manufactured before January 1, 2001, and
(b) having a gross vehicle weight rating of 5 500 kg or less.
(4) An owner or operator must comply with an order made under subsection (1) or (2).
(5) An order under subsection (1) or (2) may require the owner or operator to notify the peace officer before the vehicle is operated on the highway that the repairs under subsection (1) have been carried out or the specifications under subsection (2) (c) have been met.
[en. B.C. Reg. 304/2001.]


Here is the part about having to produce DL at request of Peace Officers
​

Production of licence and liability card, duplicates

33 (1) Every person, except
(a) a person driving or operating a motor vehicle exempted under section 2 (5) or section 8 or 10, or
(b) a person driving or operating a motor vehicle of a fire department of a municipality,
must have his or her driver's licence and driver's certificate and a motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card, issued for the motor vehicle he or she is driving or operating, in his or her possession at all times while driving or operating that motor vehicle on a highway, and must produce the licence, certificate and card for inspection on demand of a peace officer.

Here's the setion that says you must stop;

Failing to stop and state name

73 (1) A peace officer may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a peace officer who is readily identifiable as a peace officer, must immediately come to a safe stop.
(2) When requested by a peace officer, the driver of a motor vehicle or the person in charge of a motor vehicle on a highway must state correctly his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not less than 7 days and not more than 6 months, or to both.

 

[2rivers]

Pull the overheight logging trucks over, the long distance hauler who hasnt slept in 20 hours smoking meth, beaters with fenders about to fall off, but to pull me off for not having DOT/SAE on my TAIL LIGHTS???

BWWAAAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAH

"But that is the way we have always done it Sir!"

insane.

All I gotta say on this thread.
johnny

 

[Mermaid.5]

Since I have a vested interest in this issue, I've been doing some checking around, and it looks like Transport Canada is moving to harmonize its recognized standards with European Standards:

Read this if you have the time for background: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20030201/html/regle10-e.html

Here is the some of the text from TSD 108.1, "Alternative Requirements for Headlamps": http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108_1.html


"108.1 (1) As an alternative to the headlamps required by section 108, a passenger car, three-wheeled vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, bus and truck may be equipped with headlamps that

(a) comply with
[...]
(v) ECE Regulation No. 112, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Motor Vehicle Headlamps Emitting an Asymmetrical Passing Beam or a Driving Beam or Both and Equipped with Filament Lamps, as amended from time to time;

(b) despite the requirements of the ECE Regulations referred to in this section, are set to be used on vehicles designed to travel on the right-hand side of the road;
(c) provide two upper beams and two lower beams;
(d) conform to

• (i) paragraphs S5.1.2, S5.5.9, S7.4(g) and (h), S7.8.2, S7.8.2.1(a) and (b), S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, S7.8.4 and S7.8.5.1(c) of TSD 108, and

(ii) subsections 108(29) and, if applicable, (30);

​

(e) comply with sections 5.1.2, 5.1.4 and, if applicable, 5.1.6 of SAE Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly (December 1986);

(f) are fitted with bulbs that conform to

(i) a document referred to in paragraph 108(5)(a) or the information provided pursuant to paragraph 108(5)(b), and
(ii) paragraph S7.7 of TSD 108, except that the "DOT" symbol referred to in paragraphs S7.7(a) and (e)(7) is not required; and

​

(g) when activated in a steady-burning state, do not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens."


The way I read this, you can run your H4s with the "E" marking as long as they were designed for LDH vehicles...


Anyway, it shows that they're moving aware from an insistence on SAE/DOT throw patterns and are moving toward the much better (and SAFER) E patterns.




​

One last time. Federal Importation rules do not apply to these vehicles. It is the Provincial requirements that require the marking in these cases.

 

[light_duty]

One last time. Federal Importation rules do not apply to these vehicles. It is the Provincial requirements that require the marking in these cases.

This text has nothing to do with importation rules. This is an amendment to Transport Canada's TSD 108 that the Provinicial legislation refers to for standards.

Thanks

 

[crushers]

i have called the "manual" mythological since i have not seen this manual in person and it can not be found on the net to my knowledge.

it is circumventing when a person adds words to a sentence to make other parts redundant.
i have shown you how the SAE standards are acceptable without the DOT SAE markings and you have side stepped this statement with the wording in the "manual" MUST have...

trust me, you are not the only one finding this tiring.

the DOT stamp on a brand new 66 chev is a totally different situation than a unit that is older than the 15 years. there is a ruling IN PLACE which you boys in BC have decided to ignore. if by changing the wording in the manual to make this redundant isn't circumventing, then what is?

you are not hurting the importers in other provinces, you are hurting the JDM owners in your own province, the importers in your own province, the curbers in your own province, the tourist money that will not be coming into BC.

i try and prevent frustration for my customers so i was trying to make my units compatible with the BC laws FOR MY CUSTOMERS peace of mind. if this can not be done then it becomes the responsibility of the customer to make sure the unit will pass the OOP which will be stated and not guaranteed at the outset of any transactions with the BC customers.

don't bother replying to this as i have read ALL your posts which has been quite enlightening

 

[Mermaid.5]

i have called the "manual" mythological since i have not seen this manual in person and it can not be found on the net to my knowledge.

it is circumventing when a person adds words to a sentence to make other parts redundant.
i have shown you how the SAE standards are acceptable without the DOT SAE markings and you have side stepped this statement with the wording in the "manual" MUST have...

trust me, you are not the only one finding this tiring.

the DOT stamp on a brand new 66 chev is a totally different situation than a unit that is older than the 15 years. there is a ruling IN PLACE which you boys in BC have decided to ignore. if by changing the wording in the manual to make this redundant isn't circumventing, then what is?

you are not hurting the importers in other provinces, you are hurting the JDM owners in your own province, the importers in your own province, the curbers in your own province, the tourist money that will not be coming into BC.

i try and prevent frustration for my customers so i was trying to make my units compatible with the BC laws FOR MY CUSTOMERS peace of mind. if this can not be done then it becomes the responsibility of the customer to make sure the unit will pass the OOP which will be stated and not guaranteed at the outset of any transactions with the BC customers.

don't bother replying to this as i have read ALL your posts which has been quite enlightening

Your first sentence shows obviuosly you haven't read my posts as I have already discussed the whereabouts and availability of the manual.

Once again, in the bulletion the words in bold "must be so marked " did not get pulled out of someones nether regions, IT CAME FROM LEGISLATION active here in BC. Specifically the Standards of Safety and Repair. I could have sworn I already said that.

With the tone of this not going good, plus false accusations of " me and a couple of buddies having it in for RHD's", plus the fact that no answer will be good enough for you unless it lets you import whatevert the hell you want,

I'm out.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/vehicle_inspections/PDF/MVI_Phone_List.pdf

 

[crushers]

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/M/MotorVehicle/103_2002.htm

LOL!!: "exempt from publication" (can a person make a copy i wonder...)



Motor Vehicle Act

INSPECTION STANDARDS
(SAFETY AND REPAIR) REGULATION
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 164/2003]

Prescribed standards
1 The Standards of Safety and Repair set out in the Schedule are prescribed as the standards applicable to those classes of vehicles which require to be inspected under Division 25 of B.C. Reg. 26/58, the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations.

SCHEDULE

[am. B.C. Reg. 164/2003.]

The Schedule is exempt from publication and may be inspected at the offices of the Commercial
Vehicle Safety and Enforcement Division, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2nd
Floor, 1117 Wharf Street, Victoria, B.C., V8W 1T7.

Note: this regulation replaces B.C. Reg. 40/93



in other words, fly out here since it is not availalbe for publication. the "Golden fleese" of BC manuals...

 

[lshobie]

I hope you don't think I was accusing you personally of having it in for JDM's as I didin't, I encourage you to drive one to see how easy it is - and safe. I do know for a fact that there is an officer in BC that does have it in for JDM's.

From what Nick says you and your buddy treated him fairly and that is a good thing.

As far as importing what ever we want - we can't import whatever we want, what we import are vehicles that Canada Customs says we can import. We try to be on top of the legislation and regs, it's in our best interest. But, like I have always said, when peoples interpretations are different we wil always run into problems.

Thanks for your time and effort, you stuck around longer than most would. Buy a cruiser and join the board, you will find the board very helpful and a cruiser is an awsome vehicle.

Regards

 

[lowenbrau]

That was good while it lasted. You hot heads waited a whole 7 pages before you ran the authority off. You think there was a hate on for JDMs before, just see what happens now. BC4x4 manages to keep a BC cop as a moderator of a section and people there have been courtious enough that the cop stays and is an invaluable resource. It would have been nice if this could have lasted a bit longer.

 

[light_duty]

I really was hoping this thread would not get hostile, because when it comes down to it, everyone's really just trying to do their job to the best of their ability. CVSE officers need to follow the regs. Importers and drivers of RHD imports need to sell and operate their vehicles. I personally don't see that the law allows for a lot of interpretation, so the tihng is to work to change the law so that the common sense we owners and importers want to see is written into the law. As my previous post mentioned, Transport Canada is moving toward recognising EU Standards for Canadian vehicles.

There is no point badgering the enforcement officer - that'll just make life miserable for the people they pull over. I, for one, don't want to be pulled over by an officer with a hate on for RHD Cruiser owners. Changes must be made at the bureaucratic or legislative level, then we can drive in peace. A while ago Louis mentioned forming an association or lobby group for importers. Maybe the time has come.

This discussion has been helpful to me and many others I'm sure. Thanks.

 

[Stone]

That was good while it lasted. You hot heads waited a whole 7 pages before you ran the authority off. You think there was a hate on for JDMs before, just see what happens now. BC4x4 manages to keep a BC cop as a moderator of a section and people there have been courtious enough that the cop stays and is an invaluable resource. It would have been nice if this could have lasted a bit longer.

I was also hoping Mermaid.5 would stick around, Bruce...I was thinking the same thing about how Skidmark and the other Police officer in the BC4x4 board provides such a great resource for their members.

I hope that my "ignorant" comment in the beginning didn't have anything to do with that...

 

[crushers]

well, i am not sorry.

he came on line with some information, none of which is helping the situation.
he is steadfast in his decision and bound by a book that most of us will never get to read.
he blatantly stated that if a unit does not conform then too bad.
he made no suggestions as to how to work around this problem.
if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
i do not have a responsibility to the BC goverment, i have a responsibility to my customers.

if he wants to get bent all out of shape and take it out on the JDM owners in BC that is his problem, if he wants to take a deep breath and relax and make a suggestion to solving this dilema then i am all ears.

i am sure that he is a good guy and means well and if i ever get to meet him maybe my view of him and the BC regs will change.

 

[nickw]

Well, I would like to say a few things.

Why is it that everyone has to win?
Why is it that everyone has to be right?

I agree, just because a lens does not have a tail lamp DOT/SAE marking, does not necessarily mean its unsafe.

But,

I also agree that adding DRL is not a big deal. And making sure our headlights aim the right way, is not big deal either.
Sure it costs us money, but is it really such a big deal in the scheme of things? We still get a rocking truck for super cheap.

I think there is a big happy area in the middle for us all to meet.
Why can't we all just get along?
We want to keep our import cars and trucks, and they want our imports to be safe.
As already said, I think the "intent of the law" and the "letter of law" are different things.
Why we may conform the the "intent of the law", we sometimes miss some of the fine details.
In the end are the fine details such a big deal to the safety of a vehicle? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

Maybe we as a RHD/import community can get organized and approach Victoria. Maybe we can come up with some sort of testing system to pass non marked lights? I.E. A check list (Visible at the appropriate angles, visible from 100 meters, etc...)? It is my belief that just because a light does not bare a DOT/SAE marking does not necessarily mean its unsafe. The CVSE are just doing thier jobs. Sure some of the CVSE might have it out for RHD, but some don't. Mermaid is a good example of one that is trying to help. Who amoung us wants to get organized and go to Victoria ourselfs?

I for one would like to get a little Kei Car to have good economy and keep the short running around trips off my cruiser.
But right now there is no way I would get one. Hopefully in the future this will change.

I am sorry Mermaid that you decided not to contribute anymore.
It is a shame. I know your not out to get us, you just want us to conform to the law.
I am sure if the law read differently you would not really care (i.e. Non DOT/SAE tail lights were aloud etc...)
I think the problems are not with you, but more so how things are being enforced in BC as a whole.
I can assure everyone on the board. You have been VERY NICE and VERY HELPFUL to me with my truck.
It is much appreciated.

Cheers,
Nick

 

[cruiser_guy]

Please, I'm not trying to be hostile but I NEED to know what will be required on my '67 FJ45LV when I bring it back to Canada. Since it is going through a COMPLETE restoration some things will be available used and others will be unobtainium (and need to be fabricated). Is there a book, manual, regs, SOMETHING that says that for a '67 you need this, this and this.
Being that this vehicle was imported to Canada in some form it MUST be possible to have it meet the regulations for 1967 vehicles.

 

[swixtt]

"well, i am not sorry.

he came on line with some information, none of which is helping the situation.
he is steadfast in his decision and bound by a book that most of us will never get to read.
he blatantly stated that if a unit does not conform then too bad.
he made no suggestions as to how to work around this problem.
if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
i do not have a responsibility to the BC goverment, i have a responsibility to my customers.

if he wants to get bent all out of shape and take it out on the JDM owners in BC that is his problem, if he wants to take a deep breath and relax and make a suggestion to solving this dilema then i am all ears.

i am sure that he is a good guy and means well and if i ever get to meet him maybe my view of him and the BC regs will change."




now i can't wait for that to happen. i live in the same area as Mermaid.5 and i could just see this topic boiling over. i'm expecting a 81 very soon, in fact next month, and i really don't want to have too many problems with inspections. i actually just briefly talked with a CVSE fella, don't know if it was Mermaid.5 or not, but he seemed really knowledgeable about the entire thing. we didn't have time to talk further as he got tied up with some other issues. i hope he comes back to contribute to this.

 

[Greg_B]

I was also hoping Mermaid.5 would stick around, Bruce...I was thinking the same thing about how Skidmark and the other Police officer in the BC4x4 board provides such a great resource for their members.

I too was hoping the same. I had two questions left unanswered, and also had another question about one regulation that said:

"DOES NOT MEET CMVSS, DOT OR SAE STANDARDS AND BE SO LABELED"

The question being...if CMVSS accepts another standard (such as E-coding or EU Standards) but it does not have the DOT stamp...what would happen? Or, perhaps some of these lenses on vehicles that have no DOT stamp do have some European coding...which the CMVSS finds acceptable, or have they been accepted by EU Standards all along?

I suppose one might find out from Toyota Japan if the unmarked lens were manufactured to the same standard, and they simply did not go through the process of approval for other markets where not required as a cost savings. If so, would a letter stating such work at the upper levels to create an addendum.

Anyway, remember, HD LandCruisers are not difficult to make conform to this fellows existing interpitation.

Grow a mud exterior and come back to play!

gb

 

[lowenbrau]

well, i am not sorry.

I learned quite a lot from the input. I know now that adding relectors won't satisfy BC so I won't waste my time/ money doing that.
Law enforcement is all about being stedfast to the book.
If a unit doesn't conform, its the owners job to fix it not the enforcer.
It would have been nice to have worked with Mermaid5 for a while longer without the personal attacks. We might have gotten a bit of a feeling for what is and isn't acceptable. I'm not looking forward to finding out on the side of the road that my rollbar is not DOT approved and as a result my FRP topped rig is illegal. Its common to have checks at the toll booth on the Coq. Any idea what the tow bill back to civilisation from there is? I guess I'll have to pick up the phone now to find out.

Maybe crushers should call the guy and appologize, see if he'll come back.