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

[Greg_B]

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. .

This needs clarification yet for me, so I reserve final opinion yet.

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

Yup...

If there is in interpretation issue though, it will not get settled here. That much is sure, and perhaps that is more the issue with this thread.

Any change will happen in other corridors. All we can do is try and bring any inspectors who venture into this den on board, so they understand we are all about mechancially safe vehicles, that meet the requirement and intent of legislation for things like lens, and perhaps bring them to the dark side of LandCruiser ownership...



gb

 

[lowenbrau]

I reread this thread from front to back and have come to the following conclusions...

The law is an ass. I think the spirit of the law got crushed under the letter of the law.

Mudders are thick headed. It took about 5 pages for us to understand that BC enforces its own rules, and JDMs are exempt from the Transport Canada rules.

Wayne was not so much wrong as he was 'not nice'. Our guest took his ball and went home. If Wayne were to invite our guest back we might be able to have some more fun.


As far as the rhd persecution goes it is that for sure. I've had old pieces of crap that got pulled over for Vehicle Inspections and I was able to correct the deficiencies with similar, approved lights. The authorities have never had a problem with me bolting on some jeep style taillights on my rig while leaving the factory housings empty. It was functionally the same but asthetially nothing like how the manufacturer built it. When a guy removes the bed of a pickup in favor of a flatdeck and uses some molded lights in the bumper its totally legit as long as it functions as it should.

I'm leaning back toward converting my RHD to LHD just to get the wave by from those guys. I'll have enough problems with lift laws, fender flares, homebuilt steering etc to give them an excuse to look me over because my rig is obviously JDM.

 

[Greg_B]

I reread this thread from front to back and have come to the following conclusions...

The law is an ass. I think the spirit of the law got crushed under the letter of the law.

Mudders are thick headed. It took about 5 pages for us to understand that BC enforces its own rules, and JDMs are exempt from the Transport Canada rules.

Wayne was not so much wrong as he was 'not nice'. Our guest took his ball and went home. If Wayne were to invite our guest back we might be able to have some more fun.


As far as the rhd persecution goes it is that for sure. I've had old pieces of crap that got pulled over for Vehicle Inspections and I was able to correct the deficiencies with similar, approved lights. The authorities have never had a problem with me bolting on some jeep style taillights on my rig while leaving the factory housings empty. It was functionally the same but asthetially nothing like how the manufacturer built it. When a guy removes the bed of a pickup in favor of a flatdeck and uses some molded lights in the bumper its totally legit as long as it functions as it should.

I'm leaning back toward converting my RHD to LHD just to get the wave by from those guys. I'll have enough problems with lift laws, fender flares, homebuilt steering etc to give them an excuse to look me over because my rig is obviously JDM.

Nice synopsis Bruce.

I am not quote at that point, and think some intelligence will prevail.

Wayne, I agree with a number of points you raise: Re BC inspectors having a focus that is not balanced to all, focusing on RHD imports (easy mark), and also the "opinion" presented. I agree with the point about interpretation of the Canadian Standards. What was your straight answers again?

Re letter of law vs intent. I was wondering if a 1950's lens stamped DOT would be manufactuered to the same standards as lens built in the late 90's into early 2000's. Or, would the 1950's lens be less safe due to construction, fad resistance, ilumination, and shard hazards then say....an EU Standards numbered lens such as the ones on the Prado's and the like.

gb

 

[crushers]

Glen was nice enough to give me a call on his dime. he truely is a good guy and means well, from all appearences and i beleive he is not out to persecute the JDMs. his hands are tied but he is willing to work with us to get the trucks to pass, BUT they must pass legally.
i was obviously getting hot headed, not at Glen in particular but at the frustrating situation many of us are in.

Glen, i apologized on the phone but allow me to apologize here on the thread as well. i am sorry i took my frustration out on you.

cheers

 

[lshobie]

Good job wayne.

 

[expat]

Glen was nice enough to give me a call on his dime. he truely is a good guy and means well, from all appearences and i beleive he is not out to persecute the JDMs. his hands are tied but he is willing to work with us to get the trucks to pass, BUT they must pass legally.
i was obviously getting hot headed, not at Glen in particular but at the frustrating situation many of us are in.

Glen, i apologized on the phone but allow me to apologize here on the thread as well. i am sorry i took my frustration out on you.

cheers

I can't accept it for him , but I thank you for the apology Wayne. After all, it's us BC guys that have to deal with the fall out.

 

[Gold Boy]

Glen was nice enough to give me a call on his dime. he truely is a good guy and means well, from all appearences and i beleive he is not out to persecute the JDMs. his hands are tied but he is willing to work with us to get the trucks to pass, BUT they must pass legally.
i was obviously getting hot headed, not at Glen in particular but at the frustrating situation many of us are in.

Glen, i apologized on the phone but allow me to apologize here on the thread as well. i am sorry i took my frustration out on you.

cheers

An apology is a sign of good character ...

GB

 

[2rivers]

I apologize for the useless content on my above post to all and if anyone was offended - sorry. Obviosly I am a bit frustrated with this situation but it is just a vehicle a lot worse has happened to me in the past while. We'll make it work somehow...

johnny

 

[Previa Diesel]

I'm afraid we have to recognize the fact that there are some larger forces and players in the game.

I have been told by Transport Canada officials that every province would like to stop the flow of 15 year old imports. I have been told that this is coming down the policy pipe federally; however that was before the last election (so contact your MP and the applicable federal minister with your concerns.) It is also apparent that our 15 year exclusion as opposed to the US 25 year exclusion is largely a regulatory ‘accident’ and is viewed as such in TC. One might almost say a ‘loophole’ which some wish to close. I asked politely but persistently where the push for this change was coming from and was told consistently it was from within TC for “safety” reasons. That may well be a factor, but personally I suspect there are some other reasons:

1. The "harmonization" of Canadian with US regulations. Do a google for "Beyond NAFTA" if you'd like to know more.
2. Provincial authorities like ICBC who don't like the extra paperwork and any possibility however remote, of litigation based on doing anything slightly outside the ordinary.
3. Opposition from certain new car, specifically Toyota, importers.
4. US officials who are getting pressure from US citizens along the lines of "if the Canadians can have it why can't we?"

Yes, there are officials who have an emotional antipathy for anything that does not fit the usual boxes or smacks of Joe Public “getting around” “their” regulations. Remember this does not have to correlate to reality, just to their emotional perception of it. Anyone with military experience will recognize the mindset, and no, I’m not refering to Mermaid5. Of course, there are even more folks who have an emotional problem with authority, present company excluded again!

That being said, I’ve read in the papers that 45% of the commercial trucks on the road in BC have substandard brakes, and we’ve all seen them blowing plumes of black like steam locos going through Roger’s Pass. Remember, your RHD import marks you as an easy target. You’re not a well-connected trucking company owner who can pick up the phone to a politician and drop a civil servant in hot-water. That’s just the reality of politics and always has been.

It is quite possible that a decision has been made at the political level to choke off the flow of imports in BC gradually by making it more and more difficult to pass the ‘safety’ inspections, but only the highest levels of the bureaucracy will have been directly informed about that.

If importers and owners want to exert pressure it will have to be on the politicians, they are the ones who ultimately decide what the officials will enforce and how strictly they enforce it. Posting names and phone numbers and inviting complaints to the civil servants is useless. By all means contact them in a civil manner for information which you cannot find yourself after persistent research, but complaining is only going to waste time and antagonize people who are only doing what they are told to do - with some possible individual exceptions.

As someone else has already said here, it is obviously time for us, the “stakeholders” to organize and make ourselves felt politically.

 

[Hawke]

As Nixon said, "Let me just say this about that. . . "

1. The "harmonization" of Canadian with US regulations. Do a google for "Beyond NAFTA" if you'd like to know more.

Don't even get us started on the fxxxing rape of Canada by NAFTA, sold out by our own fxxxing prime minister. Ok, blood pressure under control now. . .



"That being said, I’ve read in the papers that 45% of the commercial trucks on the road in BC have substandard brakes, and we’ve all seen them blowing plumes of black like steam locos going through Roger’s Pass. Remember, your RHD import marks you as an easy target. You’re not a well-connected trucking company owner."

I drive a truck and I don't believe the 45% substandard brake s***. Also, check the trucks on the highway now and you will see few blowing black exhaust. We are subject to random checks with particulate meters placed in the exhaust to measure pollutants. The black exhaust was the old days.

 

[M John Galt]

I've been following this discussion from the beginning, and when one sifts out all the BS, the crux of the matter appears to be that the importer failed to install proper pattern headlamps for driving on the right side of the road. The other 'snags' were minor details, largely interpretive.

The lesson to be learned is that the buyer should be informed about the regs in their region and should choose a quality importer who clearly lists up-front what they do to an imported vehicle to ensure it meets Cdn standards.

 

[crushers]

a couple things to add,
first, after talking with the head dude in Ottawa (i can not remember his name right now) there is nothing in the works to change the 15 year ruling. this is just "fear mongering" as was the 1990 firm cutoff, if there was a change federally it would take years to impliment.
next, unless the unit is sold on the condition it will pass OOP in your jurisdiction, in the end it is the customer that must make sure it will pass. it is the responsibility of the OOP facility to check all the boxes off properly. the importer is only responsible to have the unit clear customs at the dock. now this being said, i feel it is the responsiblity of the importer/seller to make sure TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY to have the unit ready to pass any province OOP. in the future, it will be the importers that look out for their customers that will still be in business.
if you are buying a unit, ESPECIALLY in BC make sure you do your homework. talk to your importer, ask questions and be realistic it is going to cost extra to have a unit pass a BC OOP especially if parts have to be sourced overseas and bought new and installed.
for those with the 81 series, it comes down to just money. the parts are avaiable in NA to make them comply. for those with the newer cruisers then it might mean different lights installed in the bumpers. for some of the other import models, other than cruisers or those with NA counterparts to source parts from, it could mean these are not allowed on BC highways period.
as we have learned in this thread (boy i sound like one of my old school teachers) IN THE END IT IS THE CUSTOMER/OWNER THAT IS RESPONSIBLE to the Inspection cops should he or she get pulled over.
i also feel this is going to go a long way in ridding those individuals that are in it for the quick buck vs those that are in the importation game for the long run.
this is my summery of todays leason.
cheers

 

[Behemoth60]

Wow, I totally missed all the fun.

I see a need for motorists to unite into an effective lobby group to ensure that safe vehicles can operate on our highways regardless of their country of origin or how old they are. If the problem is with a law or a manual, then the law/manual needs to change. Arguing with the peace officer is a fools errand. The grass roots needs to unite, mobilize, meet with the Minister, and get a notice sent to all inspectors and peace officers addressing the 'Equivalent to OEM' and 'Must be marked with DOT/SAE' requirements.

I think its a very reasonable option that lights/reflectors can be added to a vehicle to make it safe without haveing a light that is 'equivalent' to OEM as we've come to understand it per Mermaid.5. Examples of flat decks, etc. are proof that this is a viable option in other scenarios. But this dictum must come from the ministers office, and a rational and well articulated argument must be made by the people. After all, it's not the government's rules, it's not the inspector's rules. It's the peoples rules. And you, the people, can change them.

I am finding myself involved with AURS and AB4WD, and it's becoming clear that a small number of people, representing a large number of other people, really can make a difference. But you need to be organized, with a clear agenda, with a fact based and rational argument to support your position.

Peter Straub

 

[crushers]

HOLLY CRAP!! Peter and i agree on something?!?
mark it on the calender...
cheers

 

[light_duty]

I am in the process of drafting a "fact based and rational" letter to send to various members in government. When I'm done, I'll post it up and people can copy and paste, make their own changes and send (mail or email) as well.

I'll post it here before I send it so that you folks can point out any inaccuracies or omissions.

Robin

 

[Behemoth60]

HOLLY CRAP!! Peter and i agree on something?!?
mark it on the calender...
cheers

uh... er... I meant to say that Wayne is a monkey loving donkey farmer. Yeah. That damn Wayne.

Peter Straub

 

[crushers]

back to a serious note.
the following is taken directly fro the BC inspection Manual, what is your take on this?:

 

[crushers]

more pages:

 

[crushers]

and more:

 

[crushers]

last page, sorry if they are blurry. i am having a hard time resizing these things...
if someone can walk me through then i will repost larger or i can send them off to someone that will do this for me...
let me know what you think of this in comparrison to what we were told earlier in the thread...
cheers