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

[Behemoth60]

Interesting... I worked at a electrical distributor warehouse back when I was in high school. I learned that there are two things.... Lamps, and Lenses. Lamps are the devices which make light, lenses are structures which colour/direct the light. I would infer, however, that in this manual, a Lamp is considered an assembly of the bulb and lens. But then they say... "a crack is allowed ni a halogen lamp with replaceable bulb if lamp does not allow moisture in lens." Wayne, surely there's a definitions/glossary in this manual....


Furthermore, the section about 'reflex reflectors' is seperate from the section on Lamps, and I would interpret it to mean that the the 'OEM Standards' and DOT/SAE markings do not apply to reflectors.

Finally, I don't see the term 'Equivalent' anywhere. I see 'Lenses and Bulbs must meet OEM standards', but that's about it. Again, 'OEM Standards' is an undefined and ambiguous term.

There's lots of opportunity for improvement in this manual.

Peter Straub

 

[cruiser_guy]

Wayne, it appears that the manual REQUIRES side marker lights. What do they have to say about the older vehicles since there is no "manufactured after" date there? I've got the OEM owners manual for the FJ45LV and it CLEARLY shows an absence of side marker lights.
Also, what do you make of the glass requirements? It appears that windsheilds of vehicles prior to Jan. 1, 1971 do not need to be marked but all other glass does??

 

[lowenbrau]

The way I read it a lamp must actually be labled to *NOT* comply to SAE etc before thay can reject it.

The writer should take an ESL course. I'd be very suprised if that 'guideline' holds any legal weight at all.

 

[Psilosin]

Wow...that is exactly how it is written. Good eye on that one!!

 

[crushers]

the concern to me is there is no mention in the BC inspection manual of the following:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/vehicle_inspections/PDF/Bulletin_02-06_Imported_Vehicles.pdf
in particluar:

• Lamps, lens, bulbs and reflex reflectors not meeting SAE, DOT standards
and marked as such

the memo is contradicting the BC Inspection Manual. in the memo this is important but the memo is not based on the BC inspection manual.

in the inspection manual under Section 6 it reads:

REJECT IF:
Any lamp fails to illuminate, is missing, broken, cracked, insecurely mounted, has moisture visible in interior, does not meet CMVSS,DOT or SAE STANDARDS and be so labled. at first this seems to read the same as above which it does not, this text is refering to, as in so labeled it does not meet the requirements. i.e. "off road use only""not for highway use" it does not read: the lamp must be labeled DOT, SAE, CMVSS) as Bruce pointed out.

this is the important concern. the inspectors are being ordered to refuse units that do not have the DOT/SAE insignia, with this portion of the text clarified then we have nothing to worry about with the land cruisers and most other units imported into Canada.

at least this is the way i read this portion...
cheers

 

[jcolvin]

Wayne, I totall agree with you here. I'm following this thread with some concern (owning an HDJ-81), I've read and re-read mermaid5's posts and I cannot find for the life of me any regulatory requirement for the DOT / SAE stamp. Just to confirm, did he ever actually post this requirement? Or was it all just "opinion".

I had a similar quarrel with a gas inspector over importing a gas stove. I read the actual statute, and it contradicted what he told me. He then said "Yes, the statute is worded in such a way that contradicts what was *intended*". But I will inspect your stove, fail it (even though it does not contradict the actual statute), then you will have to appeal and go to court." In other words, I will do what I want, and if you disagree, go to court". I hope the BC vehicle inspectors do not follow a similar course.

Jonathan Colvin

1990 HDJ 81
1990 FJ-80

 

[Previa Diesel]

...does not meet CMVSS,DOT or SAE STANDARDS and be so labled.(sic)

Crappy English; they probably meant to say "or is not labelled as meeting the same."

Was there ever a light made that was labelled as being not DOT/SAE compliant?!

Still, it makes no sense in light of the requirement that lamps be of OEM quality or equivalent.

'If the law is an ass, why do they call it a loophole?'

Oh, and did everyone notice this lamp issue jumped threads - did we leave anyone behind? https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?p=988443#post988443

 

[crushers]

Wayne, I totall agree with you here. I'm following this thread with some concern (owning an HDJ-81), I've read and re-read mermaid5's posts and I cannot find for the life of me any regulatory requirement for the DOT / SAE stamp. Just to confirm, did he ever actually post this requirement? Or was it all just "opinion".
1990 HDJ 81
1990 FJ-80

Glen was quoting the inspection manual that is quoted above. the memo "seemed" to back the inspection manual. so yes he posted the requirement to the best of his ability.

there has been talk of forming an organization of RHD owners. i am working on a outline that i will be discussing with the ones that contacted me about this. it will be an organization for ALL RHD vehicles, not just cruisers and it will have mandatory self regulation incorporated. if anyone else is interested in such an organization they can email me direct at:
wayne@crushersrule.com
the basis for this organization, besides self regulation, is the ability to take legal action should the need arrise. i am meeting with a lawyer on Monday (if all goes well) to discuss what legal issues we can raise and what the chances are of winning a court case.
cheers

 

[jcolvin]

Wayne wrote: ""Glen was quoting the inspection manual that is quoted above. the memo "seemed" to back the inspection manual. so yes he posted the requirement to the best of his ability.""

Ok, but the inspection manual is just that; a manual intended to guide the inspector in applying the statutues and regulations. It is *not* in itself a regulation or stature, AFAIK. So legally speaking, a vehicle's condition being contrary to something in the manual is not cause to pull it off the road. It seems to me that so long as a vehicle is in compliance with the actual statutes, then all should be ok. And from what I read, all that is required for this is "equivalence".

It also seems to me that the manual is incorrect in its interpretation of the statutes in its insistence on an DOT/SAE marking.

Jonathan Colvin, Galiano Island

1990 HDJ-81
1990 FJ80

 

[crushers]

i do agree but until this oversight is corrected then according to the memo sent out from Victoria they DO HAVE the right to pull any vehicle over and inspect it, if they suspect it does not meet the requirements to THEIR understanding then they can force the vehicle to get reinspected.
i do not agree should they do this but i now understand as to WHY they can. one thing i would caution is taking the action out on the person pulling you over. he is following the rules as he knows them. he does have the power to give you a very bad day...
cheers

 

[Previa Diesel]

there has been talk of forming an organization of RHD owners. i am working on a outline that i will be discussing with the ones that contacted me about this. it will be an organization for ALL RHD vehicles, not just cruisers and it will have mandatory self regulation incorporated. if anyone else is interested in such an organization they can email me direct at:
wayne@crushersrule.com
the basis for this organization, besides self regulation, is the ability to take legal action should the need arrise. i am meeting with a lawyer on Monday (if all goes well) to discuss what legal issues we can raise and what the chances are of winning a court case.

That sounds good, but I'd suggest it be organized on a provincial basis as branches of a national association, since the regulations are provincial and there are national/federal issues as well.

I would also suggest including in the mandate all those who would be affected by the elimination of the 15 year import rule, not just JDM RHD owners/importers. The more supporters the more money and muscle that can be brought to bear on the politicians.

 

[crushers]

in my view, i would like to see a nation wide organization. as it grows then sub chapters is a good idea. if there are only 100 members nation wide then it will have much more power than just 10 in a said province.
the rest of Canada are pretty much on the same guidelines except BC. yes, there are minor variences in some provinces.
the more members CAN mean more power but it can also mean divisions taking place. i would rather see 1000 strong active self regulating members...

 

[Snaggin Wagon]

Wow, this thread has been most informative. Apparently I have some items to check on my HJ61.

I would definitely be interested in joining a coalition of JDM owners.

Strength in numbers,
Trevor

 

[Previa Diesel]

the more members CAN mean more power but it can also mean divisions taking place.

Agreed, a risk with every such organization. Therefore one has to be very diplomatic....

"The spoken word and the arrow loosed cannot be recalled."

 

[jcolvin]

It seems to me that the main issue then is compliance with DOT /SAE standards. I think if you can show that your tail lights comply with these standards (as is required in the statute itself, rather than the "invented" requirement in the inspection manual), then you should be home free (even if you have to escalate the issue to an appeal or court).

So the question is, what are the relevant SAE / DOT standards for tail lights? Anyone know were you'd find them?

Jonathan Colvin

 

[jcolvin]

I sent mermaid an email with the following (not sure if he'll get it or not):

******************************************

Hi, I've been following the thread on the IH8mud list, a quick question:

You wrote (with respect to OEM tail-lights etc): "But it doesn't say they have to be marked", fair enough. That is why we have the other part of the regulation which is the Inspection Manual."

Surely the Inspection Manual is not a "Regulation"? I don't see any part of the Acts or Regulations that says "Motor vehicles must comply with the contents of the Inspection Manual". Surely the Inspection Manual is simply a guideline to assist inspectors with complying with the Statutory requirements.

It seems to be that so long as you can show that your tail-lights *comply* with the relevant SAE standards, then you are in compliance with relevant statutes. Of course, if push comes to shove, it might be up to a judge to determine whether one is in compliance with the statutes, and whether you (the inspectors) are misinsterpreting their requirements.

Comments?

****************************************

If I get a reply I'll post it.

Jonathan Colvin, Galiano Island

1990 HDJ-81
1990 FJ80

 

[crushers]

It seems to me that the main issue then is compliance with DOT /SAE standards. I think if you can show that your tail lights comply with these standards (as is required in the statute itself, rather than the "invented" requirement in the inspection manual), then you should be home free (even if you have to escalate the issue to an appeal or court).

So the question is, what are the relevant SAE / DOT standards for tail lights? Anyone know were you'd find them?

Jonathan Colvin

i posted "table 1" back a few posts and this covers what SAE regulations are... they are quite simple...
Glen has answered this question many times already so don't be upset if he is slow to answering. also he does have a day job so it can take a day or two to respond..
cheers

 

[jcolvin]

i posted "table 1" back a few posts and this covers what SAE regulations are... they are quite simple...
Glen has answered this question many times already so don't be upset if he is slow to answering. also he does have a day job so it can take a day or two to respond..
cheers

Table 1 you posted applies only to headlights. Nothing about the relevant SAE/DOT standards for tail-lights in there.

I suppose someone needs to treck over to Victoria and take a look at the "INSPECTION STANDARDS (SAFETY AND REPAIR) REGULATION", that presumable is in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard.", in the basement of 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, and see what it actually says about requiring the SAE/DOT marks. One must return to the text itself.

I may be in Victoria in a few weeks, otherwise anyone on this thread from Victoria who cares to take a trek downtown?

Jonathan Colvin, Galiano Island

1990 HDJ-81
1990 FJ80

 

[Previa Diesel]

The Inspection Standards should be available from Crown Publications or via a FOI request (freedom of information) as a last resort.

It is obviously poorly collated. Notice how the qualifying comments for page 36 section m) are in the "Reject if" column when they should be in the first column.

Table 1 you posted applies only to headlights. Nothing about the relevant SAE/DOT standards for tail-lights in there.

It is on page 35 above.

 

[jcolvin]

"Quote:
Table 1 you posted applies only to headlights. Nothing about the relevant SAE/DOT standards for tail-lights in there.
It is on page 35 above."

No, those are not the SAE/DOT standards, they are simply the inspection criteria. The main problem here is the requirement that lenses have the DOT/SAE stamp on them, EVEN IF they meet the standards anyway. Many vehicles destined only for Japanese market will meet these standards but nonetheless not have the SAE/DOT markings.

A reasonable compromise that may be able to be worked out would be to pass the vehicle at inspection if the owner can show that the lenses MEET the relevant standards DESPITE not haing the SAE/DOT marking. To do this we would need to know what these standards are.

Glenn has already indicated that portions of the inspection criteria are unreasonable and should not be enforced (the requirement for the third brake lights, even though domestic vehicles did not require them). A similar compromise might be reachable on lenses, but will require lobbying effort!

Jonathan Colvin