Latest Memo from BC CVSE re: Imports

[mjohn7]

Was talking to a B.C. importer today, He said a inspector was at his shop this morning checking lights, reflectors. The inspector informed him the lights / taillights were not in compliance. The shop owner pointed out the inpectors Jeep liberty also did not have the requiered compliance markings.
Is this realy a safty issue or just market protection, very strange.

 

[Fromage]

Was talking to a B.C. importer today, He said a inspector was at his shop this morning checking lights, reflectors. The inspector informed him the lights / taillights were not in compliance. The shop owner pointed out the inpectors Jeep liberty also did not have the requiered compliance markings.
Is this realy a safty issue or just market protection, very strange.

It is a compliance issue.

Markings are not required in Canada. However, the provincial standards reference DOT peformance requirements. The Jeep has a compliance label affixed by the OEM that certifies that the vehicle meets all applicable requirements. Your truck does not (because it doesn't comply with Canadian Federal requirements - it never has, and never will). Therefore, how does one determine if the light complies? Two options. Either the light does have the markings (as they often do as they are required in the US), or you prove it with testing. Good luck.

Mike is cutting you as an industry/demographic some MAJOR slack. I don't think many people realise how much of a nightmare JDM cars are from a provincial regulatory standpoint. They don't meet most Canadian Federal requirements, they were designed for fundamentally different standards and regulations, and there is no central organization attempting to self-regulate the industry without relying on provincial enforcement or the feds.

Things like RHD headlights on a LHD car are dangerous. The beam pattern blinds oncoming traffic. No side reflectors. No center brake light. No tire performance requirements. No braking standards. No crash safety. Yes, it is possible to modify a vehicle to make it relatively OK to drive and less dangerous (YOU crash you die, but limit damage to others), and that's what Mike is allowing you guys to do. But all these whiners bitching about having the enforcement officers pulling them over for markings and reflectors are making things waaaay worse. The enforcement guys aren't the ones who are breaking the law. You are. If you want the provinces to listen to you and be fair, exercise due diligence. Find out about standards. Get up to speed on provincial regs. FIX the stuff you can to make your vehicle meet existing Canadian regulations. Don't be an a******. Cause they have a WAY bigger stick, and they have friends with a Howitzer in Ottawa.

The entire industry of importing Japanese cars will ultimately die because of this type of useless whining and unlawful behaviour, in addition to Skyline driving kids getting killed. There is currently in BC a WAY higher incidence of JDM cars being involved in accidents. Of course, it's a demographic thing, younger people drive cheap fast cars, they die more often. It still looks bad. And a few idiots are going to screw it up for everyone.

 

[lshobie]

Hi Formage,

I agree with you 100 percent.

Regards

 

[mjohn7]

And all this time I was under the impression that Japan was not a thrid world country. I was not aware they had no strandards as far as braking, crash testing & tiers. I find it odd that these vehiles are sold in almost every country with the exception of Canada and the USA. I guess I wiil sell my BJ and get a safe 1973 ford Pinto.

:shotts:

 

[crushers]

There is currently in BC a WAY higher incidence of JDM cars being involved in accidents. .

care to share where you found this information?

 

[108Cruz]

" There is currently in BC a way higher incidence of JDM cars being involved in accidents "

That caught my attention also.

If there are any numbers on this , it would be interesting to see if it is the fast cars the younger kids are getting such as Skyline's, turbo Celica's etc.

If you put any fast car, be it a turbo 4 or V8 into a young fellow's hands whether
it is a JDM ( RHD ) or North American car, they will drive them fast at some point and it's only a matter of time when an accident will occur.

I don't think you can blame the car because it is a JDM, you blame the driver .

 

[pl510]

More q's

And to change the topic slightly. Are these requirements of the DOT different for each model year? For example, does the car have to have a third brake light if it a 1989 model instead of a 1990 or any other year of manufacture?

Sorry if this question seems silly but I am following this thread closely as to educate myself on what is going on.

 

[Fromage]

care to share where you found this information?

I believe it is public information, or if it is not, it will be as the study is completed. It is not for me to reveal, however I will say that I am told that it is conclusive. That's all I know. Who? Think about it - who loses with JDM? Government doesn't really. It's a headache, they are often of questionable legality. However, who has real *liability* in this issue?

Wayne, do the math - Think outside cruisers. A large percentage of JDM stuff is huge HP super fast cars. OF COURSE if you give a 19 year old a 600 hp Viper he's going to kill himself. The problem is that these high HP machines have become attainable to kids. It isn't so much a safety issue with JDM. It's that demographics and the TOTAL lack of relevent safety information is going to kill you guys. Politicians and mothers with dead kids are going to make inappropriate assumptions based on this stuff. It's obvious, you can all see it. RHD has a bad public perception, people perceive it as being illegal and bad. 1+1+1 =...

Ever walked the docks in Van? People bring in cool cars. Either they're fast, or they are desirable.

LISTEN to the provincial guys. They aren't saying that JDM is dangerous. They are saying that they have NO assurance of safety. No manufacturer support, no previous certification, no testing to reference. At least that 1973 Pinto had to comply with ALL applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, and when a safety defect was isolated (BOOM), the OEM recalled them and fixed them. Based on that you ARE safer in a Pinto, in some respects.

 

[Fromage]

And to change the topic slightly. Are these requirements of the DOT different for each model year? For example, does the car have to have a third brake light if it a 1989 model instead of a 1990 or any other year of manufacture?

Sorry if this question seems silly but I am following this thread closely as to educate myself on what is going on.

The requirements get amended from time to time - The Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It's not a yearly thing, it's when it's needed. The third brake light got thrown in there because either research or deaths warranted the changes. I think it was 89?

 

[FJota]

I understand the need for safety. What bugs me is that the vehicle driving down the road has already had an inspection done. If the vehicle has "passed" the inspection, shouldn't the responsability be on the inspection facility? Is there any recourse?

 

[Greg_B]

And all this time I was under the impression that Japan was not a thrid world country. I was not aware they had no strandards as far as braking, crash testing & tiers. I find it odd that these vehiles are sold in almost every country with the exception of Canada and the USA. I guess I wiil sell my BJ and get a safe 1973 ford Pinto.

:shotts:

Or Europe. Oh...wait a minute. E-standards are not as good as DOT...

Ya...that's it.

I guess this means all those brake components that cross over to the North American versions, or those frame rails that are identical to their North American bretheran magically are "different". Hmmm....

How close really...are the FJ/HJ/BJ 6* series, or the FJ/BJ/HZJ7* series...

Taking the tongue out...and talking landcruisers...headlight changes to LHD, side markers, 3rd brakes...all are easy fixes. At least for the older stuff.

I guess they change things out in the middle of the tunnel when going from Europe to England and back again? Or, I suppose all those LHD vehicles that are in Japan are wacked as well...

There is letter of the law, and intent of the law. One can get caught up in letter, and lose site of the intent...I think most people want safe vehicles, that are visible in locations that are required. That's simple. If your job is to manage vehicle standards...I would think you would be all about the "intent" of the laws.

You can not outlaw the invincibility of youth. This has nothing to do with JDM's, unless you see an opportunity to use it...and carry the big gun. That is the real danger here.

Tis a matter of education for the inspection stations. When you have your own Government inspectors who appear to be instilling personal opinion on chat websites, who are not open to "intent" of the regulation, and who even as a group themselves appear to be on different pages...no wonder inspection facilities get confused. There almost needs to be a list of common vehicles that get imported, and a cooresponding list of items needing changing to meet regulation.

BJ74...side markers, headlights changed, basic mechanical
HJ61...side markers, headlights changed, basic mechanical

etc....

gb

BTW, that memo was really quite well worded and reasonable. Much better, more professional, and intellegently written then the other one.

 

[Stone]

I guess they change things out in the middle of the tunnel when going from Europe to England and back again? Or, I suppose all those LHD vehicles that are in Japan are wacked as well...

Greg: There's a provision to allow foreign vehicles to operate on Canadian highways for a certain period of time...I forget how long. These vehicles don't have to comply with any Canadian standards, if they're running foreign plates, but they're not allowed to stay here. At the end of their visit, the vehicle either leaves or is off the highways indefinitely.

Fromage has some good points, and I can see where the government regulatory and enforcement agencies are coming from. Things like headlights, glass, and basic mechanical soundness should obviously be up to our Canadian standards...but like you say, logically if 90% of a vehicle is identical to an equivalent vehicle meant for the Canadian market, then logically it would perform similarly in a crash test and be similar in its safety.

 

[Greg_B]

Fromage has some good points. Things like headlights, glass, and basic mechanical soundness should obviously be up to our Canadian standards...but like you say, logically if 90% of a vehicle is identical to an equivalent vehicle meant for the Canadian market, then logically it would perform similarly in a crash test and be similar in its safety.

Yes, he does and yes to the rest...

And then look and study going to the E-Standards to compare.

gb

 

[The Dude]

There almost needs to be a list of common vehicles that get imported, and a cooresponding list of items needing changing to meet regulation.

HJ61...side markers, headlights changed, basic mechanical

etc....

I got pulled over last saturday, the guy checked my headlights (dot and e-code on those for LHD), my glass (all good), my front side markers, which are actually turn signals. One I had broken and replaced, the other needs to be DOT and it isn't.

The interesting thing is he said the rear taillights where a judgement call on whether they wrapped around enough to act as side markers. He thought they where OK as you could see both the park light and the turn signal from the side.

I am going to get DOT red reflective tape and be done with it in the rear.

So I got a inpsection ticket for the front turn signal, no biggie.

The sad part, I didn't have mud flaps on, I had no shocks on, my front bumper had no bolts holding it on and I didn't have a rear bumper installed. Nothing was said about those infractions It was spring fixing and I was running to get parts.

 

[Greg_B]

I believe it is public information, or if it is not, it will be as the study is completed. It is not for me to reveal, however I will say that I am told that it is conclusive. That's all I know. Who? Think about it - who loses with JDM? Government doesn't really. It's a headache, they are often of questionable legality. However, who has real *liability* in this issue?

Wayne, do the math - Think outside cruisers. A large percentage of JDM stuff is huge HP super fast cars. OF COURSE if you give a 19 year old a 600 hp Viper he's going to kill himself. The problem is that these high HP machines have become attainable to kids. It isn't so much a safety issue with JDM. It's that demographics and the TOTAL lack of relevent safety information is going to kill you guys. Politicians and mothers with dead kids are going to make inappropriate assumptions based on this stuff. It's obvious, you can all see it. RHD has a bad public perception, people perceive it as being illegal and bad. 1+1+1 =...

So, you are alluding to ICBC doing a study on claims statistics. Right?

This is something they do on a continual basis to set rates. If a specific model has higher stolen and accident rates, (claim rate) then things are adjusted. If Skylines are cracking up, then the rates will likely change to reflect this...

Any claim rate study will show which models are costing the company, and rates will be adjusted. I would think all insurance comanies are talking and sharing infromation. I would think this is standard course and business practice across the board. It would be an interesting study to see, and compare...say for example the accident rate of HJ61's, BJ74's and HDJ81's vs other models...North American or otherwise. If they are less, does that mean rates will be lowered?

gb

 

[Previa Diesel]

The requirements get amended from time to time - The Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It's not a yearly thing, it's when it's needed. The third brake light got thrown in there because either research or deaths warranted the changes. I think it was 89?

My 91 Previa doesn't have a high brake light. Am I supposed to fit one?

As for the demographics, TC has done a study which claims to show that older cars (ie: 15+ year old imports) are less safe. Surprise, surprise: the NA market vehicles their data are based on are usually in worse condition and driven by worse drivers. Unfortunately for their theory, 90% of the imports are in better condition than 90% of the 15 year old NA market vehicles on the road and everyone knows it. However, reality doesn't have to be a factor in setting policy.

I can appreciate the p.o.v. of CVSE, but IMO they should concentrate on that "high 20s" percentage of unsafe commercial trucks on the road, as one inspector described the situation to me. Of course, trucking companies have a lot of political muscle.

When was the last time any peace officer pulled over a vehicle for having one or no headlights or misaligned headlights, broken or missing tail lights etc. etc. All obvious safety risks, but how many times have I seen police drive right past.

My Surf has better lights than the NA model 4Runner The front driving lights have projecting turn signal lenses; the NA model are flush! The Surf also has small turn signal indicators behind and above the front wheel wells; the NA model has none. I've changed the head lights and tail lights, but it seems pretty stupid to remove an obviously superior lense and replace it with an inferior because it has some little letters on it.

The Dude's post above really says it all doesn't it?

 

[lshobie]

It's funny how this keeps going round and round. We all know that the cruisers for the most part are safe - in our opinions, and they are just about the same as the CDM's we had here bla bla bla, but the bottom line is that they aren't the same, can come pretty close with some mods, and we are lucky to be able to get them at this point.

Fromages main point, from what I could gather, is that the complaining and dodging of the rules (no matter what we think of them) could expedite the extinction of our newest source of cruisers. To keep rambling about CDM mini's and Bimmers with no dot/sae stamp is a waste of keystrokes, that has already been covered. I agree with him and have said it all along.

It's too bad but we are our own worst enemies in all this, from the loud mouths who piss of the little enforcement guys to the guys who piss off the guys at the top of the totem pole. That serves no one, especially not the importers themselves.

We need to use our heads about this and comply while we can, that's the bottom line. The skyline guys and other groups who are lapping up the JDM's need to get online and comply as well.

I'll be happy to share info with anyone and this group about the regs in ontario as soon as I have a diffinite guidline.

Just my opinions of course.

 

[Previa Diesel]

It's funny how this keeps going round and round. We all know that the cruisers for the most part are safe - in our opinions, and they are just about the same as the CDM's we had here bla bla bla, but the bottom line is that they aren't the same, can come pretty close with some mods, and we are lucky to be able to get them at this point. Well we're luckier than the US bretheren, but not as lucky as the UK. We don't need to feel grateful to anyone in authority though. As someone at TC told me, our 15 year rule is more or less an accident.

Fromages main point, from what I could gather, is that the complaining and dodging of the rules (no matter what we think of them) could expedite the extinction of our newest source of cruisers. To keep rambling about CDM mini's and Bimmers with no dot/sae stamp is a waste of keystrokes, that has already been covered. I agree with him and have said it all along. It's an interesting suggestion that the public should 'mind their manners' or else be punished by changes in regulations or enforcement. I'm all for being polite and reasonable, but suggesting that we'd better 'put up and shut up' indicates an unpleasant and undemocratic mindset. Hopefully that wasn't what was intended, though that "l'etat c'est moi" mentality is all over government these days.

It's too bad but we are our own worst enemies in all this, from the loud mouths who piss of the little enforcement guys to the guys who piss off the guys at the top of the totem pole. That serves no one, especially not the importers themselves. Already covered above.

We need to use our heads about this and comply while we can, that's the bottom line. The skyline guys and other groups who are lapping up the JDM's need to get online and comply as well. Agreed. The purpose of laws is to protect the public however, and enforcement should reflect the intention of a law, not just the letter of it. A reasonable and sensible approach would be for competent authorities to examine and approve on a case by case basis lights that are obviously equivalent to DOT/SAE marked lights. Unfortunately the other trend in government is to avoid any kind of personal responsibility or initiative.

.....

 

[lshobie]

I'm grateful that I can get and drive a mint cruiser, am I going to buy a politician a beer because of it - no. I was all but out of cruisers until I could get some good JDM's. A rusty 300,000Km + vehicle doesn't do anything for me now - when I was younger I'd live with it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't bend as a rule, but when it comes to certian things you need to know when to fight - and when to back off. And it's like dealing with a cop, if you fail the attitude test you get the ticket for sure, if you handle the situation maturely you get a reduced fine or drive on your merrily way. My wife is a lawyer so she helps me calm down and think of the consequences before I open my mouth or start typing away.

When I tried to register some JDM's last feb the MTO wouldnt do it anymore with an Export Certificate. So, I got them a document they could use for the registration process with a little bit of help from some people in Japan. But, I kept on them until they (MTO) changed the paperwork requirements and allowed the use of the Export Cert. as it is the proper title when it enters Canada. 3 hours after they refused the registration I had written the Premier, Minister of Transport, Special Investigations Unit, Ontario Ombudsman, 2 members of parliament, the Japanese Ministry of land and infrastructure, and consulted my wifes colleagues in Japan for a legal opinion. I just got word 2 weeks ago that MTO will now accept the Export Certificate.

So, I don't usually sit back and let someone have at me, but I do know when I can win a battle.

Regards

 

[Previa Diesel]

check out this post: http://www.bikersrights.com/nhtsa/notapproved/A-13.pdf

Just in case anyone missed it: https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?p=1105227#post1105227

PS: your points are well taken Ishobie.