News about the 15-year importation rule

[civicrider187]

Morning Gentlemen,

I wanted to contact your forum with some important news about the 15-year importation rule. The Canadian government is considering a change to a 25-year importation rule. This process has been building behind closed doors for the last year without public notice or consideration. We at IVOAC (Imported Vehicle Owners Association of Canada) (www.ivoac.ca) received information that the draft is completed and will be submitted for signature THIS SPRING. This is not rumor; this is fact.
If you own, want to own a 15-year old import OF ANY MAKE OR MODEL then this will affect you.
We at IVOAC have created a website FIGHTING this change. We have developed a 60+ page rebutting this attempt to change the rule. 3 weeks ago we started up the site and immediately caught the interest of the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) importers. Our membership grew quickly to almost 200 persons.
This site will deal with all the latest confirmed information dealing with DOT/SAE issues, insurance concerns and of course fighting the change itself.
We strongly ask that you at least check out the site (www.ivoac.ca) and if you feel comfortable to join in the fight. Most of the conversations so far on the site are by the RHD community but the change will affect ALL persons that own or wish to own a 15-year old import from ANYWHERE (but the states). They have the power at this time to succeed but with your help we can stop this.
Please feel free to forward this to anyone you might think would be affected.

Cheers

[T-Dubbs]

meh
mines registered and insured as a lexus:D

[redbaron303]

Where is the definitive support that verifies this claim? There are always so many claims about this and changes to be made that never happen.

[Hakkola]

Not to mention they can't kick out cars already registered in Canada, so I don't see how this effects people who already own 15 y/o rhd cars.

[hjr]

it wouldnt be retroactive. they would simply stop new imports. Outside of an actual bill tabled in parliament, there is no need for so much drama.

[redbaron303]

Originally posted by Hakkola
Not to mention they can't kick out cars already registered in Canada, so I don't see how this effects people who already own 15 y/o rhd cars.

Before this point is argueed (sp), the cars already in the country or awaiting import & landed at the port on or before the day this would be implemented would fall under a grandfather import clause.

I would also fight and or argue if a car was purchased to be stored in another country until it was 15 years old that it should also fall under the grandfather clause where the new rules would have no implications on this.

I just see a lot of uprising and/or bad things to come for the gov't if they 'close borders' and if they do this I believe they will have to revisit RIV as well.

[redbaron303]

Originally posted by hjr
it wouldnt be retroactive. they would simply stop new imports. Outside of an actual bill tabled in parliament, there is no need for so much drama.

Drama is what people thrive on. How do you think those bogus and lame reality shows survive? Same way rumours about importing do

[HiTempguy1]

So does this affect bringing cars over from the US?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
So does this affect bringing cars over from the US?

Only if it's on the RIV's blacklist.

[civicrider187]

Originally posted by redbaron303
Where is the definitive support that verifies this claim? There are always so many claims about this and changes to be made that never happen.

If you read on the website, you will see quite clearly the sources that have confirmed this information.

[hjr]

that site has shit organization. link the sources if you can (as you have seen them)

[jdm_jspec]

before i believe this i would have to see some sources
:dunno:

[redbaron303]

I posted in your thread on 780tuners. I even posted the e-mail from teh supposed transport canada guy with his e-mail address. He's a public servent and can deal with an influx of e-mails.

I've e-mailed all boards mentioned in the post and asked them for verification of the ideas meantioned in the e-mail.

Until I hear back I do not believe it's authentic as there are no other sources. Your site has nothing really, at least that I haven't seen and have yet to believe. :P

[japancar]

I would suggest that people contact their MP to ask about this. They should address this issue. Also, contact consumer affairs in Ottawa. I will!

[Teggy]

as far as i know, if your vehicle is registered, insured your car is clear to stay, they can't do anything about them. As far as cars already landed, and not registered or insured i believe they are going to be a pain in the ass to keep here

[msommers]

Just like all the other times this has come up, I'll believe it when I see it

[kevie88]

From their website:

From: M.C.(editted by ivoac.ca admins) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: CCMTA Website - Contact Us page

Sir,

As mentioned by Mr. Claude Roy, consultations are part of the rulemaking process in the Federal government. The government has consulted with the CCMTA, which represents the provinces, territories and Federal Government.

Transport Canada is now preparing documentation to change the 15 year rule to 25 years, which will be submitted for ministerial approval. The anticipated timeframe for submission of the documentation to the minister's office is spring 2007. Once the minister signs off on the proposal, the proposed amendment will be sent to Treasury Board for review and Privy Council for approval. Subsequently, publication of the draft amendment will appear in the Canada Gazette Part 1, and a 75 day comment period will be given so that the public can provide comments. Information on how to submit comments will be included in the publication. Comments would then be addressed prior to passing any legislation and publishing in the Canada Gazette Part 11. Publishing in the Canada Gazette Part 1 is anticipated this year, and could also be as early as the spring.

In regards to the 15 year rule, it was originally implemented to allow an exemption for the importation of collectible vehicles for hobby and occasional use. At that time, as most of the vehicles 15 years old and older being imported were typically collectors items, 15 years was considered to be an acceptable age limit for exemption. As the number of 15 year old vehicles being imported for every day use has increased, the government along with the CCMTA no longer consider 15 years to be adequate.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, they can be forwarded directly to me.
Regards,
M.C (editted by ivoac.ca admin), P.Eng.,
Standards and Regulations Division

[TurboMedic]

I understand the fight, but I'm not sure such a small minority of vehicle owners can have any influence on this ruling......good luck otherwise...

[sexualbanana]

I agree with Turbo Medic and Red Baron. To Baron's point that this only effects people, and businesses, that plan on importing in the future. The Grandfather Clause means it won't effect any consumers who already have one registered here.

And to Medic's point, it's a relatively small minority of car-owners and businesses effected, so it will be a very hard battle for them. Not to say it's useless, but it certainly is an uphill battle and since I don't ever plan on importing a car, it doesn't really effect me too much.

Good luck to those of you who plan on fighting this.

[Maxt]

With massive layoffs in the auto industry in Ontario looming now from DC, it doesnt matter if the threat from imported vehicles to new vehicles is perception or reality, you know the Feds are gonna have to do something to keep the Ontarian masses at bay. Any bit of legislation that seems to be a push towards improving new vehicle sales of domestically made cars will be deemed favourable..
There is a move to push Asia to open up to North American automakers,especially Japan, in reality Japan is open to every car manafacturer, but Japanese wont buy crap. What they are really pushing for is legislation that forces Japan to accept xxx amount of vehicles per year.

[STi403]

since there is goin to be a ban will the prices still be the same cos i want a GTR but now im worried people are goin to ask alot more for them now cos of tha stupid ban.

[msommers]

Originally posted by STi403
since there is goin to be a ban will the prices still be the same cos i want a GTR but now im worried people are goin to ask alot more for them now cos of tha stupid ban.

Well hmmm, supply........demand..... I just don't know man

[redbaron303]

Grandfather clauses will protect some of us... importing parts cars, parts, and other items will be made more difficult unless they're in a million pieces.

Those of us put out of jobs, maybe we should claim welfare, it's not like we'll have a choice in this matter by the sounds of it! :( How unfortunate.

Those who want to import cars, there'll be loopholes but if they change laws to reflect an older age for the cars to import then penalties will be stiffer surely.

It's a loose loose for those of us who support this minority.

I posted an e-mal on this Ivoac website that is in reply from TC to the email kevie posted. :) Have a look, they seem to have a partial and believable rationale for this choice.

[thinmyster]

where do we go to show our support for the new rule :D:D:D

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by STi403
since there is goin to be a ban will the prices still be the same cos i want a GTR but now im worried people are goin to ask alot more for them now cos of tha stupid ban.

I figure this new bit of legislation is going to take awhile before it will even come into effect, so I don't think you have anything to worry about for awhile. From everything I've read so far, this change seems to be in it's very early stages.

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by thinmyster
where do we go to show our support for the new rule :D:D:D

:werd:

I mean, really......sure theres not much wrong with driving a RHD car on LHD roads, but do we need a whole bunch of NEW drivers making the obviously perplexing task of driving that much more challenging? Am I stereotyping? Absolutely, cause I have yet to run into someone >17 years old driving one of these cars!


Now, before I dig too much here, I don't support blanket changing of the rule to be greater than 15 years........I think the ruling should directly address this RHD issue.....I don't see anything wrong with bringing in a LHD car that is greater than 15 years....

[civicrider187]

:clap:

[civicrider187]

Bump

[jhmed]

Originally posted by redbaron303
Where is the definitive support that verifies this claim? There are always so many claims about this and changes to be made that never happen.

How's this for definitive support?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/15yearrule.htm

[inline6turbo]

:clap:

can't wait :)

[thanatos1111]

Does anybody have the blacklist of cars NOT allowed into canada? Also, I understand from the performance/looks end of things why some people want certain RHD cars, but why won't the foreign automakers make LHD versions for export? Or even buy facilities like Ford, Chev, Dodge in US and Canada to make domestic versions of imported cars? Vehicles like the 300zx, Skyline etc. would be better sellers over here if they were LHD, that's pretty much the only thing stopping me from buying one.

[ken-gsr]

Are you crazy? They would never allow car builders to build RHD cars for LHD streets - there would just be way too much liability. Also it seems like most of the people importing these cars aren't really the type to drop 60g on a brand new RHD skyline. Maybe its just me...

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

No no no, you misread that... he wants the manufacturer's to rent out plants to build a circa 91 skyline and 300zx in the LHD manner...

problems with that are there are 300zx with LHD's... they're just rare (same with MR2)

They wouldn't pass emissions, and who wants to build a "91" skyline in a factory not set up for it...

[thanatos1111]

I'm not saying build LHD cars in Canada. That's Pretty Silly. I'm saying build the same cars as over in Japan, but with RHD and current safety standards. As for emissions, I'm pretty sure Japan's emissions are WAY more strict than ours, as that's why we end up with older Japanese cars over here as they can't pass Japan's stringent emissions....

Maybe if they started building RHD's for export today, in 10 years we could still find parts for our project cars....

[4doorj]

i hope that some mk4 supras will make it through before the rule changes :drool:

[thanatos1111]

If Japan (the automakers) made both LHD and RHD versions of their NEW cars, it'd be way easier to import them. Just think, if they banned all RHD's, you could import one as a parts car and pretty much resurrect a busted LHD in canada.

[Mr.William]

Originally posted by Hakkola
Not to mention they can't kick out cars already registered in Canada, so I don't see how this effects people who already own 15 y/o rhd cars.

What they can do however is classify them as unsafe and make insurance premiums so high that nobody will be able to drive them.

For all those thinking that I already have mine so who cares, think again. Show your support by joining www.15years.ca and by visiting your member of parliament and stressing your concerns about this garbage.

[redbaron303]

Originally posted by Mr.William


What they can do however is classify them as unsafe and make insurance premiums so high that nobody will be able to drive them.

For all those thinking that I already have mine so who cares, think again. Show your support by joining www.15years.ca and by visiting your member of parliament and stressing your concerns about this garbage.

Grandfather clause with your insurance company should allow for a problem free transition.

Additional to that, insurance is capped in Alberta for PLPD so if you want basic coverage you will not notice a change unless the entire province of insured drivers do.

The only place that your insurance co could screw you on this is by jacking up your comprehensive and collision aspects of coverage to something unreasonable.

For myself, if they were to do that... I'd trade in my car on a new cooper s... I'm tired of old cars for daily drivers, shit always breaks.

[Teggy]

so did this go down yet or what???

[jhmed]

Originally posted by Teggy
so did this go down yet or what???


Originally posted by jhmed


http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/15yearrule.htm

[crazydude]

Good times

[Annoyingrob]

Time to start rocking an R30 Skyline ;)

[stevo 27]

whats happening this better not take effect before next feb
or i will be crushed :(

[JAYMEZ]

Hrmm looks like its gonna be changed after all...



"Since the year 2000, the number of vehicles over 15 years old imported into Canada has increased significantly, with annual levels of 16,000 to 17,000 vehicles. The cumulative total at the end of 2006 stood at over 73,000 vehicles."

Thats nuts...

[Synne]

It will never happen it will never happen blah blah...


Fuck look at us now...:cry:

[JAYMEZ]

Originally posted by Synne
It will never happen it will never happen blah blah...


Fuck look at us now...:cry:


Its the Canadian Gov't we are talking about lol.

[Mr.William]

Originally posted by JAYMEZ_STi
Hrmm looks like its gonna be changed after all...



"Since the year 2000, the number of vehicles over 15 years old imported into Canada has increased significantly, with annual levels of 16,000 to 17,000 vehicles. The cumulative total at the end of 2006 stood at over 73,000 vehicles."

Thats nuts...

What they are not telling you is that number includes US vehicles, skidoos, mototcycles, etc. There is so much falseified information in their article....

Has anyone emailed or visited their members of parliament about their concerns ?

[soloracer]

I for one encourage the government to go ahead with the legislation. There is not one rational reason that people should be allowed to bring a RHD car here. Absolutely none. Most of you who want a RHD car want it because they are cheaper to buy than a legitimate LHD model that was made for our roads. I would like to see them take it one step further and stop importing of any more RHD cars and that all RHD cars currently here will have to get special registration that limits where and how they can be used. I imagine my stance isn't going to be popular here.

[japancar]

Originally posted by soloracer
I for one encourage the government to go ahead with the legislation.
I imagine my stance isn't going to be popular here.

You're right.

[soloracer]

Here's one for you: explain to me why you should be allowed to bring a RHD car over here for use on our roads? I'm willing to bet you can't come up with one justification for it other than "it's cheap". So why fight the legislation?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by soloracer
Here's one for you: explain to me why you should be allowed to bring a RHD car over here for use on our roads? I'm willing to bet you can't come up with one justification for it other than "it's cheap". So why fight the legislation?

Umm, Auto Enthusiasts? I'd call that a good reason. Another is that there are some models that were never made for our roads (Skyline's, Hi-Lux's, etc.)

If you want to get preachy on safety, why don't we just ban ALL cars/trucks that are older than 15 years? Muscle cars, vinatage cars, anything from the 80's, phhht, none of them have airbags, the older ones don't even have proper seat belts! And only a handful had ABS brakes or crumple zones. :nut:

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by soloracer
Here's one for you: explain to me why you should be allowed to bring a RHD car over here for use on our roads? I'm willing to bet you can't come up with one justification for it other than "it's cheap". So why fight the legislation?

Some of us want cars that were not available here but readily available in other parts of the world (IE those RHD diesel vans/SUV's, sports cars, luxury cars, and other interesting automobiles).

[soloracer]

The majority of cars coming over are not because of auto enthusiasts - that is they are not models that are not already in existance here. RX7's, MR2's, Supras can all be bought here - there is no need to bring more over. They are being brought over because they are CHEAP and that's it. About the only one that might have a case is the Skyline and you know what? I don't think anyone here has the RIGHT to be allowed to bring one over. I would love to drive a Sherman tank down the highway - hell it's probably safer than anything out there right now - but I certainly don't expect the government to allow me to do so. The only guys you will see complaining about this legislation are either a) trying to make a buck by flogging these cars or b) trying to save a few bucks buying a cheap car from Japan instead of buying one here. By and large the people buying these cars are not "enthusiasts" in the purist form. Yes they probably are car people but they are not collectors trying to bring over a rare automobile to add to their collection. If that was the case you wouldn't see more than a few hundred of them being brought over here and the asking prices would be much higher because the "ethusiast" just has to have one.

[Annoyingrob]

If they wanted to make the roads safer, shouldn't they be letting people bring NEWER cars into the country, not older ones?

[ExtremeSi]

Originally posted by soloracer
The majority of cars coming over are not because of auto enthusiasts - that is they are not models that are not already in existance here. RX7's, MR2's, Supras can all be bought here - there is no need to bring more over. They are being brought over because they are CHEAP and that's it. About the only one that might have a case is the Skyline and you know what? I don't think anyone here has the RIGHT to be allowed to bring one over. I would love to drive a Sherman tank down the highway - hell it's probably safer than anything out there right now - but I certainly don't expect the government to allow me to do so. The only guys you will see complaining about this legislation are either a) trying to make a buck by flogging these cars or b) trying to save a few bucks buying a cheap car from Japan instead of buying one here. By and large the people buying these cars are not "enthusiasts" in the purist form. Yes they probably are car people but they are not collectors trying to bring over a rare automobile to add to their collection. If that was the case you wouldn't see more than a few hundred of them being brought over here and the asking prices would be much higher because the "ethusiast" just has to have one.

Its called freedom of choice. Why should the government be able to tell us what we can drive?

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by ExtremeSi


Its called freedom of choice. Why should the government be able to tell us what we can drive?

This is precisely it, so many of you want to decide what is "safe" for everyone else. Enthusiasts can look out for themselves and decide what's safe. It's much the same as how a biker accepts the risks of driving without the safety features of a car, why aren't you guys crying about them?

RHD's and LHD's can get along on the same roads, they've been doing it for decades in Europe and in Japan without the need for a ban or restrictions. Japan has embraced both sides so much that they have double-sided toll booths.

Transport Canada isn't aiming to ban RHD cars, they are aiming to ban 15-24 year old cars from being imported to Canada, the majority of which are coming from the US. Some of you need to read about this topic before posting such ridiculous statements and arguments.

[A790]

Originally posted by soloracer
Here's one for you: explain to me why you should be allowed to bring a RHD car over here for use on our roads? I'm willing to bet you can't come up with one justification for it other than "it's cheap". So why fight the legislation?

You have a very myopic view of the world, my friend. I can't see it benefiting you later on in life.

Sure I can buy a Turbo MR2 here, or I can import the same Turbo MR2 from Japan with an extra 40 horsepower to boot.

RX7 TT's are hard to find here, so why not bring one over from Japan? Supra TT's are the same situation, yet I imagine they'll be easier to find overseas.

And who are you to say that I don't have the RIGHT to own a Skyline? Last time I checked, you weren't my mother.

The government is trying to impliment more stupid policy (speaking of which, how'd that gun dealie turn mout again?). Let's call it power tripping on a federal level.

As for you, unless you've got something better to do than try and jam your opinions down our throats, buzz off.

[alpha_gangsta]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

If you want to get preachy on safety, why don't we just ban ALL cars/trucks that are older than 15 years? Muscle cars, vinatage cars, anything from the 80's, phhht, none of them have airbags, the older ones don't even have proper seat belts! And only a handful had ABS brakes or crumple zones. :nut:

Actually, I'd be an advocate of this. Maybe not ban them but do like Japan, put up heavy restrictions/Fees for older vehicles. You can keep your classics and muscle cars but at a price. Less hunk o junk rusted out cars on the road, more shiny safer cars with better fuel efficiency. This might also promote a broader use of public transportation/car pooling and etc.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by A790


You have a very myopic view of the world, my friend. I can't see it benefiting you later on in life.

Sure I can buy a Turbo MR2 here, or I can import the same Turbo MR2 from Japan with an extra 40 horsepower to boot.

RX7 TT's are hard to find here, so why not bring one over from Japan? Supra TT's are the same situation, yet I imagine they'll be easier to find overseas.

And who are you to say that I don't have the RIGHT to own a Skyline? Last time I checked, you weren't my mother.

The government is trying to impliment more stupid policy (speaking of which, how'd that gun dealie turn mout again?). Let's call it power tripping on a federal level.

As for you, unless you've got something better to do than try and jam your opinions down our throats, buzz off.

If you like I find a number of TT RX7's for sale that are far closer than Japan and they have the steering wheel on the correct side of the car for our roads. As for your RIGHT to own a Skyline you must remember that driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. The government mandates all kinds of safety items related to driving that is in place to protect the public (seatbelts, airbags, etc.) because it is their responsibility to do so. You no more have the right to own and drive a Skyline than I do to own and drive a Sherman tank.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by ExtremeSi


Its called freedom of choice. Why should the government be able to tell us what we can drive?

Hmmm.....so they can tell you if you can or cannot drive but they can't tell you the kind of vehicle they will allow you to drive? Remember that driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. The government has the power to take away your driving privileges and has the ability to tell you in what manner they wish you to conduct yourself and what minimum standards they are willing to accept on public roads. If it was really "freedom of choice" I would be driving a Sherman tank to work just for kicks.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by mx73someday


This is precisely it, so many of you want to decide what is "safe" for everyone else. Enthusiasts can look out for themselves and decide what's safe. It's much the same as how a biker accepts the risks of driving without the safety features of a car, why aren't you guys crying about them?

RHD's and LHD's can get along on the same roads, they've been doing it for decades in Europe and in Japan without the need for a ban or restrictions. Japan has embraced both sides so much that they have double-sided toll booths.

Transport Canada isn't aiming to ban RHD cars, they are aiming to ban 15-24 year old cars from being imported to Canada, the majority of which are coming from the US. Some of you need to read about this topic before posting such ridiculous statements and arguments.

Actually the original post in this thread said the ban was for cars coming from places other than the US. That would mean that the only ones affected are cars brought in from overseas. I have no issue with cars being brought in from the US - in fact I have brought a couple of cars from down there. I had to make sure the cars met the Canadian standards though before they were legal (KM/H speed, Daytime running lights, etc.) which I had no problem doing.

[A790]

Originally posted by soloracer

You no more have the right to own and drive a Skyline than I do to own and drive a Sherman tank.

That's completely correct, so why don't you buy the bloody tank and quit bitching about it?

[cosmok]

Maybe the government has finally realized that we're importing all the beat to shit used cars that Japan simply doesn't want anymore. How many of you guys have actually been to Japan? They get their moneys worth in those short five years or 60,000km, then sell the vehicles as its too expensive to go through Sha'ken. If our government was thinking right they'd open it up to new cars under 5 years old and ban everything else so we don't get the abused junk coming over here.

[Mr.William]

Junk coming over ?? Maybe you should look a bit further than what a certain Calgary importer brings over to re-sell for $500.00 profit :thumbsup:

Regulate the people bringing them in and the problem is solved. Better yet don't let the importer be able to re-sell them for 12 months.

[bteeuwen240]

So, will this affect the importing of motors???

because i plan on getting a sr20 or ca18

[Loud-N-Clear]

I don't see why it would... They aren't affected by the 15 year law now.

[talonboi]

Originally posted by soloracer
b) trying to save a few bucks buying a cheap car from Japan instead of buying one here.

Whats wrong with saving a few bucks? its not like you didnt buy a car from the US to save a couple bucks yourself.

[jhmed]

Originally posted by soloracer


Actually the original post in this thread said the ban was for cars coming from places other than the US. That would mean that the only ones affected are cars brought in from overseas. I have no issue with cars being brought in from the US - in fact I have brought a couple of cars from down there. I had to make sure the cars met the Canadian standards though before they were legal (KM/H speed, Daytime running lights, etc.) which I had no problem doing.

That's right, the proposed change affects vehicles imported from countries other than the USA, but the independent 'study' that Trasnport Canada uses to base their decision on makes no attempt to differentiate (sp?) between imported vehicles from the US or the rest of the world... Actually, it makes no attempt to catagorize the vehicles imported at all. Skidoos, motorcycles, and personal watercraft are lumped in with Skylines, Landcruisers, and BMWs coming from Japan...

[jhmed]

http://www3.telus.net/skitrip/event.html

Car show in Edmonton for those who want to see some of the 'junk' TC wants to ban.

[downtime]

I am glad they have the law and hope it stays 15 years.We are able to buy cars that normally cost twice as much here and cars we couldnt get here.Competition is good and it has affected prices so we the consumers can benifit from it,i love it.

[JamesV888]

once again, you people are not listening. The government is reacting to a few powerful individual because these individual have other motives instead of promoting safety on the road.

They are trying to snuff out the competition and use safety as their banner.

You know who you are out there........

[JCX]

Originally posted by thinmyster
where do we go to show our support for the new rule :D:D:D

I agree, they'd get my vote. I look forward to the flow of these cars stopping. I can appreciate the "enthusiast" market, but most of the 15 year old imports I see running around would be more at home in a Japanese junkyard and are being driven maniacally. Blame the demographic, not the government.

Let's hope it goes through! :thumbsup:

[R-Audi]

I could be way off base here... but isnt one of the major reasons for doing this to keep more of the money/business for companies that pay to have their cars legalized here?

I think its fine to keep the 15 year rule, but there should be stricter regulations for their safety tests and inspections.

[T78Supra1]

There is only one thing that pisses me off about RHD


Is being behind You guys in Rush Hour Doing a Left Hand turn. There is No on coming traffic and the loser is just sitting there... I know this isn't his fault since he can't see and is trying to be safe. But Why do we all have to Suffer



Rant done :)

[jhmed]

Originally posted by R-Audi
I could be way off base here... but isnt one of the major reasons for doing this to keep more of the money/business for companies that pay to have their cars legalized here?

I think its fine to keep the 15 year rule, but there should be stricter regulations for their safety tests and inspections.

I agree with you, especially since most JDM vehicles when compared to the OOPI manual would not pass as is and require modification. Alberta and BC have notified the OOPI shops over a year ago about some of the points of interest on JDM vehicles, and so far in Alberta, these non-compliant vehicles are STILL being passed! Why? Simple: A failure in the OOPI system. And this isn't just an Alberta issue either, its from coast to coast. If they are that sloppy with an OOPI on a JDM, makes you wonder how sloppy they'll be with a 1990 Corolla from Halifax, doesn't it? It's the same inspection after all...

[jhmed]

Originally posted by T78Supra1
There is only one thing that pisses me off about RHD


Is being behind You guys in Rush Hour Doing a Left Hand turn. There is No on coming traffic and the loser is just sitting there... I know this isn't his fault since he can't see and is trying to be safe. But Why do we all have to Suffer



Rant done :)

The wife and I drove from Golden to Calgary yesterday (in a LHD), and saw just this type of impatience at it's most rampant. Excessive speeding thru construction zones, passing on double-solids, passing in front of oncoming traffic (ie: dangerously close), and passing where there quite frankly WASN'T any lanes to pass were some of the indiscretions witnessed... all because I didn't want to drive more than 110km/h in a 90 zone. And actually in the construction zone we were doing 90 in a 70, and being passed at speeds in excess of 110... I honestly believe if we drove at anything close to the speed limit we would have contributed to a collision because of other people's impatience - no bullshit... Some people risked life and limb to pass us less than 1km from a clearly marked Passing Lane. It was unbelivable.

We even caught up to some of them more impatient drivers when we were stopped for road construction.

I used to drive that highway a lot in the late 90's early 00's but I haven't been out that way since 03. I have never seen it like that, and I believe it was the worst I've seen ANYWHERE (travelled all over the the US and Canada) in my life. It wasn't just one or two people, it was EVERYONE.

People are in way too much of a hurry, usually to go nowhere. I am certainly not accusing YOU of those, and I'm not trying to single YOU out in any way... its just when I read that it reminded me very much of what we saw yesterday.

To make it relevant here, next time someone rants on a JDM vehicle/driver, just remember that there are far more LHD asshats out there than RHD ones ATM. Maybe we should be commending that RHD person for actually taking the extra minute to make sure he clears the intersection... it would cause you a lot more delays if he got into an accident. And I've seen a lot of LHD people doing the same (waiting) trying to see around Billy Bob Redneck in his motorhome -- err, I mean SUV.

[Mike w]

^^Amen to that.

[rsxtypes]

Originally posted by soloracer


Hmmm.....so they can tell you if you can or cannot drive but they can't tell you the kind of vehicle they will allow you to drive? Remember that driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. The government has the power to take away your driving privileges and has the ability to tell you in what manner they wish you to conduct yourself and what minimum standards they are willing to accept on public roads. If it was really about freedom of choice; I would be driving a Sherman tank to work just for kicks.

what does a tank have to do with a car or any vehicle allowed on the road. first of all, a tank takes up like...what 3 lanes, second of all you really are an idiot for even using it as an example! freedom of choice is what makes the world a better place (normally) it's not something that makes roads UNSAFE. people like these cars...end of story how do you not understand it. you can't get skylines here and they really are amazing cars. most of these cars that "you can get here" are expensive as hell and the ones you do find are in demand. so why is it that anyone has a problem with people importing a car?
if its the safety issue you are worried about...do you honestly think for one second that there are more rhd pieces on the road than american pieces. think about it man....! how many cars are on the road here and how many beaters do you see. they are everywhere and i have never seen a rhd beater...most of the rhd cars you see here are pimped and tight...and people put a lot of time and effort into making it look like that.
i own an acura that is made here, i dont even own a rhd but i would kill for a gtr...so why do you say that i shouldn't be able to drive it here?
and another thing...you said driving is not a right but a privilege and that the government decides what i can and cannot drive. thats so ridiculous man...yes there is a law already for 15 yo cars and that's how it should be...why the hell is it necessary to make it 25...no reason at all
such a hater you don't even belong on here....quit wasting your time with your unbelievable opinion, just leave PEACE!

[rsxtypes]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[thinmyster]

jhmed why are you taking it upon yourself to save every RHD vehicle? Most of your posts seem excessive. If RHD were safer than LHD everyone would be driving them. Your not going to change the law IF it ever changes. so who cares. Im sure landed cars will be fine.

Edit: in a few years the jdm cars will be on the same level mechanically with cnd cars (IIFFFF your using the argument that they are more mechanically sound). So then you have two equal cars one RHD and one LHD all things aside which one is safer??

I cant believe we're still arguing this point?

[T78Supra1]

....
The wife and I drove from Golden to Calgary yesterday (in a LHD), and saw just this type of impatience at it's most rampant. Excessive speeding thru construction zones, passing on double-solids, passing in front of oncoming traffic (ie: dangerously close), and passing where there quite frankly WASN'T any lanes to pass were some of the indiscretions witnessed... all because I didn't want to drive more than 110km/h in a 90 zone. And actually in the construction zone we were doing 90 in a 70, and being passed at speeds in excess of 110... I honestly believe if we drove at anything close to the speed limit we would have contributed to a collision because of other people's impatience - no bullshit... Some people risked life and limb to pass us less than 1km from a clearly marked Passing Lane. It was unbelivable.

Point Being if he Was in a LHD he would of not held up trafic like he did...It not our Fault that e can't see traffic because he is sitting on the Right hand side. If anything sitting on the wrong side doing a left hand turn is the real hazard

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by rsxtypes
:guns: thats for you soloracer suck a fat D***!

:rolleyes:

can we keep this conversation tactful?

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by rsxtypes

Blah Blah Blah

You just get out of High School too?

[rsxtypes]

no high school here, just frustrated with his opinion thats all!

if somebody says something ridiculous...(i.e - sherman tank) all i can give him is an immature ridiculous response

[Eleanor]

Although the gov't says its primary reasons for changing the rule are safety and fuel efficiency those points are total crap. Are you telling me that a CDM MR-2 is safer than a JDM MR-2? Are you saying that an SR20 is less fuel efficient then a '70 Dodge Challenger? The government is only doing this to protect the domestic car companies who realize that younger people are buying skylines and MR-2s instead of a focus or cobalt.

[R-Audi]

There are definitely safety issues... and Cdn car here has had to pass Cdn safety standards.. JDM cars have not. Although cars may look identical, you'll find quite often there are subtle changes that are made in order to pass. (ie. Audi TT, Cdn bumpers have 'tumors' on the front for frontal crash standards in Canada)



And yes.. keep it civilized RSXtypeS

[katana9x4]

The placement of the driver on the Left or Right side of the car has NOTHING to do with how safe the vehicle is, the DRIVER has to do with how safe the vehicle is.

There is RHD garbage trucks driving around and whatnot, do you think they would make them that way if it was a hazard? No they wouldn't... the driver simply just has to adjust and realize that his visibility during some situations isn't as great.

On a different point I think that if anything the vehicles being imported should have to be newer than 15 years old, because logically thinking, newer vehicles are safer, right?

The gov't has never been known for making sense though...

I hope they just roll over and give up on the matter like they are so good at doing, or perhaps implement tighter safety regulations on the vehicles coming into our country, not outright ban them.

The change to 25 years makes very little sense in my opinion, as older vehicles are generally less safe - but hey, I have no problems with seeing more old school JDM vehicles on the streets.

[JamesV888]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[jhmed]

Originally posted by thinmyster
jhmed why are you taking it upon yourself to save every RHD vehicle? Most of your posts seem excessive. If RHD were safer than LHD everyone would be driving them. Your not going to change the law IF it ever changes. so who cares. Im sure landed cars will be fine.

Edit: in a few years the jdm cars will be on the same level mechanically with cnd cars (IIFFFF your using the argument that they are more mechanically sound). So then you have two equal cars one RHD and one LHD all things aside which one is safer??

I cant believe we're still arguing this point?

OK, first, what I choose to do with my time on a message board is my own business. I am not personally attacking anyone, acting immature or cursing. I'm posting regarding something I feel strongly about, same as any of you would. If my posts are too long then simply don't read them and lose the opportunity to really know what is going on.

Secondly, to answer your question, I don't feel I have 'taken it upon myself to save every RHD vehicle'. Matter of fact, I have said many times that I don't give a rats ass if any more come into Canada ever. But, I feel that the true collectors and enthusiasts will be denied an opportunity to own a vehicle that they choose to enjoy. Simple as that. Just because my vehicle of choice happens to be a CR-X doesn't make my hobby any the less legit than someone with a RHD Landrover, Mini, or Triumph. As a collector myself it pisses me off that the government would just decide to effectively ban these vehicles because of errors at the Provincial level. We're being made to suffer because of a screw-up by the Provincial Government's inability to manage their OOPI technicians.

To clarify:

Do I agree that RHDs should be driven daily? No.

Do I believe that RHD driver position is unsafe? Yes and No. In the wrong hands any vehicle can be unsafe. We can all have an accident and at any time. I will let the facts speak for themselves in this case; nowhere in Europe, Japan or New ealand where both LHD and RHD vehicles share the road is this inter-mixing a cause for concern...

Do I believe that RHDs vehicles are less safe? Yup (but with a disclaimer). I believe that, when landed, some JDM vehicles are unsafe by Canadian standards. Once properly modified and repaired to meet safety standards, I see them as no more or less safe than Canadian vehicles of the same age/condition. Anything that cannot be properly modified doesn't get in. Problem is that they weren't inspected properly in the first place. Face it, the government OOPI system FAILED. Miserably. We're not talking about something completely foriegn (pardon the pun) to a technician... the steering wheel is on the other side... big deal. The vehicle still must be inspected according to the inspection manual. The manual is very easy to read. What really bugs me is that even AFTER AT&I released their bulletin last year, vehicles are STILL being passed OOPIs when they shouldn't. Where's the Provincial Government's accountability in all this?

As for your statement about landed cars being safe from future attack... you must be kidding! The whole purpose for this is to stop them from coming so that the government and/or insurance companies can focus on the ones that are already here and hwat to do about them. Remember, it was ICBC - a government-run insurance company that started this and took it to the Insurance Bureau of Canada as well.

An collector/enthusiast's car will almost always be kept in better shape than Joe Canadian's automobile since they are often seasonally driven or better maintained... DD RHDs will probably drop in condition dramatically just as you said - they are just as susceptible to the Canadian climate as Canadian cars are... so yes and no, I do use that position that they COULD be in better condition but I wouldn't use that as an argument per se.

Point blank, I think they should be regulated somehow (tougher inspections?) but not by changing the 15 year old rule.

[JamesV888]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[Aleks]

Does anyone know what the Japanese law is when it comes to importing USDM cars over?

[jhmed]

Originally posted by R-Audi
There are definitely safety issues... and Cdn car here has had to pass Cdn safety standards.. JDM cars have not. Although cars may look identical, you'll find quite often there are subtle changes that are made in order to pass. (ie. Audi TT, Cdn bumpers have 'tumors' on the front for frontal crash standards in Canada)


Absolutely true... The only real advantage to importing a car with a Canadian equivalent is that it is often easier to make them compliant.

In my case, I am replacing the doors, rebars, fuel filler neck, tail lights and corner markers from a Canadian CRX to make it happen.

[jhmed]

Originally posted by Aleks
Does anyone know what the Japanese law is when it comes to importing USDM cars over?

I don't know all the specifics but they are allowed to be there. I have seen pics of Corvettes and other 'domestics' from Japan... Looked kinda out of place... LOL

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by R-Audi
There are definitely safety issues... and Cdn car here has had to pass Cdn safety standards.. JDM cars have not. Although cars may look identical, you'll find quite often there are subtle changes that are made in order to pass. (ie. Audi TT, Cdn bumpers have 'tumors' on the front for frontal crash standards in Canada)

Even with that, the driver of the JDM car is the one putting himself (or herself) at risk, not other people. And if they don't know that well then that's just Darwin at work. Everyone knows he doesn't get the opportunities he needs anymore.

[forbiddenera]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[forbiddenera]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[Eleanor]

^easy che i'm sure the people who feel really strongly about it will be doing something. i'm pretty sure this isn't at the top of the gov't to do list.

[JAYMEZ]

Forbiddenera, if you do another all cap locks and swearing post your outa here.

[JamesV888]

Originally posted by jhmed


OK, first, what I choose to do with my time on a message board is my own business. I am not personally attacking anyone, acting immature or cursing. I'm posting regarding something I feel strongly about, same as any of you would. If my posts are too long then simply don't read them and lose the opportunity to really know what is going on.

Secondly, to answer your question, I don't feel I have 'taken it upon myself to save every RHD vehicle'. Matter of fact, I have said many times that I don't give a rats ass if any more come into Canada ever. But, I feel that the true collectors and enthusiasts will be denied an opportunity to own a vehicle that they choose to enjoy. Simple as that. Just because my vehicle of choice happens to be a CR-X doesn't make my hobby any the less legit than someone with a RHD Landrover, Mini, or Triumph. As a collector myself it pisses me off that the government would just decide to effectively ban these vehicles because of errors at the Provincial level. We're being made to suffer because of a screw-up by the Provincial Government's inability to manage their OOPI technicians.

To clarify:

Do I agree that RHDs should be driven daily? No.

Do I believe that RHD driver position is unsafe? Yes and No. In the wrong hands any vehicle can be unsafe. We can all have an accident and at any time. I will let the facts speak for themselves in this case; nowhere in Europe, Japan or New ealand where both LHD and RHD vehicles share the road is this inter-mixing a cause for concern...

Do I believe that RHDs vehicles are less safe? Yup (but with a disclaimer). I believe that, when landed, some JDM vehicles are unsafe by Canadian standards. Once properly modified and repaired to meet safety standards, I see them as no more or less safe than Canadian vehicles of the same age/condition. Anything that cannot be properly modified doesn't get in. Problem is that they weren't inspected properly in the first place. Face it, the government OOPI system FAILED. Miserably. We're not talking about something completely foriegn (pardon the pun) to a technician... the steering wheel is on the other side... big deal. The vehicle still must be inspected according to the inspection manual. The manual is very easy to read. What really bugs me is that even AFTER AT&I released their bulletin last year, vehicles are STILL being passed OOPIs when they shouldn't. Where's the Provincial Government's accountability in all this?

As for your statement about landed cars being safe from future attack... you must be kidding! The whole purpose for this is to stop them from coming so that the government and/or insurance companies can focus on the ones that are already here and hwat to do about them. Remember, it was ICBC - a government-run insurance company that started this and took it to the Insurance Bureau of Canada as well.

An collector/enthusiast's car will almost always be kept in better shape than Joe Canadian's automobile since they are often seasonally driven or better maintained... DD RHDs will probably drop in condition dramatically just as you said - they are just as susceptible to the Canadian climate as Canadian cars are... so yes and no, I do use that position that they COULD be in better condition but I wouldn't use that as an argument per se.

Point blank, I think they should be regulated somehow (tougher inspections?) but not by changing the 15 year old rule.

yes, the biggest problem is that shop that perform out of province Inspection have different standard across the country. some are very strick and most are pretty lax.
It is impossible to police them all but they should all be aware that if any of the vehicle pass inspection and then get into a big accident involving death, millions of dollars in lawsuit and the problem is traced back to the shop doing the inspection.....
In the end, if they were told that they are liable, they might do a better job of safety inspection.

[jhmed]

Originally posted by JamesV888
yes, the biggest problem is that shop that perform out of province Inspection have different standard across the country. some are very strick and most are pretty lax.
It is impossible to police them all.

Perhaps difficult, but not impossible.

Since it is an issue that stretches from coast to coast, then perhaps Transport Canada should focus some attention in that area.

I know that it is more of a Provincial matter, and TC is Federal, but since this does affect the whole country because JDMs (and other imports) are in every province, and this issue is front and center in response to a Province's request to help them solve their own problems, and since this proposed rule change affects all Canadian's right to own or collect a vehicle they find 'collectible' then the mis-handling of OOPIs should be examined by TC...

What's to stop them from overlooking deficiencies in Canadian vehicles as well? What is the true cost in lives and injuries to Canadians because of this? It's easy to say "Well, that was working when I looked at it..." and how can you dispute an "expert"?

What about mandatory inspections of all vehicles on Canadian roads? Those would surely benefit the safety of Canadians on the road.

EDIT: And to forbiddenera (sp?): everything I've been saying here has been drafted in both a 7 page letter to Transport Canada, and then broken down issue by issue into 5 smaller separate letters sent to TC. And I cc'd a whole boatload of gov't officials at both the Provincial and Federal levels, and some media outlets... people are doing their part. :D