…are you making yours?
TC has issued a notice on their website about the 15 to 25 year change.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/15yearrule.htm
The Canada Gazette will be released on May 17, 2007, giving us only 75 days from then to convince them otherwise.
you can email them 15YearRule@tc.gc.ca of fill out the online form : http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/contact-us.htm
but don’t just sit there!
PM’d!!!
-1
Anybody else read the “Study on the Effect of Vehicle Age and the Importation of Vehicles 15 Years and Older on the Number of Fatalities, Serious Injuries and Collisions in Canada” that page is referencing?
Of the 40,144 vehicles imported into canada between 2000 and 2004, 80 of them have been involved in collisions resulting in one serious injury and 1 fatality. Of these 80 collisions, three (3) involved mechanical failure. According to the study it is “astonishing that three of these collisions involved mechanical failure.”
Let’s work this out: 3 cars out of 40,144 works out to roughly 0.00007473%. So statistically, that is how likely an imported vehicle is to have a collision because of mechanical failure.
Now let’s compare that to another statistic from the same study: Between 2000 and 2003 cars 15 years and older made up 1.06% of vehicles involved in collisions due to mechanical failure.
Let’s compare these two figures. Is it just me, or is there a HUGE difference? Doesn’t this mean that imported vehicles are FAR, FAR less likely to have a mechanical failure than their domestic counterparts? So why are these cars being called mechanically unsound?
Is there anyway to get information like this to the people that need to read it?
Yeah i like how they’re focusing on any little negative aspect they can pull out, and not the whole picture.
I haven’t been following this too closely the past little while but i was hoping to get an r33 when they’re available. . .Is this another rumor or is this actually legit?
EDIT k, i followed through that stuff. . .thx for the notice dude!
Seems to me that the government/auto corporations are afraid of the competition. Mid-90’s was a prime time for import vehicles, both in performance and practicality.
Where is that article did you read that it will go into the Gazette on May 17th ?
It is not RHD/JDM vehicles fault that they were not mecanically sound, its the mechanics fault. That whole argument has nothing to do with the fact they are imported, its that they are not inspected properly.
so what is going to happen to all the 40000 + vehicles already imported that will not meet 25y requirment? Garaged for next 8-9years?
Everything that is already in can’t be touched. That can’t make the law retroactive and take cars away from people who already bought them legally.
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.
Quote from article:
“which is to promote the safety of the travelling public by requiring that all imported vehicles less than 25 years old be compliant or capable of being made compliant with CMVSS.”
Does this mean there is a way to make vehicles less than 25 years old compliant?
they’re referring to cars brought up from the states, which will still be able to import.
i believe that proposal on the site will go into the Gazette, or something similar. they’re going to attempt at all costs to make imported vehicles look bad.
HMM Inusurance will not go up. “unsafe” means you can’t register it in Canada not insure it . Some compaies insure kit cars, drag cars…anything you have financial interest in can be insured (just gotta find the right company). On the other hand if its unsafe or non street legal you will never get a plate for it.
Its political, goverment always wins, unless you guys pull Tiananmen Square at the leg grounds.
Meanwhile i think as an investment i will import a few gtr’s and hold on for them for a few years ahah.
In Toronto they had a weekend blitz, pulling over modified imports (mostly sube’s from what i read), and making them re-inspect the car. a lot of vehicles failed and weren’t allowed back on the road. now, if they did that everywhere targeting RHD’s, many of us would be garaging our cars.
They do this in ausi all the time. If you have a hole drilled in your car that’s not factory you would be sent in for inspection. Which also means no FMIC’s on GTS-T’s. EVERY JDM car has something that doesn’t comply but this is to say that EVERY car that’s not JDM wouldnt be the same. Like how many 15 year old cars comply with the CMVSS 100% anyways.
Now what they should do in my opinion is let the importers buy so called bonds from the government and set up compliance companies to comply the cars to CMVSS before re sale. This will allow more jobs and let the companies that are actually into this market a chance to stay a float and have safer cars on our roads. One draw back would be prices would shoot way up. That could also cause the market to drop too so who’s to say if it would work in Canada.
This is what they did in ausi and registered importers were allowed to purchase these bonds allowing them to import a certain amount of skylines or Supras or whatever.
A friend of mine ran a compliance company in ausi and they were changing everything from baby bolsters on the rear deck for the back seat to the “objects are closer than they appear” glass in the side mirrors along with duzzons of other BS but this compliance went on for years!!!
complete BS
Who is “they”? The government doesn’t control the private insurance companies. Even in provinces with public insurance, I could not see that happening. Spreading fear is a waste of time. Stick to the facts.
Wawanissan insurance wont cover RHD cars anymore for full coverage and fire and theft. They just droped my brothers full coverage and fire and thefts. I can see them in the next year not insuring them anymore. Thats what they are trying to do.
I love how they are so focused on the cars involved in these colisions and not the drivers. :roll: Yes, lets make our cars safer, but does that solve the problem with so many colisions happening every day, no it does not.
Another thing, how are the 15+ year old domestic vehicles any safer if 15 years ago they did not need to meet the same standards as today’s cars.
Some of the 15+ year old domestic cars are rusted out buckets of s*** that should have been junked years ago and the imported vehicles are the unsafe ones? WTF.
Or how about the fact that new cars cost way more than what they cost for example in US, how is everyone suppose to afford these new “safe” cars.
To finish this little rant I want to say this. I believe that they will make it a 25yr rule because that is what they want. No one gives a s*** about what we want, they just make it look like they care and try to help us and keep us safe.
So :finga: the government, it’s like asking a tree to move.
yeah… i agree, i think they’re targeting a demographic of driver, (same reason they put the no-enlarged-muffler-tip act into effect) not the cars themselves. they’re “cracking down.” if the 18-30 aged RHD people start buying cheap kit cars, they’ll probably ban those too . :lol: