Legal bumper height in BC

[Green1]

I have to question your assertion that SUVs are station wagons...

The SUV craze was created by the manufacturers specifically to allow them to take advantage of legal loopholes in both fuel effficiency and safety requirments for vehicles. Trucks had (and still have) weaker requirments in both categories. SUVs being classed as cars never happened until the past couple of years when "crossover" vehicles first appeared.

For proof take a look at any early 1990s north american SUV or mini-van, you will notice they don't have a third brake light, even though all cars were legally required to have them after 1989(light trucks weren't required to have them until 1997)

Neither SUVs nor mini-vans have ever been classed as a car, or station wagon from a legal sense.

[jessef]

Neither SUVs nor mini-vans have ever been classed as a car, or station wagon from a legal sense.

Our 84, 89, 95 and 98 Jeep Cherokee's have all been classified as 'passenger station wagon' when insuring.

Our 92 Montero, 91 Pajero, 92 Pajero and both Delica's have all been classified as 'passenger station wagon' when insuring.

My sister's mid-90's Chezy Blazer and Toyota 4runner have all been classified as 'passenger station wagon' when insuring.

All of the above have the same body style/vehicle description as my scanned insurance Delica papers below.

In contrast, my Toyota pickup truck was classified as 'passenger light truck' when insuring.

All have been registered and insured in BC.

[Green1]

Insurance is irrelevant to legal vehicle status for the purposes of the motor vehicle act including bumper heights, and other safety equipment.

SUVs and mini-vans have never legally been anything other than light trucks. It is their whole reason for being.

On a side-note, station wagon isn't a legal classification of vehicle from the stand point of the motor vehicle act, it is either a moped, motorcycle, car, light truck, truck, or bus.

As I said, look at any early 90's SUV or mini-van, note the absence of the 3rd brake light that was required on all cars manufactured during that time frame.

[jessef]

Insurance is irrelevant to legal vehicle status for the purposes of the motor vehicle act including bumper heights, and other safety equipment.

SUVs and mini-vans have never legally been anything other than light trucks. It is their whole reason for being.

On a side-note, station wagon isn't a legal classification of vehicle from the stand point of the motor vehicle act, it is either a moped, motorcycle, car, light truck, truck, or bus.

As I said, look at any early 90's SUV or mini-van, note the absence of the 3rd brake light that was required on all cars manufactured during that time frame.

And one thing to note is that SUV's are not trucks. They are rated as passenger vehicles and would have to follow the rules for cars. That is why they have car plates and not truck plates. Same goes for Delica's.

I got this from 2 cops. I'll confirm with MVA if I can and post back.

EDITED.

You are a truck, so you go by the truck regs. ICBC is the one calling your truck a car, which is for insurance purposes only.

This is from a retired MVA inspector. Will do more research... :)

[Green1]

well.. those 2 cops are wrong. but they aren't the first... they are however probably among those pulling over 1991 Delicas for missing 3rd brake lights, despite the fact that no north american mini-van or SUV came standard with one during the same time frame (this is just the most obvious difference, there are many more as well)

[mararmeisto]

After taking a look around the parking lot outside my window, and staring intently at some of the vehicles I was passing on my way in to work, I would say there are a number of SUV/cross-over vehicles that are going to have a difficult time passing this requirement: Jeep Cherokee, GMC Jimmy, there was a Nissan, a Hyundai and a couple of others that have very high bumpers. I think there might be something to Green1's comments in that the car companies took advantage of the legal lingo of the MVA.

This is why NAMVs had such a poor crash rating when they first came out because they were built on truck frames (which made them 'trucks') which didn't have the same crash requirements as cars. It was only after a bunch of soccer moms got mangled that the industry started to make changes. Again, the thinking is if you crash your vehicle into another, it's supposed to be car-on-car or truck-on-truck.

Take a look at some of the crash tests: you don't see a subcompact get hit with the same sled used for trucks (it's much lower and smaller). The SMART car gets the best crash rating possible (in the States) because they didn't run over it with a tractor-trailer unit, but does anyone really believe someone in the real world would walk away unscathed from that kind of interaction?

This looks like another case where Johnny Law had a bad cup of coffee that morning and wanted to make an issue with someone. My question would be: if your vehicle passes the inspection with no problems, can you reclaim the cost of the inspection? Seems only fair for those of us who do comply with the regulations.

I can't count how many vehicles 'require' an inspection, but obviously their driver has no idea where to find an inspector were they ever to be directed so. But I digress.

[jessef]

My question would be: if your vehicle passes the inspection with no problems, can you reclaim the cost of the inspection? Seems only fair for those of us who do comply with the regulations.

Unfortunately no. But you can complain.

the officer doesn't need to prove anything to send you for a VI. All the officer needs is a suspicion that something's not quite right.

A friend of mine went through 7 VI's in one year with his lifted Toyota 4runner and passed every time. Didn't have to change anything.

It was just a visual magnet on the street.

[mararmeisto]

My question would be: if your vehicle passes the inspection with no problems, can you reclaim the cost of the inspection? Seems only fair for those of us who do comply with the regulations.

Unfortunately no. But you can complain.

the officer doesn't need to prove anything to send you for a VI. All the officer needs is a suspicion that something's not quite right.

A friend of mine went through 7 VI's in one year with his lifted Toyota 4runner and passed every time. Didn't have to change anything.

It was just a visual magnet on the street.

There's got to be some sort of recourse for the owner - that's just ludicrous! That's nearly a 1000$ worth of inspections, for nothing.

[jessef]

Yep. He complained and filed harassment charges but nothing came of it.

Different venues you can take I'm assuming. Bad luck and a stupidly jacked up truck attention getter will do the trick.

[Erebus]

My delica is registered in Alberta as a truck, to help avoid the centre brake light issue, even though it has one.

The silly think about bumpers is that the back ones are higher than the front ones. But one of the usual collisions is rear end, where both vehicles are braking, which lowers the front and raises the rear. So the already different height gets worse.

If you look at a newer Ford F350 heavy duty pickup, what looks like the bumper is not the legal bumper. Under the lower trim is a heavy steel beam that is the actual bumper. That way it meets the height requirements, but still "looks good".

[FalcoColumbarius]

The silly think about bumpers is that the back ones are higher than the front ones. But one of the usual collisions is rear end, where both vehicles are braking, which lowers the front and raises the rear. So the already different height gets worse.

That sounds kind of kinky.

Jessie, further down that page is a description of what the vehicle does. On mine it mentions a number of things like "limo" "transport".... But come on..... look at them..... they're trucks, even if I do call mine a ship ~ and they have a few things in common with aeroplanes, too.

[Erebus]

Jessie, further down that page is a description of what the vehicle does. On mine it mentions a number of things like "limo" "transport".... But come on..... look at them..... they're trucks, even if I do call mine a ship ~ and they have a few things in common with aeroplanes, too.[/color]

Mitsubishi make aeroplanes, they just forgot the wings on this one

Another thing to show that the SUVs etc were trucks -- look at an old Dodge Caravan minivan; the first ones didn't even need headrests, because they were classed as trucks by the manufacturer, even though they were on a modified K-car chassis.

My 1982 Subaru was a 4WD, so classed as "multipurpose vehicle" and didn't need the useful 5 km bumpers like the 2WD Subarus did. My bumpers were just sheet metal, no strength at all, something I proved by crumpling it

[jessef]

Confirmed.

Light truck category.

29.5" inches from level ground to bottom of bumper and 55'' inches to the center of the headlights from level ground.

I still have 6 inches to go up.