Quebec RHD Ban

[mararmeisto]

This is what I wrote to Kate (and also sent to my MP, Keith Martin). I'll be sure to post her response, should she send one...

Ms. Poirier:

Having recently been presented a copy of CADA's missive on RHD vehicles, I feel compelled to point out a number of errors. Also, keep in mind, that since you've forwarded this pamphlet's contents to our Members of Parliament, I'll be forwarding this email to my MP as well.

I will be countering the points in the pamphlet in order, as follows:

First: there is no "loop-hole" particular to RHD vehicles in the import regulations "allowing" these vehicles into Canada. The regulation simply states that ANY vehicle can be imported as long as it is more than 15 years old to the month of manufacture. There is absolutely no reference to the handedness of the vehicle.

Second: the Swedish changed on which side of the road they drove more for the reasons of economics than for reasons of safety. As an emerging car manufacturer selling their product to countries which drove on the right, and having a relatively small domestic market, it no longer made sense to produce LHD vehicles in greater numbers for export and RHD vehicles for domestic sales.

Third: the benefit of sitting on the left-side of the vehicle in order to better see oncoming traffic has been demonstrably proven to be less safe when involved in a head-on collision - ask any front passenger who was in a head-on collision. When one considers that most head-on collisions are left-side-front-corner-to-left-side-front-corner, it doesn't take a scientist to determine that it would be safer to have the driver on the right-side of the vehicle.

Fourth! (and this one really grates on me): imported vehicles are NOT exempt from the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. Our vehicles must meet the regulations of the year in which they were manufactured. My 1990 Mitsubishi Delica does not require a Centre High Mount Stop Light, while the recently available 1994 models do require one. Some of us have had to have the headlights changed, extra marker lights added, and a functional brake/clutch release mechanism installed, all as required.

Fifth: Transport regulations do not dictate which side of the vehicle the driver is to be positioned. While the regulations do indicate that the vehicle is to be driven to the right-side of the highway, there is absolutely no requirement for where the driver must sit. The only reference to RHD vehicles is to require "electrical or mechanical signaling devices" for a driver on the right (presumably because they would not be effectively seen should they try to use hand signals). What about centre-seated drivers, like backhoes, and tractors, and motorcycles? Their seating position is not clearly identified in the transport regulations, should we move those operators over to the left side or eliminate those vehicles?

Six: the pamphlet indicates that the 15-year rule was to allow classic and collector cars into the country in "low numbers" and in the chart on that very same page, the number of "likely RHD" vehicles entering Canada in 2007 is listed as only 1934 - what is the crisis? Your organization is worried about 1900 cars? Wow, you guys are in deeper trouble than is being let on in the media. And the statement "likely RHD": you don't even know if the vehicle is RHD? What is the basis for the speculation to identify it as RHD?

Seventh: "The negative impacts of RHD vehicles are demonstrated by important government studies." Which studies? Are the MPs so intimately knowledgeable of these studies that CADA doesn't even need to reference them? I have a statement for you: "Car dealers are hucksters just trying to get you to buy a vehicle you don't really want." A completely unsubstantiated statement which you can not refute nor I support.

Eighth: "The risks associated with RHD vehicles are recognized worldwide." Has CADA consulted with the Japanese on this one? Anybody called England recently? What about Australia, all the way at the bottom of the world? Do any of these countries know how dangerous RHD vehicles are? Again, another unsupportable statement used more for shock value than any valid reason.

Ninth: while ALL the vehicles are being imported under the 15-year rule are, well, 15 years old, what data do you have that a 15-year-old RHD is more of a polluter than a 15-year-old domestic vehicle. This is the stand your paper has taken, would you please indicate how your organization has made this determination. Am I to understand that CADA would be comfortable with my purchase of a domestic vehicle that spewed a cloud of blue smoke that would put a smelting plant to shame? I drive past a couple of those every day in my diesel van, and simply put, I defy you to say my van is less clean than those vehicles.

AND TENTH (and this one is definitely my favourite): so the argument goes, "15-year-old vehicles are unsafe, so we should modify the import rules to only allow for 25-year-old cars to enter the country." Am I missing something? Have vehicles gotten less safe with the passage of time? Are older cars more safe than newer cars? This would seem to be the basis for the argument CADA is making. If you're going to use the safety argument, the import restrictions should be lessened to something like 5 years, that way we would be able to import vehicles that are more closely aligned to our current safety requirements. And what makes an 1994 Honda from the USA more safe than the same model year from Japan? Why are ALL models of Honda on the RIV? Does CADA have a problem with the RIV, and if not, why not?

I am more than willing to further correspond with you, especially in anticipation to read your replies to my points. Please contact me at the email provided.

J. Paul Lang
Proud driver of a 1990 Mitsubishi Delica

[FalcoColumbarius]

Bravo!

By the way, what about Canada Post, recycling, street cleaning and garbage trucks? Not to mention driver training vehicles.

Falco.

[MardyDelica]

Hi, paul,
you got a good point.very good indeed i Am impress. this is how she should look at it before she address , publish this false & bias accusation.
will give prime sample of what happen to me hit in back of my delica while park safety infront of my house.
last year when there is snow before christmas. a LHD i mean LHD 2005 toyota highlander hit the back of my van while it park infornt of my house . i park it nicely & safe. all of a sudden this highlander again LHD car is running too fast in the snow that he cannot stop the vehicle to avoid hitting the other car infront of himtraveling the same direction towards south with bald tire.
so he hit the back of my delica hard need to change rear bumper & tailgate complete. if he is driving RHD vehicle maybe he can see me to avoid it as he can me my van beside it & could react quickly to avoid this accident. totally 100 % of his fault on it. as my delica is not running just park in the road with no driver on it. he miscalculated it. again it goes to our insurance again cause by a owner who own LHD north american spec. does it make it safe or have sense that LHD is also not safe . so the final conclusion on this is depend on the driver how he drive either RHD or LHD. as long as he knows how to drive.even hes driving LHD but he dont know how to drive its a hazard for this person to be in a public road. so need to educate this person again.if he need too.
so the result is that its up to the driver to learn how to drive the proper way whether he drives LHD or RHD, it wont makes difference. its up to the driver how experience he or she when it comes to driving a vehicle in a public road.
she should do this research first before she do publish this article. she should be fair to us. cannot say that false accusation.
the best way is to contact us Delica .ca member & other organization ask this question before doing a publish on this bias accusation regarding RHD vehicle. shes just probably jealous about our delica or other RHD vehicle.
also to add, does she know that canada is under english british commonweath country. driving a RHD vehicles.this country Canada before drived RHD before they change to LHD cause of the american. we are not american with LHD vehicle that need to follow them. we are independent country & just want to have our right & freedom what people want. thats why canada is wonderful country to live in.
thats why i choose canada to live with my family. maybe see need to know about this before she makes a comment on this.
Cheers;

[marsgal42]

Bravo!

Not only do our vehicles have to meet appropriate specs for lighting and stuff for their model year, in jurisdictions where it matters they must also meet exhaust emissions specs, like everything else on the road.

This is not an issue: Gumdrop passed AirCare last year by a preposterous margin.

...laura

[pedro]

Canada post and training...........(haha) , please spare me!!!! what training . The only thing you need to drive the old and beat up RHD truck is a teat drive with the canada post instructor! But there is no specific training done about the RHD aspect of it.

And I would love to work out of my van rather than these old S!*T box anyday( none of them that I drove so far would pass inspection, EVER!!!).

my 2 cents Pedro

[marsgal42]

This has finally made on to the CBC's web site (look under CBC Montreal), and my comment is:

This is what happens when people get desperate: the car dealers are furiously lobbying the government, in the mistaken belief that banning a tiny fraction of the vehicles on the road will somehow cause people to flock to dealerships full of vehicles that people don't want, or, in the current economic climate, cannot afford. No amount of propaganda will change this fact.

Yes, I do drive an RHD import, a Mitsubishi Delica. I was looking for a vehicle with certain features, and ended up choosing between the Delica and a Subaru Outback. The visibility is excellent, making driving position a total non-issue. My Mom figured it out in 30 seconds and always takes my Delica for a spin when I visit.

My own feeling is that CADA aren't going to get much traction with their smear campaign. People think my van is neat. They ask what it's like to drive. They ask where they can get one. They recognize it for what it is: a well-equipped, comfortable, quality vehicle, at a good price. If the car dealers cannot compete with this, a 15 year old Japanese used car, they have serious problems. People see the car dealers as the bullies they are, the last desperate action of a dying industry.

I take particular exception to CADA's characterization as the 15 year old import law as a "loophole", BTW. It's the way the law is written.

The pollution argument is equally nonsensical : in Greater Vancouver all vehicles require an exhaust emissions test, and there is no allowance for imports. You must meet the specs for the model year of your vehicle (1992, in my case). Mine does, easily.

...laura

[MardyDelica]

good show laura,
those people are jealous as they cannot sell there luxury & expensive car locally. most of them bring car here in north america is the car that would easy to break down & can could go to the shop all the time spending money for repair. this is there business.to make more money.
they dont want competition they want monopoly.cannot be jealous on a 15yrs old car which is much better shape than 4 yr old car locally which is LHD. they dont think that jap spec vehicle has better spec in emision control than some of the local car. why dont thery bring those diesel cars available in europe & asia.
same brand ford , Gm or chrysler. back home in the phils. we got mostly diesel, toyota , mitsubishi or nissan big competition. rare on gas.
diesel could be cleaner now than before so the polution should not be here as what they.
they have ford range, explorer diesel available brand new in asia, have dodge caravan in nietherland with diesel engine. have ford focus & cube van 4 cyl diesel in england & europe. why dont they bring those cars here & compete see what people want. make then a choice even special order. then they wont see any RHD vehicle from japan.
make it 5 yr old import car allowed from other country inspect the vehicle safety & pass good. no need to say anymore its a 15 yrs old car. that they complaine.
cheers;

[Artacoma]

Excellent well written letters people!!!!
I'm now inspired to write my MP aswell

Thanks

[elbosque]

Great letters everyone. Don't forget to write your MLAs as well. Maybe even consider submitting an Op Ed to your community newspaper. They are always looking for short well written Op Ed articles to fill empty spaces.

John

[phunka]

This is to acknowledge that we have received your comments and that they will be filed for analysis.
I just got this reply, thought I'd share it.

++++++++++++++
I also want to add precision to the content of your communication. RHD vehicles are not banned and we haven't made any accusation, but before the number of right-hand drive vehicles rises too high, the Minister of Transport decided to temporarily interrupt their arrival on Quebec's road network to allow the SAAQ time to examine the situation and make recommendations. RHD vehicles registered before April 29, still have access to our public roads.



Finally, If you want the government to go back to square one once the 180 days are up, you should inform us of the reasons why you think the government is erring and why right-hand drive vehicles are as safe as you contend.

Regards,


Mxxx Bxxx
Service de l'ingénierie des véhicules

[marsgal42]

Finally, If you want the government to go back to square one once the 180 days are up, you should inform us of the reasons why you think the government is erring and why right-hand drive vehicles are as safe as you contend.

Oh. I see. Guilty until proven innocent. Thanks.

...laura

[MardyDelica]

wow, well i think he have not driven any right hand drive. what makes he think the LHD is safe. even you drive LHD but he or she dont know how to drive its always a hazard to the public. it depends on the driver capability. this is canada as we have a freedom & right to choose which car we want whether its RHD & LHD, the government make money also for the duties & tax for all this RHD vehicle. we pay our tax from this RHD vehicle to government & they make money on this.
so the result is just a freedom of choice of any individual which car he want to drive RHD or LHD ,as long as the vehicle is in good mechanical condition. not like the local LHD vehicle that has rotten rusty chassis, suspension & body starting to fall apart, but still in a public road because it a LHD vehicle. how many vehicle in quebec or ontario that is in there public road waiting to fall apart the suspension & chassis cause by rust from salt they put in the road.
just a though,
Cheers;
Mardy

[mararmeisto]

Finally, If you want the government to go back to square one once the 180 days are up, you should inform us of the reasons why you think the government is erring and why right-hand drive vehicles are as safe as you contend.

Oh. I see. Guilty until proven innocent. Thanks.

...laura

That's civil law for you: "so it is written, so it shall be". And yes, if you're contrary to the law, then you're wrong, and it's pretty much end of story.

[marsgal42]

A small request for our Quebec friends: when you post emails and other communications, please post the French originals as well as any translations you may prepare.

We all know translation is not an exact science, and I'd like to see the exact words and nuances coming from the government. It may make a difference some day.

...laura

[josh]

Has any quebec delica owner thought about a lawsuit? Unlike BC, dont you need to get a government inspection every time you sell a vehicle? (I know it was that way in ontario) Meaning that you can still own a grandfathered vehicle, but it can never be sold. That sounds like the makings of a good lawsuit to me. It might be a good way to threaten the government... imagine the lawsuit if it hits the rest of canada!

Josh