Manitoba Delica Drivers--can we unite?

[winnipeg sue]

Hello. I posted a while back about Manitoba Public Insurance refusing to accept my E13 lights. They have pulled my vehicle off the road, and everyone I've talked to about getting a new safety says the same thing: They are telling garages not to safety right-side drive vehicles. Brandelica posted about this problem as well.
Today, MPI (the Vehicle Inspection Branch) told my mechanic that I am not the only one who has been pulled off the road and can't find a different kind of lights. These lights exceed Manitoba standards but because they don't have a DOT or SAE stamp on them, they're using this as an excuse to get them off the road because, they have said, THEY DON'T want them on the road. As near as I can tell, this is about a 2-person office, and they get to decide.
I have a lawyer. Anybody want to join me in fighting this?
Thanks,
Susan

[FalcoColumbarius]

Have you talked to your lawyer about this? What does s/he say regarding this situation and your rights?

[jessef]

Susan,

You don't need a lawyer.

One thing you can ask them is why there are Mercedes and Smart Car vehicles on the road in Manitoba. They have E-code headlights.

I'd love to hear what they tell you when you ask them that question.

They are shafting you and it's not right. What they are doing is ILLEGAL.

If they want 'proof', then show them this and tell them to look up the regulations 109.1(a)(ii) and 108(5)(ii) as below. This is Canada-wide and not province specific. If they want someone of 'authority' to talk to, tell them to call CVSE's technical standards guy Brian Kangas.

Print this out below and take it to them -

Official from Transport Canada website :

Headlamps are "E-coded" (for ECE, marked on lamps) and is also marked "H4", thus would comply with Transport Canada Motor Vehicle Regulations as stated in Standard 108.1(a)(ii)

All other exterior lamps are also "E-coded" as above, and would comply with Transport Canada Motor Vehicle Regulations as stated in Standard 108(5)(ii).

What it means :

DOT Compliance: European nations, Australia, Japan, South Africa, and Canada recognize forward illumination lamp ECE (also called "e-code") compliance as certifiable for road use. (By contrast the US standard is SAE). This is outlined in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, by which the CMVSS are based. The authority to use E code headlamps is designate under Sec 108.1 sub (1) sub (a) with subsections i thru v defining which bulbs are compliant, with ECE Regulation No. 20 being the subsection of interest relevant to H4 bulbs, the most commonly used for conversions.

As an example, headlights made for Germany are E1 coded and made for lhd, thus acceptable. On the other hand, headlights made for UK are E11 coded, and made for rhd, thus unacceptable.
FYI, here are the specific codes for each ECE country;

E1 Germany
E2 France
E3 Italy
E4 Netherlands
E5 Sweden
E6 Belgium
E7 Hungary
E8 Czech Republic
E9 Spain
E10 Yugoslavia
E11 United Kingdom
E12 Austria
E13 Luxembourg
E14 Switzerland
E15 Norway
E16 Finland
E17 Denmark
E18 Romania
E19 Poland
E20 Portugal
E21 Russian Federation
E22 Greece
E23 Ireland
E24 Croatia
E25 Slovenia
E26 Slovakia

[Jensen]

Don't know if it'll help but you're going to need this, download the PDF

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulation ... iv-108.htm

and this

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulation ... -108.1.htm

Here is the full 108 standard, look through sections 5 and 7, there's a lot there.

That's it for federal regulations, but this is where you get the rub

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/2002/109.pdf

The regulations in your province say

"reject if

Any lamp fails to illuminate and any lamp of reflector is missing, broken, cracked, insecurely mounted or does not meet CMVSS, DOT or SAE standards and be so labelled and meet requirements as set out in this section."

That's in section 6 of the Highway Traffic Act. So it seems like they're trying to fail you based on the DOT and SAE part alone. If you read through the CMVSS standards (the PDF) you'll find the actual testing standards a lamp manufacturer must pass in order to be accepted. Your E13 standards are most likely high enough, however the people in your Manitoba office won't know that. Soooooo... one way around this is to have them independently tested at a lab, then show the results, as well as the CMVSS standards to the person at the office you're dealing with and have them ok the particular brand of light you have in your vehicle. (I'm sure the lamp manufacturer would love you for it, especially because that kind of testing and getting an engineer to sign off on them would probably cost a heck of alot of money).

That's probably not a realistic solution. You (and other Manitoba Delica owners) may be forced to have housings fabricated, and then install sealed beam headlights similar to what late 80's Delica's had in them. For tail lights, similar deal. You'll need to get rear holders fab'd and then you'll need to put in a sealed rear tail like a Grote or a Trucklite.

If you do that you will surely pass and they'll have to come up with some other BS reason to pull your vehicle off the road (which they might do, it's easier to make up bureaucratic nonsense then it is to design and install automotive parts.)

[jessef]

or does not meet CMVSS, DOT or SAE standards

E-Code meets DOT/CMVSS Transport Canada standards.

That is why you see Mercedes vehicles and Smart cars for example with E-code headlights and taillights. Just like the L300 and L400's.

All of those old MG's and europeans RHD cars that have been residing in Canada for decades have been using this very specific law to allow the vehicles to be registered and approved by Transport Canada standards.

Hence, the european vehicles sold here in Canada which have E-CODE HEADLIGHTS !

See my post again :

VERY specific :

DOT Compliance: European nations, Australia, Japan, South Africa, and Canada recognize forward illumination lamp ECE (also called "e-code") compliance as certifiable for road use. (By contrast the US standard is SAE). This is outlined in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, by which the CMVSS are based. The authority to use E code headlamps is designate under Sec 108.1 sub (1) sub (a) with subsections i thru v defining which bulbs are compliant, with ECE Regulation No. 20 being the subsection of interest relevant to H4 bulbs, the most commonly used for conversions.

DOT Compliance: European nations, Australia, Japan, South Africa, and Canada recognize forward illumination lamp ECE

From Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulation ... iv-108.htm) :

(ii) a regulation issued by the ECE,


And :

The authority to use E code headlamps is designate under Sec 108.1 sub (1) sub (a) with subsections i thru v defining which bulbs are compliant, with ECE Regulation No. 20 being the subsection of interest relevant to H4 bulbs, the most commonly used for conversions.


Can't get any clearer than that.

[Jensen]

"(ii) a regulation issued by the ECE,"

Refers only to bulbs or sealed beams, not the Headlamps or Housings themselves. This would explain why a lot of older imports don't have any problems as they have sealed beams not plastic or glass housings holding bulbs. Although most glass housings that cover bulbs don't need as much testing as plastic ones but that's neither here nor there.

As for

"The authority to use E code headlamps is designate under Sec 108.1 sub (1) sub (a) with subsections i thru v defining which bulbs are compliant, with ECE Regulation No. 20 being the subsection of interest relevant to H4 bulbs, the most commonly used for conversions."

Looks like you're referencing the same part of the same document? Or so it seems, if I'm wrong could you copy the section as I can't find any other 108.1 5.A.1 sections ether under the Justice Department Website, the CMVSS Website or the CMVSS Technical Document.

As for BMW's, Smart Cars and any other vehicle which have E code headlights, those manufacturers most likely had the required testing on their lights performed on a case by case basis so they would be legal (like I described was an option, a very expensive option that a regular person wouldn't do. However, it's probably cheaper than retooling or having every safety mark known to man on your headlight.) Manufacturers do this all the time, some vehicles are worth spending the extra money to test for compliance, others are not. (ie: BMW Z1's from the early 90's or the Lancer evo8, both examples of where the manufacturer didn't want to shell out the money for crash testing or bumper compliance.)

In most cases CMVSS rules are across the board, but provinces ARE allowed to augment these rules (Alberta has different Axle and Tandem ratings for instance due to thawing roads up north, I only know that one off hand because I had to deal with it a lot doing utility stuff). Manitoba used to be a real pain in the butt with the height of the cargo stowing brackets at the back of vehicle bodies (had to be twice as high as everywhere else). At the end of the day, even if it's just up to interpretation they're the ones who make the rules so you don't really have a leg to stand on.

If it wasn't the truth then why can Quebec completely ban RHD (I'm sure there's alot more to it than that) but the point is it's David VS Golliath only Golliath's 100ft tall and David left his sling at home.

In this case I think finding an alternative solution (ie: different headlights, even if they're kinda ugly) is a better approach than to try to just push it through. This woman most likely just want's to drive her van. If she changes the lights at least she'll be back on the road. Then if she want's to fight for non-ugly lights she can do that but at least she'll have a ride. I've dealt with CMVSS people as well as several provincial legislative people and I found the process felt like walking in chewing gum. Slow, sticky, and painful, and I was on the clock getting paid to be on hold in pain! For someone to do that in their own free time would be brutal.

[FalcoColumbarius]

This thread has now been moved to the "RHD Political and Legal Matters" forum.

Falco.

[William]

Do as these guys have told you and they really cannot argue with that. If they do, just insist that legally they do not have the right and are wrong as proven here. If court needs to tell them that, then so be it I guess. Someone has to stand up to them and I thank you for doing so

[jessef]

Quebec didn't ban RHD vehicles.

They just stopped new registration of private RHD vehicles.

There are exceptions as well. Government and some service/commercial vehicles can be RHD in Quebec.

So they did not ban all RHD's. Just stopped private registration of new ones.

[elbosque]

Susan, I highly recommend that you and others in Manitoba work on developing sympathetic media stories and applying political pressure. It is obvious that CADA has gotten the officials their to further their campaign to eliminate RHDs. Right now, CADA has done a very good job making all RHD owners out as irresponsible street racers. You need to present a positive image of every day people just trying to get by and operating vehicles that are just as safe as anything sold new in the Canadian market place. As stated above, you already have clear evidence from BC which shows the lenses (JIS and ecoded LHD) more than meet the requirements. The media love it when you can make a politician or high level pencil pusher look stupid or crooked. Clearly, there are a number of professional organizations where they are constantly talking with other officials from other provinces. So the bottom line should be a question of "are they completely incompetent?" or "are they waging a campaign for the benefit of Manitoba dealership owners over the interests and rights of citizens?" If they go at you about the tuner cars, such as the Skylines, perhaps you should return the question and ask if all Corvette C5 Z06 should also be banned? Take a look at the specs and ask if it is safer than a Skyline: http://www.canadiandriver.com/2008/07/1 ... 7-2004.htm. Don't forget to play to Manitoba's heritage and traditions to get the media on your side.

You've got a few good people in Manitoba to work with:
http://www.righthanddrive.ca/blog/
http://forum.ivoac.ca/showthread.php?t=3608

Good luck.

[mrdueck]

Just curious what other Manitoba Deli purchasers have done. I know there others who have registered lately. What worked for you? Did you just get lucky with your garage? My Deli arrives in Oct and will be dealing with this issue then and I want to make sure I have my ducks in line before I bring the vehicle over.

[DelicaDave]

I had my L300 Saftied in BC with the E code lights before I registered in Manitoba. MPI accepted the safety from BC and considered it equivilent or better.

[Manitoba deli]

I had given Sue the name and address of a garage in Winnipeg that safties RHD vehicles. The people at MPI were just being jerks, and were harrasing someone they thought wouldn't fight back. Since the original post, I have had both my l400's in for inspection at MPI, and they didn't even look at the lights. All they did was a quick walk around the vans and said OK, looks good. They only seem to give you trouble if they think you won't or can't fight back. I can give the name and address of the garage to anyone else who needs it, just send me a pm. The owner of the shop didn't want his info posted on the internet, and I have to respect his wishes.

Jason

[robbieg]

Hi Susan (and everyone else listening)
I've written up a first draft of a paper I'm planning on sending to 'whom it may concern' at MPI, Andrew Swan - who is the MLA in charge of MPI.

Send me an email at robg@righthanddrive.ca, and I'll send you the draft... in case you want to update it with some extra stuff.
It's got the e-code notes in it, along with some details about the Daniel Stern report, that convinced BC to accept JIS signal/tail lights.

rob

[mrdueck]

Why not just post it here? I'm sure there are others outside of MB that may want to chime in or are just curious as they may be dealing with similar issues in their province.