BCAA - Right-hand drive vehicles – right for B.C.?

[elbosque]

John from Rocky Mountain passed this along to me from one of his customers who found it while recently renewing their membership online with BCAA. This is one for everyone in BC to respond to.
http://www.bcaa.com/wps/portal/BCAA/new ... l/8295.htm

Right-hand drive vehicles – right for B.C.?
We’ve all seen them – odd looking vans and other vehicles in which the passenger appears to be driving! These are right-hand drive vehicles (RHDVs) imported mostly from Japan where increasing costs are applied to vehicles as they age. As a result, Japan has a surplus of older vehicles in good condition but worth next-to-nothing in their home market.

Canadian legislation currently allows vehicles older than 15 years to arrive in Canada exempt from the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to allow the importation of antique and other “collector” cars. Since about 2005, an increasing number of surplus Japanese vehicles have been showing up under this law, and local companies have started promoting the option of buying a used car in Japan via auction and shipping it to Canada.

The attractions are a unique, low-mileage, low-cost vehicle. But as the number of RHDVs in B.C. increases, so do the safety and environmental concerns. According to a 2007 ICBC study, RHDVs are 40 per cent more likely to be in an accident in a left-hand drive environment. In addition, older vehicles tend to emit more pollutants, and introducing more aging vehicles runs contrary to government programs like Scrap-It, which are aimed at removing older vehicles from the road.

Transport Canada is considering changing the rules to prohibit the importation of vehicles newer than 25 years of age, which would synchronize with current U.S. regulations. This would effectively stop the current market for low cost RHDV imports, but would require federal cooperation with all the provinces to enact. An association of imported vehicle owners has established itself to challenge changes to the current legislation (http://www.ivoac.ca).

What do you think? Should the importation of older RHDV to B.C. be allowed to continue? Or, should the minimum age for these types of imports be raised to 25? Send your comments to advocacy@bcaa.com .

[almac]

as usual, ICBC is full of crap...
i suspect this will be another thing that old gordo will push for.

[mararmeisto]

It still, absolutely, amazes me that part of the argument for increasing the time period from 15 to 25 years is the environmental angle: "Oh, these 15-year-old vehicles are 'dirty' and more polluting than newer cars, so we should increase the age of allowable vehicles... to... 25 years."

I mean, do they ever REALLY listen to what they're saying when they say that? Does it ever REALLY make sense in their own minds when they say that? Do they even know what they are saying or are they just regurgitating what they heard someone else say this one time because they don't understand the situation and in order to a part of the conversation are just saying what others are saying so it sounds like they know what they're saying?

REALLY?

[kb&2dogs]

I mean, do they ever REALLY listen to what they're saying when they say that? Does it ever REALLY make sense in their own minds when they say that? Do they even know what they are saying or are they just regurgitating what they heard someone else say this one time because they don't understand the situation and in order to a part of the conversation are just saying what others are saying so it sounds like they know what they're saying?

REALLY?

Answer: No, they don't listen, and they don't care, because it isn't someone threatening to take their right to choose what they drive away from them. You can bet if some "expert" came along and said , for example "all Toyota's are unsafe (as demonstrated by the recent recalls) and need to be taken off our Canadian roads", the outcry would be tremendous!. I think we are being way to reactive and not proactive about this. We need to get some positive press from somewhere (??) and just bombard the powers that be with all the good and wonderful things about, not just driving on the right, but having the right to choose. I'd like to believe that this is still a free country, and if I'm not breaking laws or endangering lives, I can live as I choose here.

As for BCAA, how to react to a story like that. I mean, they saved our bacon when we got stuck in Arizona, and they treated us well after the fact, but I'd be curious what stake they have in the whole thing, or are they just regurgitating as well? If so, they need to be told to play nicely and stop doing that.

[elbosque]

Below is my comment to BCAA. I urge others to also write to them, member or not. I've been a member for over 20 years now.

I have just read the article “Right-hand drive vehicles – right for B.C.?” and as a long time BCAA member, I am shocked to see BCAA parroting the same propaganda that CADA has been pushing for the last four or five years.

Most import vehicles, many of them being RHD from Japan, meet or beat the emissions of comparable North American Market vehicles. Both of my diesel Nissan Safaris always pass Aircare with flying colors. Even Aircare technicians have commented how the import diesels from Japan always do so well compared to the North American Market diesels. Off course, in Canada and the USA we are only concerned about Parts Per Million of contaminates while the rest of the world is concerned about the total amount of contaminants produced. My Nissan Safari’s economy is rated at 10L/100kms and has a passenger capacity of 7. Can you tell me of a North American Market SUV which does the same? We talk about re-use, recycle and reduce being very important to keeping our world green. What better way to do this than to take a used vehicle in exceptional condition that gets very good fuel economy and continue to use it. I wonder how many tons of CO2 and other pollutants are released into the environment by taking a perfectly good vehicle off the road and having to produce a new one?

These import vehicles also tend to be as safe or much safer than the vehicles offered for sale here. There build quality tends to be exceptional. I doubt if many foreign manufacturers and their governments would put up with the drug and alcohol abuse found in North American automotive plants. If you have any doubts, just look at the safety recall history of vehicles made in Canada and the USA compared to the rest of the world. It’s funny that all of the most highly developed nations in the world follow UNCE Vehicle Safety Standards while Canada and the USA still follow their own standards and claim superiority because of things like a 5 mph bumper. Clearly, they are just using the excuse of the environment and safety as a way to enforce protectionist measures for their vehicle industry.

Much of the safety of RHD vehicles is being attributed to the fact that the driving position is so different that it is a safety risk. While I agree that one has to make some adjustments, I totally disagree that RHD’s are less safe than the LHD vehicles. Safety is much more an issue of the driver than the vehicle. Numerous times my RHD vehicles have made it much safer for me to arrive at my destination when traveling in heavy fog, rain or snow. The driving position makes it much easier to see the right-hand side of the road and to stay on the road in the correct lane. Similarly, the field of view makes it safer for pedestrians, bicyclists or workers on the shoulder of the road. Turning left or passing is also often spoken as being a safety issue. I would say that it is safer in a right hand drive as you are not tempted to break the law and to creep out into the lane of oncoming traffic to see if the way is clear. You must wait until you are sure from your angle that there is no oncoming traffic. To do this in a RHD you cannot tailgate.

Unfortunately, the misinformation from the flawed ICBC “study” has been allowed to continue to long. As you know, Paul Taylor was the head of ICBC at the time. Previously he was head of the BC dealers association and he left ICBC right after the RCMP Commercial Crimes Section announce they would be investigating the ICBC resale of written-off vehicles. The whole ICBC “study” is under a cloud of conflict of interest and also questionable methods. I have attached a UBC professional assessment of the ICBC “study”, which was commissioned by IVOAC after their review of the data received via Freedom Of Information Requests found numerous instances of problems with the data and process. I trust you and your professionals at BCAA will take the time to review this assessment of the ICBC study.

While you can listen to what many import enthusiast may write and say, I think the best thing would be for BCAA to do their own independent road tests of RHD vehicles. Many other places in the world, such as Japan and the EU, have a mix of LHD and RHD without issue and actually have much higher safety standards and safety records than Canada. Perhaps we have something to learn from them that is more important than protecting an auto industry that does so poorly in protecting the consumer and meeting our needs. One would think that if the provincial and federal governments were so concerned about our safety and environment that they would s**** the 15 year rule all together and let Canadians have the right to import and operate much better vehicles only available in Japan and Europe.

If you have any questions or comments, I would be pleased to hear from you.

Sincerely,

[Mr. Flibble]

I noticed that the reply I got back from them indicates a large volume of mail:

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, concerns and ideas are important to us.

Please note that due to the volume of emails received, we are unable to provide a
response to all of the emails received. If your email does note that you would like
a response, we will do our best to follow up in a timely manner.

Thank you,

The Corporate Communications Team
WARNING - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information.
Any use, disclosure, copying or dissemination of this information by a
person other than an intended recipient is not authorized and may be
illegal.
If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies.

Thank you.

[elbosque]

Looks like a standard reply, meaning if we think your message is interesting enough we will reply to it.

Those of us who are association members can always take it up a notch and write to the Board of Directors and also bring it to the AGM.

[tonydca]

I sent an email and got the same OutofOffice Autoreply. Worht a shot.
Here is the text I sent:

**************************
RHD vehicles offer, as your article suggests, unique, well-built,
well-maintained vehicles which offer a combination of features at price
points unavailable in the North American market.

The ICBC study which is often quoted, suffers from a number of significant
statistical flaws, which I would be happy to point out to any interested
party.

A push to ban RHD vehicles appears to me to be a low-cost, low-impact,
high-PR value action which affects a small number of people, has no
significant impact on the true causes of vehiclular accidents (inevitably
the drivers themselves, not the vehicles they pilot), and has high
opportunity for positive political spin-doctoring - "Look - your
government is actually doing something positive!".

Much more effective would be stiffer penalties for underage
drinking/driving, and street racing / driving at excessive speeds - the
leading causes of crashes in comparable LHD *and* RHD vehicles.

Banning RHD vehicles is simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Best Regards,
**************************

[Dingus]

Excellent letters gentlemen! Very well worded, strong yet professional and respectful. As we continue to write these letters/emails I would suggest that such professionalism be put forth with every one sent. We will perhaps be taken seriously if we present in such a manner. Kudos!

[mycale]

I strongly urged BCAA to cite the emissions test to prove their claims, and even mentioned that they need to recognize that the ICBC study is not conclusive. It would be in the BCAA's best interest to comission their own studies to verify the ICBC claims...

[mararmeisto]

One would think if the Association was so against RHD vehicles they wouldn't extend membership to those who drive them. Thank goodness for those who used the service that is not the case.