Grote DRL

[Green1]

Well, nobody can provide written requirement for DRL. As far as I was able to get in internet, it is not mandatory for 1991 cars which were originally manufactured without them. If smbd can post it, I'll run to put them back!

Another thing, requirements for OOP and road use slightly different, so play the game to pleased OOP first then, take them out as for reason mentioned above.

We allready went through this on IVOAC once, I'm not going to have the whole argument all over again.
I posted several pieces of legislation stating that it is an offence to modify a vehicle so that it would not pass inspection, as well as ones stating the fines for doing such.
You have never posted anything that states that inspection requirments don't apply after you pass (which is what you are trying to argue)
What you have done is 100% illegal, and can result in fines, and or imprisonment.
It's one thing to do it yourself, however as a community we can not advocate that our members break the law. to do so would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst.

In addition, I find it extremely offensive that people like you would jepordize everything we have worked towards with CVSE in BC, the minister of transport in alberta, and Transport Canada by giving them ammunition proving that we are trying to skirt around their laws.
YOU ARE THE REASON RHDs GET HARRASSED AT ROADSIDE STOPS!

[Pajerist]

We allready went through this on IVOAC once, I'm not going to have the whole argument all over again.

Sure I remember this and with all my respect you DID NOT post ANY paper saying DRL IS MANDATORY for 1991 cars manufactured without them
It is EASY for you and moreover useful for RHD community, just post them, do not hide your head in the sand.

I posted several pieces of legislation stating that it is an offence to modify a vehicle so that it would not pass inspection, as well as ones stating the fines for doing such.
You have never posted anything that states that inspection requirments don't apply after you pass (which is what you are trying to argue)
What you have done is 100% illegal, and can result in fines, and or imprisonment.
It's one thing to do it yourself, however as a community we can not advocate that our members break the law. to do so would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst.

Not sure here, if I was forced to do what NOT MANDATORY and paid for this, I feel free myself to altered it. I'll be HAPPY to stay in the court with ANY stupid official, who may issue ticket for this.

In addition, I find it extremely offensive that people like you would jepordize everything we have worked towards with CVSE in BC, the minister of transport in alberta, and Transport Canada by giving them ammunition proving that we are trying to skirt around their laws.
YOU ARE THE REASON RHDs GET HARRASSED AT ROADSIDE STOPS!

LOL here! I am surely not a reason for you been stopped even in other province. You know better then me the real reason is big stealerships thinking they are loosing money. Simple like plate of porridge.

[Green1]

I am surely not a reason for you been stopped even in other province.

I personally have not been stopped, however it is EXACTLY people like you who flaunt the law and give these enforcement people a reason to target us that causes all the hassle for RHD owners. the only reason they do it is because they find people who don't obey the law. As one of those people you are directly responsible for this phenomenom.

As for me not posting anything, I did, several times on IVOAC, I don't feel like digging it up again, because I'm sure you will simply ignore it again.

The plain point of the matter though is that what you have done is illegal. vehicles must have DRL added to pass inspection, and it is illegal to modify a vehicle after inspection in such a way that it would not pass inspection.
It is illegal to operate a vehicle on a public roadway if it would not pass inspection.
It is illegal to be the owner of said vehicle, even if you aren't the one driving.
It is illegal to make the modification, even if you are not the owner, nor the driver.
Furthermore, it is specifically illegal to disable DRLs that have been installed on a vehicle (even if they weren't installed at the factory)
It may even be illegal to encourage others to do the same.

Inspections are there for a reason, it's not some silly game to try to fool the system. You don't get to decide which parts to follow and which to ignore. Vehicles imported form outside the province must pass inspection to be on the road, and must remain in that condition.

Would you like it if people decided that they could put on new brakes to pass inspection and then swap in the old ones again afterwards? it doesn't work that way!

Many people did this with DOT lights, and many people were nailed for it. You may not have been caught yet, but just wait, just because you've gotten away with it thus far does not make it legal.

[Pajerist]

As for me not posting anything, I did, several times on IVOAC, I don't feel like digging it up again, because I'm sure you will simply ignore it again.

And I am saying, NOT, you DID NOT. Period...........and not funny.
Just post it, but you will not cause you do not have it. Too pity.
As for me, I am VERY LAW obey person. If I'll see LEGAL requirements, same day I'll put DRL back and post picture for your pleasure here.

Lets stop this, it is getting annoying. If you have to say smth more, PM me.

Good luck,

[Pajerist]

It may even be illegal to encourage others to do the same.

It is not a case here. All the time I am talking about myself.

[Pajerist]

Now I have Montreal lawyer Jordan Charness is a partner in the firm Charness, Charness & Charness on my side.

He is clearly saying that "According to law, daytime running lights are indeed mandatory. However, this law only applies to recent vehicles that came equipped with daytime running lights. Older vehicles are exempt and there is no obligation to retrofit daytime running lights on a car that wasn't originally built with them." here:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... e2502cc31d

And as far as I know it is kind of official place for TC announcements, right?

Good luck!

[Green1]

that newspaper article is no more official than your word.
TC publishes things in the Canada Gazette, not the montreal gazette (the former is an official government publication, the latter is a newspaper)
beyond that TC doesnt' write provincial road safety laws, and while TC does not require DRL to be added both Alberta and BC do.
The article in question talks about older vehicles before the reuquirment and does not discuss imports at all
Furthermore Quebec law has no bearing outside of Quebec. I have not studied Quebec law on this matter as it is irrelevant to me, however in Alberta and BC (the 2 jurisdictions I have studied)
DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE MANDATORY (no matter how many times you say otherwise.) The relevant laws were posted by myself on IVOAC already, including the dollar valuse of the fines, and everything else. If you question this, talk to an Alberta or BC lawyer, about Alberta and BC law. We have worked very hard to convince the government we are willing to work with them, unfortunately you would obviously prefer they regulate us out of existance.

Your continued disregard for the law reflects poorly on the whole community, you openly flaunt the law while insulting our entire community. YOU PERSONALLY are one of the reasons CVSE targets RHD vehicles, they know that they will find many that do not comply to the law, you are one of them. We try as a community to educate our members to solve this problem so that CVSE won't find anything to hassle us for and eventually give up, unfortunately people like you work directly against the cause harming all of your fellow import enthusiasts.

[Pajerist]

Well, what do we see? Too many words from you, just YOUR words and still NOTHING official.

that newspaper article is no more official than your word...
Your continued disregard for the law reflects poorly on the whole community,

At least it was written by LAWYER, not myself.

Your continued disregard for the law reflects poorly on the whole community,

And you continued to post your blah blah accusation. Not tired yet?

YOU PERSONALLY are one of the reasons CVSE targets RHD vehicles,

Then STOP yelling gaining cheap publicity. Do smth REAL, save my soul and the whole RHD community, - POST OFFICIAL REQUIREMENTS.

Good luck!

[Green1]

At least it was written by LAWYER, not myself.

A lawyer stated that TC doesn't require you to add DRLs to you pre 1989 domestic vehicle. We already knew that!
first of all, TC doesn't write the rules governing road use, and second we're not talking about pre 1989 vehicles.

POST OFFICIAL REQUIREMENTS.

I've done this before, and quoting myself is something I hate to do, but apparently it's the only way.
This is my reply to you from IVOAC November 20 2007

how am I supposed to prove that a law, as written means what it says? you all know that the OOP book says DRL are mandatory, and the OOP book was written by the provincial government to state what they believe is mandatory on the roads for that particular province.

What part are you disagreeing with? the part about the provinces having jurisdiction on the highways? or the part about the laws they write being what controls the rules?

Ask CVSE whether DRL are required for the road, and tell me if you get a reply other than "yes".

In Alberta, the inspection regulations form part of the Traffic Safety Act. Operating a vehicle that doesn't comply is an offence under the Act, some of the applicable offences are listed here:

Traffic Safety Act (RSA 2000 c T-6)
65(1)(a) Drive/operate motor vehicle not complying with equipment regulations
65(1)(b) Permit another to drive/operate motor vehicle not complying with equipment regulations
65(1)(c) Owner drive/operate motor vehicle with equipment not in good working order/proper condition
65(1)(d) Drive/operate motor vehicle where motor vehicle/equipment improperly used/prescribed by regulations
...
65(1)(i) Sell/offer for sale equipment/material not complying with regulations

Vehicle Equipment Regulation (AR 322/2002)
3(b) Fail to maintain daytime running lamps in good working order

I'm not going to be looking up the BC regs, but I know they are similar... face it, they didn't write the OOP book just for the fun of it, it is a legally binding document with real fines for ignoring it.

Now I've put up, so either shut up, or come up with a law stating why you would be exempt from the above laws. Remember, anything Transport Canada says is irrelevant as they don't write the provincial highway traffic acts, those fall completely under provincial jurisdiction.

[Pajerist]

I've done this before, and quoting myself is something I hate to do, but apparently it's the only way.
This is my reply to you from IVOAC November 20 2007

good job!

What part are you disagreeing with?

I am supporting Law by all means.

Ask CVSE whether DRL are required for the road, and tell me if you get a reply other than "yes".

Will do, cause I do not trust you after your yelling.

In Alberta

I do not care nor Alberta neither you, my friend.

I'm not going to be looking up the BC regs,

of cause not, you are busy to post all BS above

Now I've put up, so either shut up,

You are not polite, my friend. Good thing we know now you are not a gentleman.

or come up with a law stating why you would be exempt from the above laws.

It is easy, but I am not sure you can get it from the first time, but reading several times probably...so do your best now, get yourself together and please read it slowly: "Older vehicles are exempt and there is no obligation to retrofit daytime running lights on a car that wasn't originally built with them." And do not bother yourself to answer for this post. I am willing to find another source to confirm that I am right and guess what? And you are not. And I will do it to help RHD community, not to pleased you.

[Green1]

"Older vehicles are exempt and there is no obligation to retrofit daytime running lights on a car that wasn't originally built with them."

Where on earth do you get that silly notion?

It has been posted many times how NEWER vehicles (eg, any vehicle after 1989) are NOT exempt.

The laws have been posted.

You have never posted anything to support your idea that they aren't required, except stuff that TC says which doesn't apply to provincial law at all.
It's like asking the police in the UK, they don't have jurisdiction here any more than TC does.

quit trying to tell everyone they don't need something that they clearly do.

The provinces wouldn't have bothered writing the inspection manuals if they weren't enforceable!

You lost the argument on IVOAC almost a year ago, why do you insist on bringing it up again?

[mararmeisto]

Hi!
I've got 91 Pajero (not Delica, but pretty close). The DRL I've got installed is Grote 44040. Every time i leave high beams on or use passing light (flashing high beams) the 15A fuse that Grote has gets blown. I tried to analyze the current setup and here is what I've discovered:
Grote DRL --> Pajero Wiring
Red --> Black/White ( this one goes to ignition)
Yellow --> Red (this one goes to high beams)
Blue --> Green/White (ground)
Unfortunately I don't have a manual/diagram for Grote DRL and cannot tell for sure how these wires are supposed to be connected. Is this a correct set up? Has anybody had similar problems with this DRL module?
As far as I know these Grote modules are not suitable for vehicles with headlight switch on the ground side of the circuit. The current location of DRL is on the ground side of the circut. This might explain why the fuse gets blown when hi-beams are on.
Does anybody know how to hook up these DRLs to Pajero? (I assume it has to be very similar to Delica)

Wow... I'm going to try to get this thread back on track: does anyone have a wiring diagram for a Pajero? Or possibly a wiring diagram for a Montero (it might be similar enough for the wiring of the lights)?

[robinimpey]

I'm with marameisto...

you boys are way out of control!

1. I'm not sure why a person wouldn't want to have DRL. As far as I know all the statistics point towards it being safer.
2. I'm not sure that someone that is part of the forum choosing to disconnect them is that big a deal. I mean I don't think it's going to make the rest of us look bad. If Pajerist wants to disconnect his DRL, speed or go without his seat belt then the consequences, if any, will be his to deal with.

Please don't fill up the forum with this sort of stuff as I think for the most part we are not looking for pissing matches, we are looking for advice on how to keep our Delicas and Pajeros in good running condition.

[Pajerist]

you boys are way out of control!
Please don't fill up the forum with this sort of stuff as I think for the most part we are not looking for pissing matches, we are looking for advice on how to keep our Delicas and Pajeros in good running condition.

Well said and duly noted here.

Cheers,

[Green1]

If Pajerist wants to disconnect his DRL, speed or go without his seat belt then the consequences, if any, will be his to deal with.

the problem is, that's simply not true.
RHD vehicles are being discriminated against at roadside stops, we've had lots of cases, especially in BC, of people being pulled over or stopped for no other reason than being RHD, the officer is trying to find something wrong with the vehicle, when questioned they tell us that "all RHDs are non-compliant", so they pull them all over. The only way to dispel this myth is for the majority of RHDs to become compliant, if they can never find anything wrong when they pull these vehicles over (or at least no more so than any other vehicle) they will stop the discrimination. Until then people who wilfully make their vehicles non-compliant give these people ammunition to make every other RHD driver's life more difficult.
Beyond that though, these same misconceptions are being passed all the way up the chain, lawmakers are taking note of "all these unsafe RHD vehicles" and are listing such reasons as lack of DRL, non-DOT headlights, lack of side reflectors, lack of centre brake light, etc. as reasons these vehicles should be banned. We try to tell them that we are willing to modify our vehicles to satisfy their safety rules, however every vehicle seen not complying is one more nail in our coffin.

Every non-compliant RHD vehicle hurts all of us, it makes it harder to enjoy a peaceful drive without being pulled over for no reason, it makes it harder and more expensive to insure the vehicles, and it may make it harder to get your next vehicle.

Beyond that argument though, many people come on to forums like this with little or no prior knowledge of these subjects, if the first post they see tells them that DRL isn't required, they will often believe that, and be in trouble later, the only way to help these people is to make sure that accurate information is available to dispel these untruths.

This will be my last post in this thread unless something more substantial is posted