Would you kindly comment on the spate of right-hand-drive (RHD) vehicles that have appeared in B.C. recently? I have always been under the impression that imported vehicles had either to meet, or be modified to meet, Canadian standards before being licenced in Canada. As far as I know this requirement applies to such relatively inconsequential matters as metric instrumentation, running lights and high central rear brake light. Surely the fact that a vehicle has its controls on the side opposite what is standard in Canada cannot be considered less consequential than these other matters.
A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD) vehicles. The risk appears to extend for the long term rather than being reduced by the driver becoming more familiar with using a right hand drive vehicle in a left hand drive environment.
Similar studies conducted in Britain where LHD vehicles regularly mix with RHD vehicles from the continent showed the same indications. Collisions appeared to be most common in turning, passing and lane changing situations. It is surmised that the increased risk of collision is a consequence of the reduced direct field of view for drivers to the side and rear that is more easily viewed by the majority. Fortunately, the crash protection properties of RHD vehicles is the same as their LHD counterparts.
The federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act exempts imported vehicles more than 15 years old from the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In view of the fact that about 200 of these RHD vehicles are imported into B.C. each month there is increased risk for all road users. Transport Canada has been requested by the provinces and territories to review this exemption although it does not seem that a decision in either favour is being made. If you wish to comment, you may submit e-mail to 15YearRule@tc.gc.ca.
I think it would be great to see right hand drive written on the back of these vehicles. In Ontario when I worked for the City of Toronto we had a right hand drive water truck and we had to have right hand drive written on the back of it. I think more people would know and it might help to avoid collisions.
Why did the truck have to have it written on the back?
postal vehicles, garbage trucks and those old double decker busses dont...
under the law the only vehicles required to have such a sticker are vehicles that do not have proper working turn signals. the sticker is there so that drivers behind the vehicle know to look at the right hand side for hand signals, but if the vehicles turn signals work then you dont need to use hand signals and htere fore you dont need a sticker telling people to look for the hand signal...
seems pretty simple to me
I own a 1989 Skyline GTST and have had no accidents and find that if you drive safe you will turn out just fine. There is no difference between a LHD & RHD vehicle when you learn it from scratch. Your brain is trained to LHD cars thus the reason people assume the worst on RHD cars when in reality....your just another car on the road with the rest!
While I appreciate your information it is flawed. The studies you are referring to from ICBC? Lies. Blatant lies so they can continue to help out the BC auto. dealer association. The statistics included do not just include RHD cars as they claim, but LHD cars from those countries and even some imports from the US!
Provided you are intelligent, RHD is just as safe as LHD. Let's remember, driving is a privilege and not a right. There is no need to dumb it down. If you drive smart, you wont be in an accident. Look at Barbados,Trinidad, Great Britain, and Japan... All countries where LHD and RHD coexist. Focus more on driver's education instead of
And to the person who was a bus driver... Apparently you do not know a damn thing about road safety or you wouldn't be driving a bus on the road and risking everyone's life. A vehicle that cannot make a right turn without going into oncoming traffic has no place on the road! Of course, that's just using your own logic.
What has a RHD vehicle have to do with other peoples actions?
I had respect for you with your previous topic but i now have lost all. You cleary have an Agenda to further the movement of banning imports, you have no solid evidence at all that these cars are bad.
a small, small, example of whats flawed with ICBC's study...
- they used claims instead of accidents.
- they didn't record coverage held by the claimant, so people with complete coverage are shown more likely to have a collision than people with only liability coverage.
- they didn't include data on severity of collisions.
- they determined RHD as being everything imported from Japan or England despite some vehicles coming in from those countries being LHD.
taken from a topic on IOVAC. There is tons more SOLID AND UNBIAS INFORMATION on that site that can honestly shed better light on the topic.
Doug, Im sorry to hear about your relative. Someone that made only eye contact with the driver and stepped on the street and say he gets hit. To step off onto the road infront of a moving car regardless of eye contact is pure stupidity. If i were to cross a street i pay attention to the car being immobile, i dont waste time on eyey contact. I cant read minds, so why should i guess what someones eye contact is supposed to mean?
Im sorry if this comes across the wrong way as im a little ticked at the Stupidity of these studies and a few of the "RHD Haters"
Cut the B.S check the UNBIASED facts and opinions. A RHD vehicle is not more dangerous than a LHD, sure passing on a 2 lane is a little different which you need to increase the following distance by a few car lenths, that never hurts anyone.
Instead of your opinions "Right Hand vehicles dont belong in Canada, they are far more dangerous." That is an opinion since there is no evidence at all that supports it.
THE VEHICLE IS ONLY AS DANGEROUS AS THE PERSON BEHIND THE WHEEL MAKES IT. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES, CHECK INTO IT MORE THAN WHAT THIS BIASED FOOL DOUG TAYLOR MAKES IT TO BE. ACTUALLY CHECK INTO THE FACTS BEFORE SIDING.
I don't agree with having right hand drives vehicles on roads meant for left hand drive vehicles. It is far too dangerous. We have rules when it comes to bringing vehicles into Canada from the States and the same should apply to vehicles coming from overseas. That law concerning the 15 year rule, if I'm not mistaken, was intended for people importing antique vehicles that weren't intended for everyday use on the roads. The vehicles on the roads today are new vehicles and shouldn't be allowed on the roads until they are upgraded to our standards. I am retired now but I was a professional driver for many years driving a bus so I do know the safety rules for driving.
It's time to change the law to prohibit these vehicles.
The rules to bring vehicles from the USA into Canada are governed by the R.I.V. program which allow BRAND NEW vehicles to come from the USA into Canada as long as they are on the list of eligble vehicles.... on that list is the new jeep grand cherokee, which in the USA is offered in both RHD and LHD configurations... so if you want the laws for RHD vehicles to be the same as LHD vehicles coming from the USA this would allow newer than 15yr old vehicles to enter the country, which would be even better since newer vehicles are safer...
While 15yr old vehicles may be "new" in your eyes, in the eyes of the law they are not a new vehicle would an 2009 not an 1994...
as for our standards... some of the vehicles which were made 15yrs ago meet or exceed our standards at the time they were built... you CAN NOT expect an older vehicle to meet or exceed our new standards... and if you do then EVERY VEHICLE both RHD and LHD, IMPORT or DOMESTIC must also adhere to those standards...
I am a RHD vehicle owner, i purchased an very nice Sports car. i have driven it 3 times in the 2 yrs i have owned it. why? because its my dream car, and i take very good care of it, i have it fully certified and inspected to meet our required standards, which are very easy to follow and should be followed by everyone who owns an imported vehicle, because lets face it, not every Imported vehicle is RHD many are LHD....
the 15yr rule/law isnt about RHD vheicles, its about all imported vehicles coming from countries other than the USA.
"It's time to change the law to prohibit these vehicles." I think so too !! Ban the 15 year rule and make it age free !!! Oh, but wait the big 3 will certainly not like this, as bad as things are for them already when a 15 year old car from Japan has a longer useful life than most of their 2003+ cars.
you claim that it is far too dangerous for RHD vehicles to be on the road, so I must ask you, have you ever driven a RHD vehicle? and if so, have you driven one more than once? I would hazard a guess that you have never even been a passanger in a RHD vehicle, otherwise you would know that they are just as safe as the LHD counterparts. The only factor that increases the risk of collision in either kind of vehicle is the skill of the driver. Surely you must realize that Canada Post has been operating RHD postal vehicles for decades on our roads, as well as many municipalities having RHD street cleaners, snow removal vehicles, etc. If RHD was so unsafe, don't you think all these service vehicles would have been made LHD?
As for me, I have been driving RHD vehicles every day for over a year now, I have never been in an accident (or have ever been close to being in one). I even took my road test to get rid of my "N" to upgrade to a full class 5 license in a RHD car, (which the ICBC test instructors all thought was really neat) I passed with flying colours even with the adverse weather conditions (heavy rain storm, at night with heavy traffic). I was even told that I was the best driver my instructor had that day. How would all this be possible if I am driving a moving death trap of a vehicle (according to you)???
First let me start by saying that i am an RHD vehicle owner. i have owned my RHD sports car for 2 yrs. i have driven it 3 times as i baby it like no other since it is my dream car. i have washed and waxed it more times than it has gotten dirty. however, i drive for a living, and i have been driving for over 10yrs and accident free, so i know the laws regarding RHD vehicles, and imported vehicles... Getting used to driving a RHD vehicle takes about 15mins. RHD or LHD makes no difference, if you are a good driver. the driver position is not such a huge difference that it makes you unsafe. unless you were already an unsafe driver...
if we Ban RHD vehicles from our roads, what are we gonna do about vehicles that come from Alberta or other provinces? What about postal vehicles, garbage trucks and those old double decker buses?
none of those vehicles require you to have any special license for RHD, they do not take any RHD training courses(as there are none) and they seem to work just fine and have for years and years...
ok now to the down and dirty
the ICBC 40% study.... lol .... is a joke to say the least... where do i begin
did you know that the study performed by ICBC was done because Transport Canada wouldnt do such a study? and the reasoning behind them not doing was due to a lack of information regarding the history of RHD vehicles
Did you know that the ICBC study used the same vehicle more than once? it also had vehicles which were not yet 15yrs old?(the vehicles which are not 15yrs or older are not allowed in our country, and that falls under the jurisdiction of Canada Customs, not ICBC or TC)
did you know that ICBC does not tell the difference between an collision and an claim in the study and that both are looped together?
did you know that some vehicles where used in more than one category, such as station wagons and mini vns being used in the SUV category, then being used in the Van/Truck category for the same claim
heres a prime example of why this study isnt accurate
i know of a vehicle in the study (confirmed the id of the vheicle by its VIN number) which was used 3 times, the owner was never in an accident, his claims were a chipped windsheild, a shopping cart hitting his car in a parking lot( the person left her info as she felt bad) and someone opend there door into his car(he left his info too)
after applying under the FOIP (freedom of information program) to get all the data surrounding the study we found many errors... after reworking the numbers we found that you are only 10-15% more likely to be involved in an claim, not a collision or accident than driving an LHD vehicle.
Also one reason why RHD vehicles have a higher than LHD vheicls of the same age claim rate is due to there collectabilty and high quality...
The best part of the study though, is how the man who was heading the study now wants nothing to do with it, he no longer backs it up...
im sure there is more that im missing but im also sure that someone else will fill in some of the missing parts about the Defunct ICBC report
ok now i get to the part that i know ALOT about...
Please Drive BC show us these studies that find icbc's study to have the same results from the UK...
i spent 2-3 weeks searching the internet, calling the UK(my phone bill was big that month) Calling japan etc etc and in all of my searching i found ONE study that made a difference between RHD and LHD vehicles... That study was from Englands military as they have a number of LHD vehicles that they use(keep in mind that they drive RHD all the time on the opposite side of the traffic we drive so a LHD vehicle is the opposite for them). In this study/ report it was noted that LHD vehicles had a SMALLER % accident rate than compared to there usual RHD vehicles.
Another study which was in regards to a country changing from RHT(Right hand traffic) to LHT noted that there was a drastic increase in accidents for the first 2 yrs as people adjusted to the new traffic flow... but it did not have any mention about which side of the vehicle the driver was driving on...
Then there are nations like Japan which have many RHD and LHD vehicles operating astride one another that use the same auto insurance rates and same traffic laws, they even have dual sided toll booths and drive-thru's to accommodate LHD vehicles...
The UK which has many mixed vehicles does not have special laws for the vehicles that are not RHD or LHD...
So all these nations across the world that have mixed vehicles dont see this risk as being large enough to Ban them or make special laws for them. they must be doing something right then...
and finally the claim of 200 vehicles being imported per month making our roads less safe.... ok heres the kicker of that statement...
of these 200vehicles, there is no information that customs keeps that says if its RHD or LHD.... the 200# also includes ATV's, motorcycles, snomobiles, off-road only, and parts only vehicles...
Also these vehicles which are destined for our roads must still be inspected and approved, which means they must have D.O.T. lighting(DOT isnt that American Gov't), AS1 or AS2 approved windsheild, a 3RD high mount brake light, a neutral safety switch(only if it came with one when it was new) and Tires that have load rates on them...
In closing i think the laws should be changed, to allow NEWER than 15yr old vehicles to enter our country as NEWER vehicles are much safer than older vehicles, But i am strongly against banning these vehicles or making it so even older vehicles are only allowed in...
as a final thought id like you to really think about this statement
Guns dont kill people, people kill people...
Vehicles dont crash, Bad drivers do... If you put a RHD vehicle beside a dodge Viper, beside a semi-truck beside a motorcycle and i ask you to identify the most dangerous vehicle. The only correct answer you can give is " the one with the person driving it "
I hope this opens peoples eyes and gets them to really think rather than make a close minded choice based on partial information and perceived risk...
I can certainly appreciate the poster of this article had the right intention, but ICBC can't be taken seriously, especially with scandal after scandal which clearly show their management is always looking out for their own interests.
You've been mislead by ICBC and have played right into their hands. They've now converted you away from an RHD car that delivers better value than local used cars, and you'll buy from their local car dealership friends, so they've already achieved their objectives with you.
The study with ICBC is flawed, did you know they even compared a 4-door family sedan to a 2-door twin turbo sports car? Some of the vehicles in the study were also not even RHD vehicles and ICBC has even said the study is not conclusive.
In this case it stems from the auto dealers association of BC being threatened by high quality used cars from Japan.
Regarding safety, there are a lot more domestic Canadian vehicles on the right now which would NEVER pass a safety inspection yet ICBC and the government never did a study on them.
I've been driving an RHD car for almost 1 year now without any problems. I've found it to be safer than LHD. During the night snow storms, I'm never blinded by oncoming traffic. At night I've avoided other pedestrians because I wasn't blinded by other cars.
I've rode in LHD cars where drivers can only see pedestrians at the last second.
There is just one disadvantage for RHD here, which is sometimes on a left turn, but I've found little difference. 9/10 times at a major intersection with an LHD car I could never see if it was safe or clear to make the turn. Just like with LHD, I wait until it is safe to turn.
ICBC interestingly enough never quoted any study from the UK, which proved their point.
Most European countries allow a mix of LHD and RHD because they have observed no difference in accident rates.
People need to see this for what it is, it's our normally lazy government taking interest in something that does not serve the interest of Canadians. Do you know at one point the Canadian government did its best to stop RIV approved vehicles from entering the country?
The bottom line is that this is more about economics and competition than it is about safety. Besides, all vehicles must meet Provincial standards and pass a safety inspection in order to be registered, and most cars from Japan are in such good condition, they pass right away (mine did and was in new condition mechanically).
If you want to hear more information from owners of these cars please visit JDMVIP
The perception of the public opinion is often left to ill considered comments of narrow minded people. In some cases, comments are posted only to create drama. The lack of exposure to RHD vehicles in Canada has lead to some individuals poorly educating the rest of the impressionable public. I remember when uni-body vehicles were considered unsafe due lack of a solid frame.
LHD and RHD vehicles exist in concert in most countries. In all countries it is the driver that dictates the overall safety of operating a vehicle. In Canada, I see some of the worst driving anywhere due to lack of driver proficiency and poor driver habits. The Quebec government has stated Quebec's poor driving habit's are ingrained into society.....
In my opinion, the lack of enforcement of minor and major vehicular infractions leads to drivers with no concern for the laws. In Ottawa, drivers are so bad for running amber and red lights, tourists are briefed to the dangers of crossing the street in downtown Ottawa!??
As for standards, at least Quebec has stood up and legislated the mandatory requirement for winter tires. How many motorists are involved in minor and major accidents during winter weather whilst driving without winter tires? A lot! Just because people refuse to slow down and equpe their vehicle properly. Personally, I cannot imagine driving in Canada in winter without winter tires. That would be unsafe. Do you have winter tires on your vehicle?
I suppose the RHD 2009 Jeep is unsafe and should be banned from Canada. There are some books that are dangerous as well. Anything is possible after seeing Harper wear warm fuzzy sweaters!
I forgot, Quebec has banned the use of cell phones whilst operating a vehicle due it is unsafe. Do you use (talk or text) whilst driving???? Where is the Canadian standard here?
"A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD)" Why did they get in a rhd car and attempt to crash it? and the result was 60% of the drivers did not crash ? A study that was done by me showed that you are 50% more likely to cause the vehicles around you to have an accident while you are on your cell phone( and there is no way that I'm going to explain myself where I got that number from). Another study that was done by me was "Why isn't ICBC releasing a study that shows the likelihood of cashing while being around drivers with pick-ups"
I mean did they use a kid with a GTR who just got his license for this study?
I drive on the right side on two lane highways all the time and a little experience seemed to prevent me from having a 40% chance of crashing...
Increase your distance if you are scared of RHD cars on the road
"If you drive smart, you wont be in an accident. Look at Barbados,Trinidad, Great Britain, and Japan... All countries where LHD and RHD coexist. Focus more on driver's education"
I fully agree with this statement. I drive a right hand drive car, and I've been driving for over 10 years, with no speeding infractions or accidents. I chalk it up to natural competence, but also proper TRAINING. I took Young Drivers when I was starting, and I DO think they helped me be a better driver. I was TRAINED to drive on the road safely. So, if you're a government and you allow RHD vehicles to be imported and insured, if you feel there is a safety issue, because you made the call, YOU MUST TRAIN PEOPLE TO USE THEM PROPERLY. Personally, I don't find it difficult to drive a RHD car. It took me all of a day to learn. But there are any concerns (which should have come up when it became legal to import cars from other countries, but clearly wasn't an issue or we wouldn't be here), you have a duty as a government to educate the people on the differences between them.
There are thousands of RHD cars in BC now, and across the country. Most people are aware that they exist, but yes, they aren't as common as LHD. So, people know they're around, but have mixed information about how they operate. "Well, ICBC says they're unsafe, so they must be right." "Right hand drive cars, aren't they illegal?" "How will I go through my Starbucks Drive-thru?" "I like that car, I would probably own one if it wasn't right hand drive. It's just too scary to me." So many of these cars have been allowed on the road in the past few years, and the government sits back and allows this cloud of doubt and mystery to grow and grow around these cars, and does NOTHING to educate the people about them.
The only semi-valid point about RHD cars being less safe than LHD cars was in this story, told to me by my friend. He was about to cross the street one day, when he made eye contact with who he thought was the driver of the car, but was the passenger, and could not tell it was RHD. Having thought he had a non-verbal agreement with the driver that it was safe to cross, the car went through the intersection as he was stepping off the curb. No injuries were incurred, but it was the confusion that caused him to almost step in front of a car.
Well, let's see here:
a) it didn't help that the government, due to lack of mass-media education did not let him consider it could be a RHD car, and
b) Personally, before stepping in front of moving vehicles, I would look for more indications than 'eye contact with the driver' that the vehicle is accelerating; for example, wheels turning, engine accelerating making noise etc
ICBC needs to do their job and educate people about these cars and not just all of a sudden make it illegal because it's too much work to make them safe on the roads. There are many more millions of drivers in Japan driving LHD and RHD cars on the roads every day without causing accidents; I doubt you would be able to pull statistics from the country indicating that one type of vehicle (RHD/LHD) causes more accidents than the other.
It doesn't help any that their are unskilled, uneducated drivers on the road in general. Slow drivers occupying the passing lane, not using turn signals....this is just an indication that the driving standards are subpar in Canada.
Not to mention the growing number of senior drivers on the road whose senses and reflexes are deteriorating, but they are still allowed to keep their licenses out of 'respect for the elderly', because it's 'such a touchy subject'.
You're worried about me not being able to have full visibility in my right hand drive car, when there's a driver behind me whose vision and hearing is failing completely?
I'm pretty sure there are more aging drivers on the road than Right Hand Drive car owners.
"Would you kindly comment on the spate of right-hand-drive (RHD) vehicles that have appeared in B.C. recently?"
Kindly? We'll see about that!
"I have always been under the impression that imported vehicles had either to meet, or be modified to meet, Canadian standards before being licensed in Canada."
That's a legitimate question. I assume that you're mainly referring to Japanese imports. So yes, they do have to meet certain standards before being allowed to be insured in Canada.
"As far as I know this requirement applies to such relatively inconsequential matters as metric instrumentation, running lights and high central rear brake light."
Inconsequential? Maybe. Safer? Maybe. A pain in the neck for anyone who wants to import a well built, low mileage, well cared after car? Yes. There are a few more modifications than the ones you have listed that are required to insure an imported vehicle in B.C., such as DOT approved headlights, side marker lights, reflectors on the rear quarter panels. Some places require the car to meet emission standards. Also, any cracked or cracking bushings must be replaced.
"Surely the fact that a vehicle has its controls on the side opposite what is standard in Canada cannot be considered less consequential than these other matters."
You're kidding right? How did you come across this conclusion? Right hand drive cars are already meeting every other Canadian standard there is! Plus, since the import requirements are so stringent, they run cleaner, are more economical and cheaper than a sizable percentage of rust buckets allowed on Canadian roads. Do me a favour next time you are out "driving" and see how many pre-1985 cars you see on the road that burn oil / have rusted out wheel wells / have bald tyres. Do you still honestly believe that these cars are better than right hand drive cars which are modified and inspected?
- Now here's a great answer:
"A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD) vehicles."
I love facts. I love percentages too. Did you know that 75% of my body is made of anger? And my car runs on the tears of children (FACT).
"The risk appears to extend for the long term rather than being reduced by the driver becoming more familiar with using a right hand drive vehicle in a left hand drive environment."
So my car is still 40% more likely to be involved in a crash for how much longer? I personally have avoided more potential accidents from careless drivers in the 2 years I have owned my right hand drive car than I have eaten cupcakes (FACT).
"Similar studies conducted in Britain where LHD vehicles regularly mix with RHD vehicles from the continent showed the same indications."
Have you seen Italian rush hour traffic? The Italians drive RHD vehicles. If I follow your path of logic then an Argentinean driving a RHD car in Canada is 5000% more likely to crash into me! Bloody hell!
"Collisions appeared to be most common in turning, passing and lane changing situations. It is surmised that the increased risk of collision is a consequence of the reduced direct field of view for drivers to the side and rear that is more easily viewed by the majority."
Please tell me you mean to the left, and forward of the RHD vehicle. The exact same problem is posed to LHD vehicle drivers when trying to merge with a lane to the right of them.
"Fortunately, the crash protection properties of RHD vehicles is the same as their LHD counterparts."
Yes, I have no argument with you there, except would like to point out your grammatical mistake: it should read “Fortunately, the crash protection properties of RHD vehicles are the same as their LHD counterparts."
"The federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act exempts imported vehicles more than 15 years old from the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."
This is because vehicles less than 15 years old are considered less safe? This way of thinking is so backwards to me I can't even attempt to fathom their explanation.
"In view of the fact that about 200 of these RHD vehicles are imported into B.C. each month there is increased risk for all road users."
In view of the FACT that secondary infections are prevalent in hospitals, there is an increased risk to all hospital users.
"Transport Canada has been requested by the provinces and territories to review this exemption although it does not seem that a decision in either favour is being made. If you wish to comment, you may submit e-mail to 15YearRule@tc.gc.ca."
Well that's good news. I vote to allow imported RHD cars on the roads. (I will however swing my vote if car manufacturers kick me my due bribe!)
On March 31, 2009, an article that I wrote about intersection driving was printed in the Red Deer Advocate. (Article is no longer freely available on the Advocate's web site.) Readers may be interested in three further comments regarding statements made in the feedback to my article. First, I have no say in the layout of the website page nor what advertisements are placed on them. Second, the publisher typically changes the title of the article prior to printing it in the newspaper. The title that I provided was "Intersection driving can have surprises and rewards". I had no say in the title chosen by the publisher "Be wary of right hand drive vehicles". I completely support that caution and equally so its counterpart "Be wary of left hand drive vehicles". Third, many of the reader comments encourage downloading the IVOAC website. The following is a directive to association members that recently appeared on that website: start of quote from IVOAC website... "rockcrete Administrator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Maple Ridge, BC Posts: 2,952 Lobby your province now!!! ________________________________________ It is time for IVOAC member to begin applying stron pressure to the provinces to derail the CCMTA's intentions with respect to RHD vehicles. Here is the CCMTA committee that is positioning themselves against us. QC - H. Blaney (Chair) BC - M. Francis MB - B. Rapinchuk/V. Stoyko NB - S. McCracken ON - S. Erry/R. Covello QC - R. Desaulniers SK - B. McIntyre/B. Kline YT - M. Bowers TC - C. Roy AAMVA - K. Kiser CCMTA - I. Tomlinson These are various people from within each provinces departments that oversee vehicles and licencing. All of you need to figure out who the people in your province are and take loud complaints straight to their bosses. EVERYBODY needs to send an email, whan you figure out who the person in your province is, post it up and the details of who their boss is and where to email them. Don't pull any punches abou the ICBC report being "apparently fraudulent" and "in the interests of new car dealers who appear to wield a remarkable degree of influence within ICBC". Notice how I have worded my statements - do not state things in absolutes, leave yourself an out in case lawyers get involved - you are conveying YOUR opinion of how things APPEAR to you from looking at them - you are not claiming them to be absolute facts, merely appearances that demand public scrutiny and investigation. We need to make it plain and clear to all these people that any change is not supported and will not be accepted - if they support it, we will pursue every endeavour to have each and every one of them terminated from their positions of employment. A couple of hundred complaints to their ministers about them should do exactly that. " ...end of quote from IVOAC website
I own a wood flooring shop and have been looking for a real commercial rated minivan that gets decent fuel economy. The domestic producers have stopped producing Aerostars and Safaris several years ago. Ford just introduced the North American version of the Transit Connect but has mis-stepped again by not offering the diesel powerplant that is used for the rest of the world. At $30,000.00 and only getting 20 MPG city on a 2 litre 4-cylinder, I am once again looking at HiAce and Delica vans.
One of my installers already bought a Delica and loves it, granted he is Australian so the car probably doesn't feel too strange. These are trucks capable of carrying substantial loads and as a bonus are AWD which helps driving in the snow. Try that in a Caravan, Sienna, or Entourage. The new minivans are just oversize station wagons.
BTW I have a 2005 AWD Toyota Sienna which replaced our AWD 1993 Aerostar as the family vehicle, the Aerostar is now my work vehicle replacing a 2007 Ford Ranger which proved completely useless for my needs. The Ranger is now resting comfortably back at the dealer since the lease milage was reached. Since the Aerostar has 333,000 Km on it I'm sure I will need a replacement sooner rather than later. With my example it's not hard to see why there are people looking for alternatives some of which happen to be RHD.
As things look right now I will probably be another one of those people driving a RHD vehicle. I'm quite sure that the domestic dealers are hoping to stop the flow of import vehicles by supporting the scare tactics shown in the ICBC report. God forbid too many people realize exactly how bad our domestic choices really are. I mean how many SUVs can you produce?
I for one find this whole idea totally ridiculous. I have many friends that drive right hand drive imports, they are almost always more careful than anyone else i know on the road. As a matter of fact they are the only people i know that care enough to keep proper tires on their car's and maintain them properly ext. Two of my best friends recently died in a single vehicle accident, in a left hand drive, a dodge stealth R/T twin turbo. Now I'm not blaming their deaths on the fact they were in a left hand drive at all I just feel it is totally ridiculous to say that the right hand drive car is to blame. That's as good as a carpenter saying I'm sorry my cut wasn't square, my skill saw's blade wasn't good. Don't blame the tool or vehicle. It all falls back to driver skill and training simple as that.
They banned the RH drive in Quebec. It is stupid becuase one could install a camera with a 4 inch monitor in dash to see the LH forward view when changing lanes on two way single lanes. Buses and some City trucks are RH drive. Everyone should try to submit this camera idea because these days you can have pin hole cameras with good resolution.
The petition so that RH drive ban can be reversed and not spread thru canada has been closed.
I live in NS but have a friend who is attempting to get a RHD Toyota safetied in BC. The garage proprietor advised him that he will have to order a LHD lighting system to be suitable. This sounds like complete BS to me as i'm all but certain there should be enough adjustability in the factory set up regardless of which configuration it was originally built. Has anyone else had an experience with this.
If you think about it for a moment, there is good reason for this.
Sit in the driver's seat of your North American vehicle. Where is the light aimed by the lenses of your headlights? Across in front of you and up to the right to illuminate the right side of the road and to keep the light out of the eyes of drivers to your left.
Now, put your RHD vehicle on the "wrong" side of the road and where does the light from the headlights go? Across in the front of you and out to the left, right into the eyes of oncoming traffic.
Having to replace the lenses to suit the environment of LHD just stands to reason, doesn't it?
Thank you for the reply but I've thought about this prior to posting. I've been a professional driver for over 35 years and I think this is a scam.
Every vehicle I've ever owned or driven have all had adjustability in the headlamp system so that the lights can be "aimed". I cant imagine not being adjustable enough to compensate for this very situation.
Is there anyone on here with practical and professional knowledge that can shed some light on this for me? pardon the pun....
I would like to think that I have both practical and professional knowledge of this. What I may lack is the ability to describe the situation to you in a manner that you can understand.
Headlight adjustments allow the beam to be directed slightly up or down, left or right. What the adjustment cannot do is overcome what the lens is designed to project.
Like others, I have heard that RHD vehicles have been known to be involved in more collisions in BC, proportionately, to LHD vehicles.
We've now heard that, "ICBC lies", "ICBC has included all claims stats, not just collisions"..... etc.
We haven't heard supporting references to those contentions.
Statistics have always been suspect.
The statement attributed to 19th Century British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Statistic can be interesting, logical, misleading sometimes even funny. So yes we should always be caucious.
Did you know that statistically, worldwide, fewer babies are born in February than any other month ?
If one foot is frozen in a block of ice and the other in boiling water, on average (statistically) you are comfortable.
However sometimes statistics indicate something is wrong and when that something involves a motor vehicle collision, that could injure a loved one, we need to pay attention.
As I understand it, the reason there are so many imported RHD vehicles coming from Japan is because Japan has very stringent rules on aging vehicles, and their obsolete becomes our economic.
The analysis of statistics is a very intricate and exacting science. For a multibillion dollar insurance company it would seen strange in the extreme that a basic element of including non-collision claims in statistics showing the frequency of collisions involved a certain class of vehicle, very strange indeed.
Surely for auto makers, it must be very costly to build vehicles that are controlled from two different sides of their product. If, as some say, there is no decrease in safety when a RHD vehicle is operated in a LHD vehicle world we would expect auto makers pushing for one design.
I seriously think there is a reason why LHD vehicles are designed to be operated on the right side of the road and visa versa.
Why our politician haven't included one simple stipulation that all vehicle operated in BC must be LHD, with the exception of specially licensed vehicles for specific purposes is beyond me.
By the way, if you crash your RHD vehicle and it's a total loss, ICBC will not sell it as "rebuildable", no matter how salvageable, it will be designated "irreparable".
Oh,,, and the fewer babies in February ? It's the shortest month, fewer days to give birth, logical.
Wow, did this ever ignite a free-for-all.
Has anyone ever considered the Brits or Europeans who drive through the "Chunnel" and automatically switch to the other side? Many two-seat race cars are RHD but no one considers that a factor in crash probability.
I've driven both (RHD in the UK and a few race cars) and never found it to be a problem. Is that because I watch my mirrors?
OK confess people, how many wondered how the Brits can "drive" through the Chunnel and then switch to the other side of the roadway ?
Ah, vehicles DON'T drive through the Chunnel. A motorist wanting to travel "by vehicle" from Great Britian to France or vise versa, drives his or her vehicle onto a train car and the train travels the 35 minutes through the Chunnel, with the occupants of the vehicles still seated inside their respective vehicles. The vehicle, stationary, on the rail car.
I hope Hawk was trying to fool us, verses the other option ?
"Many two-seat race cars are RHD but no one considers that a factor in crash probability."
The fact a vehicle is RHD does not make the vehicle inherantly dangerous. It goes both ways RHD vehicles driven on the right side of a two way street or a LHD vehicle driven on the left side of a two way street.
I should be clear to most that the danger posed by operating a RHD vehicle on roadways designed for LHD vehicles and vise versa (for sake of this discussion "non-standard" vehicles) is the fact that the driver can't view oncoming vehicles travelling in the opposite direction, approaching head on. This is mostly necessary when turning across oncoming traffic or passing.
Question to Hawk - I've watched lots of races, yes, mostly on TV, but don't recall any race where the racing cars where travelling in both directions, and you have ?
I've driven both (RHD in the UK and a few race cars) and never found it to be a problem. Is that because I watch my mirrors?
It's always important to watch your mirrors, however the danger with operating a "non-standard" vehicle is coming head on (not in your mirror).
A little humor -
A newspaper story on April Fool’s Day suggested that, to further European integration, the UK was to convert to driving on the right. However, owing to the huge amount of work this conversion would cause, it would be phased in: for the first six months the regulation would only apply to buses and taxis.
I stand corrected on the "drive" through the Chunnel. Indeed, it is, I think, a 35 minute train ride which I've never done. However, I have driven in the UK as well as Europe and am familiar with RHD vehicles.
Also agreed that race tracks, unless someone is having a major problem, are all one direction. But being aware of who is around you and where, is a pretty major concern .... unless you happen to be the fastest car. I wasn't. So yes, judicious use of mirrors saved the body-work.
What I am saying is that I've never found it to be a problem driving a vehicle, LHD or RHD on the opposite side of the roadway .... except ...... on those little narrow country lanes in the UK where there are just two ruts in the grass. Faced with an oncoming car, I've moved right to be faced with an insructable English gentleman pointing to the other side of the road.
I gave you the "out" suggesting that you were possibly joking. Credit to you for owning the slip up.
ICBC stats on RHD vehicles indicate that they are involved in collisions disproportionate to LHD vehicles.
Now some have asserted that the ICBC stats included non-collision claims, and or unrelated collisions such as being parked when hit. I have seen no proof of that, and considering ICBC's history, in the least, of compiling great stats, I'm doubtful of that error.
I'm personally of the mind that there is a reason for "standard" vehicles to be used and as such use of non-standard vehicles should be restricted to special use.
...and YES there should be a sign on every non-standard vehicle, indicating they are RIGHT HAND DRIVE. If only to relieve the unfortunate traffic cop from the embarrasment of attending at the "driver's side" (left) of a RHD vehicle asking for the driver's license from the passenger.
Yes, I've done it.