DRL ticket

[MWR34]

I was the passenger and the GF was driving my supra, this was 4pm on a super sunny afternoon.

the police were standing on the road, I guess doing a seatbelt/cellphone check, and waved us over. So we did, only thing that was going through my mind was if the front plate was on which it was.

and they said, the reason why they pulled me over was cause the car was newer than 90 and didnt have DRL on. its an RHD 1995 MK4.

the ticket was:
4.02(2)


(2) A vehicle on a highway must be equipped with lamps equivalent to those provided by the original manufacturer in accordance with the requirements that applied under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), or a predecessor to that Act, at the time of vehicle manufacture.



Does She have any way to fight this ticket since the car wasn't manufactured for Canada, is 15 years old, and doesnt have to conform to CMVSS to be imported and road worthy?


NB, there are thousands of other Newer than 1990 cars on the road without DRL, even new trucks etc... I never hear them getting tickets.

/rant.

[Tgo]

I am surprised the car was allowed to be imported into canada without DLR in the first place. When i imported my supra few years back i had to install DLR into the car in order to pass the two inspections.
Your best bet would be to call Transport Canada and ask them regarding the exception and the DRL requirement.

[Soundy]

Tgo is correct, the car should not have been allowed to be registered and licensed without being brought up to TC *and* BC MVAR spec and passing the appropriate inspections... and those inspections SHOULD have included checking for DRL function.

[alpinestars]

Originally Posted by MWR34

I was the passenger and the GF was driving my supra, this was 4pm on a super sunny afternoon.

the police were standing on the road, I guess doing a seatbelt/cellphone check, and waved us over. So we did, only thing that was going through my mind was if the front plate was on which it was.

and they said, the reason why they pulled me over was cause the car was newer than 90 and didnt have DRL on. its an RHD 1995 MK4.

the ticket was:
4.02(2)


(2) A vehicle on a highway must be equipped with lamps equivalent to those provided by the original manufacturer in accordance with the requirements that applied under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), or a predecessor to that Act, at the time of vehicle manufacture.



Does She have any way to fight this ticket since the car wasn't manufactured for Canada, is 15 years old, and doesnt have to conform to CMVSS to be imported and road worthy?


NB, there are thousands of other Newer than 1990 cars on the road without DRL, even new trucks etc... I never hear them getting tickets.

/rant.

the idea is you can import ANY car for whatever purpose you want (eg, off road track use) but to be legally on the road it must be consistence with mostly every other car on the road and deemed roadworthy. if it wasn't for consistency, we'd have cars with green brake lights, cars with high beams, cars with police strobes as turn signals, etc. your car is no different from the examples i listed

DRL's are important for the safety of yourself and others. when the suns behind you, without DRL's, you're practically invisible to the people in front of you wearing sunglasses and with their visors down. if you got into an accident and investigators found that your car wasn't equipped with DRL's, ICBC may not cover you for whatever damage/injury you cause

lastly, you're in a RHD car (i've previously owned one before) its a fact that left turns are riskier in a RHD car. at the very least, you should be concerned about making your RHD car more visible in an intersection (with DRL), not whether or not everyone else is doing it. justifying something illegal and unsafe just because everyone else is doing it is the stupidest and most immature thing you can do. now go install your DRL's and remember you're representing the RHD community, make them look safe not stupid.

[corollagtSr5]

Well, think about it this way, at least the officer didn't issue her a vehicle inspection on top of that ticket.

[Dragon-88]

TBH when I see cars with no DRL's its a big blur and I usually always have to take a double take on the car.. Especially on side road intersections.. I always look for headlights and cars that dont have the DRL's are way harder to see.

[shenmecar]

I know from experience that for a imported RHD car to be road worthy, you must need DRL to pass the inspection. Whoever you bought your car from must have had a shop do the inspection who cared more about making the money than following the rules.

At least you didnt get a VI.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by MWR34

NB, there are thousands of other Newer than 1990 cars on the road without DRL, even new trucks etc... I never hear them getting tickets.

/rant.

Then they've been disabled post-manufacture. And you don't hear about them getting tickets because it's not exactly newspaper worthy..er.. news.


What I want to know is if a US car without DRLs from the factory would be subject to such a ticket in Canada if visiting. (not imported).

[Brianrietta]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Then they've been disabled post-manufacture. And you don't hear about them getting tickets because it's not exactly newspaper worthy..er.. news.


What I want to know is if a US car without DRLs from the factory would be subject to such a ticket in Canada if visiting. (not imported).

Non-permanent visitor's vehicles must meet safety requirements in their home jurisdiction. When I visit BC for example I can drive around with my tinted front windows, and Quebec plated vehicles can come to Ontario without a front plate displayed, etc.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Non-permanent visitor's vehicles must meet safety requirements in their home jurisdiction. When I visit BC for example I can drive around with my tinted front windows, and Quebec plated vehicles can come to Ontario without a front plate displayed, etc.

Actually you can't.

[Brianrietta]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Actually you can't.

Hrmm, I stand corrected, it is still unlawful. I've had officers comment on the tint previously but never received so much as a warning or request to remove it while around Vancouver while plated from ON, so I'd been under the assumption that it was out of their jurisdiction.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Hrmm, I stand corrected, it is still unlawful. I've had officers comment on the tint previously but never received so much as a warning or request to remove it while around Vancouver while plated from ON, so I'd been under the assumption that it was out of their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately the federal standards are trumped by provincial standards.

Which is why I asked about the DRLs. If it is unsafe to operate a vehicle without DRLs in Canada, why can people visit Canada from the US without them if they're not allowed to visit BC with tint?

[solo_ryder]

I have seen problems with this before. As far as I know you are allowed to disable or run no DRL's, that is at your discretion. However, it is illegal to drive a car or sell a car at least that is not equipped with them from the factory. If you car passed an inspection and it had the DRL's in there then you should be good to go, I dont think its illegal to drive with DRL's off, its just if the car has them installed or not which is the issue IIRC

[MWR34]

Ok well what I dont get is,

I have a 1995 Supra, from Japan, Made for Japan. In Japan, it wasnt manufactured with DRL. Same with all the LHD Supras manufactured for USA. Both did not have DRL from the factory back in 1995. The Canada Spec 1995 Supra, (yes there were a few) were made to conform to the Federal standards and had DRL. Cause they were brand new and needed to comply to CMVSS to be sold legally here.


Now if I had a October build 1989 Supra, LHD or RHD manufactured for either Canada/USA/Japan, they didnt come with DRL, and is legal.

If it was one year newer, 1990, The USA and JAPAN Supra still doesnt have DRL, but the canadian one does from Factory, that isn't legal cause its rolling on our soil?

and the tens of thousands of pre 89 cars rolling around without DRL not getting hassled...

Originally Posted by Soundy

Tgo is correct, the car should not have been allowed to be registered and licensed without being brought up to TC *and* BC MVAR spec and passing the appropriate inspections... and those inspections SHOULD have included checking for DRL function.

Cars from Japan older than 15 years old, do not need to conform to federal standards, and does not need a federal inspection like USA cars do. They only need a provincial inspection just like buying a car from alberta or other provinces. The do not need to conform to the CMVSS (Canadian motor vehicle safety standards) by TC

[1exotic]

heh those motherfuckers always trying to ticket people for the smallest thing...

I personally didn't have my daytime running lights on my old Supra and the inspector just passed the car... and i never had problems driving with the lights off on a sunny day.

[RevRav]

Originally Posted by MWR34

NB, there are thousands of other Newer than 1990 cars on the road without DRL, even new trucks etc... I never hear them getting tickets.

It's like saying how there's thousands of cars on the speeding over 50km/h everyday, every hour, every minute. Do every single one of them get caught?

You're well aware of the law, but you decided to take the risk anyways.

I would just pay the ticket, and move on.

[Soundy]

The simple fact is, that car *SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED PROVINCIAL INSPECTION* without DRLs. They're required, you didn't have them, end of story. Pay the ticket and move on.