Ontario new excessive Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations - Page 2 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > E46 BMW > General E46 Forum

General E46 Forum
This is the place to get answers, opinions and everything you need related to your E46 (sedan, coupe, convertible and wagon) BMW!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-17-2017, 10:02 AM   #21
Mr Podman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: N.A.
Posts: 1,130
My Ride: E46 Coupe
I remember buying my 71 Chevelle in London, Ontario in 1981. Had to have it "Safety Checked".

I remember thinking it was a pain. I also remember being thankful I repaired the items (like brakes) that the safety check pointed out.


podman
Mr Podman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 10:19 AM   #22
ryanr1299
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: DFW
Posts: 149
My Ride: 2004 325i, 2001 530i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Podman View Post
I remember buying my 71 Chevelle in London, Ontario in 1981. Had to have it "Safety Checked".

I remember thinking it was a pain. I also remember being thankful I repaired the items (like brakes) that the safety check pointed out.


podman
Brakes are critically important, we all agree. As a previous comment noted it's about balance. I also noted above that many states have found these safety inspection do nothing to improve safety overall. I'm sure there are edge cases where the inspection has saved an unsafe vehicle from being on the road. Unfortunately the vast majority of the time and resources spent on these inspections is wasted.

When I take vehicles in for combined safety and emissions inspections here in Texas I make sure the car will pass before I even show up. Even still last time I took my truck a few months back, I found they had just changed the law to require the third brake light to work. That's one that just doesn't make sense to me as I have a hard time imagining how that appreciably increases safety. A single main brake light on my truck is bigger and brighter than all of the brake lights combined on my E46, and the truck has two of them, on top of the third light. The shop wanted over $50 to fix my third light. I fixed it at the AutoZone next door for $8 in bulbs. Most people are going to be stuck with the $50 repair.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
ryanr1299 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 10:30 AM   #23
jmo69
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,614
My Ride: 03 325xi 98 328is
Granted, unsafe cars need to be addressed, this sounds similar to the last administration's "Cash for clunkers" program. It put people in new cars they couldn't afford and when it was repossessed a lot of the affordable used cars had been scrapped. I'll deal with just having my emission's tested every other year. Here it's simple, only OBDII cars are scanned, so no light, no problem and it's free.
__________________
][/2003 325xi auto Stahlgrau almost modless, just lots of new parts. 1998 328is 5sp lowered, X-brace, Sparco strut brace, HIDs and almost everything blacked out
jmo69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 11:16 AM   #24
jfoj
OEM ///Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fairfax, VA USA
Posts: 23,184
My Ride: 330CiC, M5, X5, E93
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOODY007 View Post
Hell I was nearly rear-ended by a mid 2000s Camry who's brakes locked up,
You were not hit, but know the car had defective brakes because they locked up? Where is the logic in this? Even ABS will cause the tires to squeal sounding like the brakes are locked and in some cases ABS cannot keep one or more wheels from locking up depending on the conditions. Unless the car was impounded, inspected and you somehow received a report you have no idea if anything was defective or worn out. Probably just ANOTHER driver that was not paying attention, distracted by something else going on more important than driving, they updating Facebook or replying to a text message.

Sounds like it was a case of a driver going too fast and/or applying the brakes hard at the last minute. At least the brakes were working and you were not hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOODY007 View Post
and my aunt has chronic back pain due to a moron in a Neon rear-ending her due to brake failure. More regulation is good - it saves us from less caring individuals on the road...
First, sortty your aunt was injured, but do you have a specific inspection report indicating the brake failed on this car? Rarely will the insurance companies tell someone that the car had a failure unless they are tying to protect themselves from being sued and in this case the insurance company better have a lot of back up evidence when they blame the vehicle rather than the driver.

Being rear ended is more often than not someone not paying attention, not a case of a vehicle failure. After many years working for a vehicle manufacturer and investigating claimed vehicle failures, I would be a rich man for every claim where the driver blamed the incident on a problem with the vehicle. Blaming the car or a failure with the car tends to be a common occurrence with many accidents.

I am fine with Annual Safety Inspections, where I live, they used to perform Vehicle Safety Inspections every 6 months, luckily they wised up and move to Annual Safety Inspections. This is a decent program and is not over the top. It catches many of the problems that should not be on the road. But not every problem will be caught either.

Even some of the most stringent inspections may not disassemble the car for a complete inspection. For example my 10 year old GMC truck has the rusting brake line problems that are quite common. The area where they start to fail is not easily visible. I chose to PM the hard brake lines on my truck because I had heard about the problems and I was getting nervous about this happening to me. When I removed the cover to access the lines, I found one line has a small pinhole and had started to weep, but not enough to leave fluid stain, drop the fluid level or even cause a change in the brake behavior. BUT one very hard application of the brakes may have blow the line.

So just because vehicles are inspected does not mean all faults will be found, identified and resolved. Better than no inspection, but there needs to be balance. And I have some background in this and first hand knowledge because I used to be a State Safety and Emission Inspector.

What you really need to worry about is not how safe the car is, but how safe the driver is. Remember the Telsa driver that was watching a Harry Potter movie while allow the car to self drive that ran into the side of a tractor trailer? As least the only casualty was the Telsa driver.
__________________
Solve your misfires, lean codes, rough idle - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=897616

Fuel pump failures - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=929501

Temp Info - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=964491

Hidden OBC Menu - Check Voltage, Temp, Fuel Level - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239619

E46/E39 GM5 Door Lock Info - www.bmwgm5.com

Lower hose temp switch O-ring - BMW #13621743299

Last edited by jfoj; 07-17-2017 at 11:19 AM.
jfoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 12:07 PM   #25
Cooolone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 15
My Ride: 330XI
Gov't over reach and for those who feel or think something like this would be ok here in the U.S. Need to have your head examined. Wonder how this would've gone over not too long ago should the Gov't make horse drawn carriages suffer the same scrutiny/inspection with such broad and arbitrary requirements. And if this would be implemented here, then the inspection station and inspector should be culpable for any mechanical failure which causes injury, it's that simple!

See, there's. Funny little argument that's occurred here, just under then surface, about freedom to travel. Look into it and learn something. Or should I have to install airbags in my 69' GTO? And really, the argument about you having to deal with my smog bucket is just too bad isn't it? You know, not everyone can afford a new car, even used new car ar every few years! It's a terrible and ridiculous expectation! Recently, the EPA under Barack Hussein Obama, given steroidal type powers under his watch, wanted to ban any modification to emissions on any car, new old or classic. All in the name of clean air! Kind of like what CA is doing... How draconian! Especially when industry offenders get free passes as long as they just funnel some spare change to lobbyist in D.C., but sure, we'll make a difference on the backs of the little guys. Gimme a break! Here in NY, I had an inspection station fail me for rust on my rotors (didn't drive that car much), told the guy I could drive 20 miles and remove the rust, but the rotors and pads were fine. His reply was go ahead and come back. Well you can guess what I told him to do! That was the last time, because every time I had gone there it was something or another, just a game, and the poor suckers who submit that got hoodwinked and taken to the bank. Their cheap $10 China Rotors and garbage pads on all these cars, how safe do you think that is?

So anyways, when the Gov't creates another hidden "tax" through mandating extraordinary vehicle performance, obsolescence and durability, they had better transfer those requirements to the auto manufacturers because it's unfair to give it to the owners! New car every few years... Yeah ok!
Cooolone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 12:21 PM   #26
DjDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Toronto
Posts: 45
My Ride: 2006 330Ci
Oh Man,

As someone who works in the automotive industry here in Toronto, I know how it is.
The faces of people that come into the shop looking for a safety and I can tell them it won't pass just by looking at the car.. I'm not fond of it either. A bit over the edge if you ask me. The E-Test is already pretty pointless, as you get your car scanned for any codes, and based on that it passes/fails. The old tail pipe test at least tested for pollution, this test just makes sure your computer thinks it's running clean..
DjDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 03:17 PM   #27
Sicily1918
There I was, Sicily, 1918..
 
Sicily1918's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,292
My Ride: '03 325Ci + '05 ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt4k View Post
Soon we will be regulated to never drive our cars but be forced to have them drive for us.
That's more than likely the idea -- the concept of you driving your/a vehicle will probably not survive another generation or two.

It's like certain smog laws in the late 70's with mandatory catalytics and unleaded gas... by the very early 1990's, as older cars were naturally taken off the road, we suddenly weren't living in cities covered in domes of smog, and you couldn't even buy leaded gas past about 1991 (to say nothing of having a car without a catalytic).
__________________

Last edited by Sicily1918; 07-17-2017 at 03:25 PM.
Sicily1918 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 07:39 PM   #28
gmtmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK.
Posts: 53
My Ride: 2004 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mango View Post
I applaud this strongly.

I'm in favor of high government regulation. If we didn't have gov't mandates, we'd all be driving unsafe grossly inefficient cars. It's about time someone enforces high standards on safety and well-being. The # of the cars on the road will increase almost exponentially in the coming years/decades. The faster we can make an effort to discourage old polluters and encourage newer or better maintained cars, the better off we'll all be. Encourage a well kept-car, you encourage safety, less pollution. What's so wrong with that? Seems the only people that might not sit well with this are those driving rolling death heaps worried they might have to spend a few bucks to replace that leaky shock. We all have to get with the program. This isn't the 1950s.

Remember it's not only you on the road, but others as well. Not everyone wants to share the road with a steaming heap. Get your cars properly maintained and help yourself and everyone else out.
Your first sentence says it all...Wow.....If thats your utopia......
gmtmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 08:39 PM   #29
Geo31
Ironman
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Willis, TX, USA
Posts: 3,588
My Ride: 98 M-Z3, 01 325iT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt4k View Post
This is why its nice to know people in the industry here in Ontario...government sticking their hands in everything and making a mess, buisness as usual here in Canadia

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using E46Fanatics mobile app
Yep...

Keep electing those socialists....
__________________
George Roffe

Swim: 2.4 Miles
Bike: 112 Miles
Run: 26.2 Miles
Brag: For the rest of your life


Geo31 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 09:24 AM   #30
JDA33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 91
My Ride: 2003 325i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalocnus View Post
If implemented, this will do way more than just forcing you to pay an extra $300 when changing ownership. The document basically says that you can't sell a car with a blown shock absorber or a leaking gasket. The majority of the cars about ten years of age or older have blown shocks, leaks, as well as multiple other similar disqualifying issues. Currently, their market value is around $2-$6K.

So, it will be too expensive to get these cars to pass the inspection, and most of them will be junked. This will change the car market in many ways. Just one example - the depreciation rate will increase very significantly, which means that the monthly lease payments on new cars will go up, probably by a factor of two. A lot of people who can afford to drive premium class cars today will have to downgrade.
I think this point is pretty important and something being over looked. Putting aside my stance on government regulation being overbearing in this situation, the economic impact of this should be considered.

Leasing a car is already relatively expensive for those who do not earn much. Now increase the cost due to depreciation of cars rapidly increasing. It would put a lot of people in a position without a car. Which either means increased public transportation or the more likely alternative of higher taxes in order to subsidize cars for those who can no longer afford them.
JDA33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:47 AM   #31
CrowsFeast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Etobicoke
Posts: 188
My Ride: 330CI ZHP
For everyone going on about how great it is to have regulation: we already had a pretty good safety inspection requirement; they've just replaced it with an overly aggressive one which will mostly just increase costs due to the additional labour required to dot he inspection. Also keep in mind that these safety inspections are only required at the time of vehicle sale. This will do next to nothing to stop people driving clapped out heaps of trash because everything can and will wear out during their time of ownership.
CrowsFeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 02:30 PM   #32
Mango
e46mango.com
 
Mango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 26,618
My Ride: Lexus
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmtmaster View Post
Your first sentence says it all...Wow.....If thats your utopia......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo31 View Post
Yep...

Keep electing those socialists....

As a native Californian, I am proud of our state's initiative for clean air and professional regulations, particularly those such as fuel economy targets set by the prior admin.

Why wouldn't you want cleaner air, higher standards, more safety, more economy? Don't you want to "conserve" gas or "conserve" money? I dunno about you. but I like clean air and money. I think it's more of a "I wanna raise my fist at the 'opponent," and not based on any real logic, when it comes to wanting less standards on the road.

Cars are 3,000 lb death machines. Someone should care if they have a busted ball joint.
__________________

Last edited by Mango; 07-18-2017 at 02:32 PM.
Mango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 02:35 PM   #33
Mango
e46mango.com
 
Mango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 26,618
My Ride: Lexus
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmo69 View Post
Granted, unsafe cars need to be addressed, this sounds similar to the last administration's "Cash for clunkers" program. It put people in new cars they couldn't afford and when it was repossessed a lot of the affordable used cars had been scrapped. I'll deal with just having my emission's tested every other year. Here it's simple, only OBDII cars are scanned, so no light, no problem and it's free.
I realize not everyone can afford a new car, but there are quite a few people who can afford repairs who don't repair their cars. Nothing irks me more than seeing old falling apart sh1t piles sharing the road with me.

You'll all pump your fist and go "NO REGULATION" until a 50 lb steel wheel and tire comes through your windshield due to vehicle apathy
__________________
Mango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 02:50 PM   #34
jfoj
OEM ///Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fairfax, VA USA
Posts: 23,184
My Ride: 330CiC, M5, X5, E93
California’s Proposition 65 states that my Christmas lights contain compounds that may cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm in the state of California.

But if I use the same product outside of California, I am safe.
__________________
Solve your misfires, lean codes, rough idle - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=897616

Fuel pump failures - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=929501

Temp Info - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=964491

Hidden OBC Menu - Check Voltage, Temp, Fuel Level - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239619

E46/E39 GM5 Door Lock Info - www.bmwgm5.com

Lower hose temp switch O-ring - BMW #13621743299
jfoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 02:57 PM   #35
Spannerhead
Save the Manuals!
 
Spannerhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 2,274
My Ride: '02 330i/5 slicktop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mango View Post
You'll all pump your fist and go "NO REGULATION" until a 50 lb steel wheel and tire comes through your windshield due to vehicle apathy
Total strawman. It's possible to have basic safety inspections without the overregulatory garbage listed in OP's post.

Saying anything less than Cali/Ontario/etc's regulatory environment will cause us to be overrun by poorly-maintained death traps is utter nonsense.





OP, I sympathize. One of the reasons I appreciate TN.
__________________

Current: '02 330i/5'10 Mazda5'72 240Z
Past: '85 GSL-SE • '95 540i/6'95 525i/5'86 635CSi/5 • '88 JZA70 • '86 4K quattro • '85 RX-7 S
Spannerhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 03:43 PM   #36
Geo31
Ironman
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Willis, TX, USA
Posts: 3,588
My Ride: 98 M-Z3, 01 325iT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mango View Post
As a native Californian, I am proud of our state's initiative for clean air and professional regulations, particularly those such as fuel economy targets set by the prior admin.

Why wouldn't you want cleaner air, higher standards, more safety, more economy? Don't you want to "conserve" gas or "conserve" money? I dunno about you. but I like clean air and money. I think it's more of a "I wanna raise my fist at the 'opponent," and not based on any real logic, when it comes to wanting less standards on the road.

Cars are 3,000 lb death machines. Someone should care if they have a busted ball joint.
I have absolutely NO issues with reasonable emissions standards. By reasonable, I mean that they are technically attainable without serious burden on the public.

As for whether or not I want to conserve gas it MY business, not yours or the governments.

It is not necessary to maintain a car in essentially new condition to ensure safety. There is a healthy median than can be attained that is not an egregious burden on the population.
__________________
George Roffe

Swim: 2.4 Miles
Bike: 112 Miles
Run: 26.2 Miles
Brag: For the rest of your life


Geo31 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 04:23 PM   #37
speavler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 89
My Ride: 2004 330i sport smg
Big Brother knows best...or so they say
speavler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 04:30 PM   #38
Megalocnus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,051
My Ride: 05 330i ZHP/MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo31 View Post
I have absolutely NO issues with reasonable emissions standards. By reasonable, I mean that they are technically attainable without serious burden on the public.

As for whether or not I want to conserve gas it MY business, not yours or the governments.

It is not necessary to maintain a car in essentially new condition to ensure safety. There is a healthy median than can be attained that is not an egregious burden on the population.
California is surprisingly reasonable when it comes to car ownership.
The only thing the state cares for is that the car is CARB-legal, which is checked biannually for cars older than five years, or when changing ownership. If anything, I'm pissed that they are not as serious about enforcing the noise pollution laws as they should be.

Brakes, shocks, ball joints, etc. they don't care about, and rightly so - this should be the owner's and/or the auto insurer's responsibility.
-

Historically, the push to make the catalytic convertors mandatory has been a great success, but it also makes sense, since CATS reduce CO emissions by a factor of ten while increasing the cost of the car by less than 10%.
The SULEV/PZEV is quite another story though, and we should learn from it.
Megalocnus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 04:39 PM   #39
jfoj
OEM ///Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fairfax, VA USA
Posts: 23,184
My Ride: 330CiC, M5, X5, E93
So does CA have an Annual mandatory motor vehicle Safety Inspection? For passenger cars and/or heavy trucks?

Often I am far more worried about the safety of heavy trucks and trailers than I am about the average passenger vehicles on the road.
__________________
Solve your misfires, lean codes, rough idle - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=897616

Fuel pump failures - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=929501

Temp Info - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=964491

Hidden OBC Menu - Check Voltage, Temp, Fuel Level - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239619

E46/E39 GM5 Door Lock Info - www.bmwgm5.com

Lower hose temp switch O-ring - BMW #13621743299
jfoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 04:43 PM   #40
Megalocnus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,051
My Ride: 05 330i ZHP/MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfoj View Post
So does CA have an Annual mandatory motor vehicle Safety Inspection? For passenger cars and/or heavy trucks?

Often I am far more worried about the safety of heavy trucks and trailers than I am about the average passenger vehicles on the road.
Not sure about trucks. The passenger cars are only required to show up for smog check.
Anyway, cars and trucks are supposed to be owned and driven by adults, and the state should treat them as such.
Megalocnus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.