[Paul]

Just thought I'd post an update to let you know that this hasn't gone away.

It was originally raised in this thread: http://bb.bc4x4.com/showthread.php?113558-Final-Approved-Legislation-for-Lifted-Vehicles


I posted this on another message board but I've been busy so I forgot to post it here.

What brought this to my attention was proposed regulation in Saskatchewan that while generally reasonable, specifically set an arbitrary tire size of 35". Tires larger than that faced restrictions on GVW and highway speed, regardless of what the vehicle in question was. The proposed Saskatchewan regulation was shelved in November last year. According to SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance?? ), which functions much the same as ICBC, the regulation was shelved in order to bring it into line with the findings of the Working Group on Excessively Raised Vehicles. I believe however, that it was also set aside, at lest partially, because of a grass roots letter writing campaign that sprang up last summer.

Secondly, it seems that the Working Group is trying to standardize regulation across Canada with the goal of standardizing lifted vehicle regulation across North America. Here is the draft regulation proposed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). http://www.aamva.org/aamva/DocumentDisplay.aspx?id={80881E2C-DD7D-4908-ADAB-309BFF9B3406} On the face it looks very similar to the existing B.C. regulation but again, like Saskatchewan, there is an arbitrarily set tire size limit only this time it is 34".

Further, both the US and Canadian initiatives are directed at regulating only "excessively raised" vehicles without consideration of heights of excessively lowered vehicles. This and the portrayal of the issue in last summer's CCMTA newsletter presents as bias solely against lifted vehicles. http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/ccmta_news_summer_2009.pdf

Here is an e-mail that I sent to the Chair of the committee.

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:05 PM
To: Filiatrault, Daniel
Subject: Working Group on Excessively Raised Vehicles

Hello Daniel,

I was reading that you are the Chair of the Working Group on Excessively
Raised Vehicles for the CCMTA. As a concerned stakeholder I am wondering
if there is any avenue for public input on the issue and if there was a
way to see the minutes of these meetings.

Thank you,

Paul Gagnon
Sherwood Park, Alberta

Sent: Monday, December 7, 2009 10:32 AM

Dear Mr. Gagnon:

A technical working group has been assembled by the Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators ("the CCMTA working group") to examine
the safety issues associated with excessively raised vehicles. It is
anticipated that the scope of the work will involve preparing a best
practice document before the CCMTA Annual Meeting in May 2010. The CCMTA
working group intends to make arrangements to obtain feedback from
stakeholders should a draft version of the document be prepared by March
2010. In the interim, the CCMTA working group welcomes input from all
stakeholders with an interest in highway safety. As such I would
encourage you to provide a written summary of concerns that you as a
vehicle owner and/or member affiliated with a 4x4 club may have which
could be considered by the CCMTA working group in developing a best
practice document.

Thank you for taking an interest in the CCMTA working group.

Daniel Filiatrault, Chair
Excessively Raised Vehicle Technical Working Group
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators

The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) is meeting May 16-20, 2010 in Fredericton and that date is is coming up fast.http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/dv_agd_tentative_may_2010.pdf I think we as a group need to get need to get motivated and make our voices heard! I encourage each and every one of you to write a letter. I think what we need are individual letters as well as club/group affiliated letters. The only thing we need to be sure of is that our letters are articulate and respectful otherwise they will be disregarded by these bureaucrats.

Here is the letter that I sent to SGI last July if anyone wants to use it as an example. I discourage you from copying it directly as form letters do not carry any weight but feel free to add to or expand on any of the points that I made. Unfortunately the SGi draft copy has been taken down off their website so the quotes withing my letter are all that I have.

I am writing in regard to your proposed after market raised vehicle legislation. For the most part your proposed regulations seem to be reasonable but the tire size restriction appears to be completely arbitrary. I have added the tire size restrictions as a quotation and will outline my concerns about this below.

> Tire size
> Current research indicates that alterations such as suspension modifications and the
> installation of after-market oversized replacement tires can lead to poor handling, an
> increased propensity for roll over, increased stopping distances, vehicle compatibility
> issues and regulatory non-compliance.
> Public consultations identified a concern with limiting tire size. A vehicle height is
> generally raised to accommodate the installation of larger tires to provide increased
> ground clearance and aesthetics. The proposed policy would not directly limit the size
> of tires that a vehicle may be equipped with. However, the size of tires that a vehicle
> could be equipped with would be limited by:
> − existing regulations (i.e., bumper heights and the requirement that a tire must not
> contact a non-rotating vehicle component);
> − a frame height grandfathering provision contained in the proposed policy;
> − the post-implementation tiered frame height limits contained in the proposed policy
> − speed restrictions, when equipped with after-market oversized replacement tires
> over 875 millimetres (35 inches) in diameter; and,
> − towing restrictions, when equipped with after-market oversized replacement tires
> over 875 millimetres (35 inches) in diameter.
> Allowing the use of after-market oversized replacement tires, but placing limits on
> speed and towing capacity, addresses the adverse effects on braking with oversized
> replacement tires and considers the expense of replacing currently permitted
> oversized replacement tires. The proposed policy provides owners the option of
> slowing down and limiting the vehicle’s gross combined weight while being able to
> use oversized replacement tires.

The proposed regulation states that installation of larger tires necessitates an increase in the height of the vehicle. This assumption ignores the fact that many new pickup trucks currently available on the market allow fitment of tires with a diameter of 35 inches without any modification to suspension or bodywork. This assumption also ignores the fact that current trends in four wheel drive truck/SUV modifications tend toward keeping the overall vehicle height as low as possible while increasing the ground clearance as much as possible. In this effort 4x4 enthusiasts are increasingly undertaking the widening of wheel well openings to fit their larger tires rather than increasing vehicle height.

The regulation also makes assumptions about the braking ability with larger tires while at the same time ignoring the fact that most often the installation of larger tires is accompanied by upgrades to the axles. The heavier duty axles most often have larger brakes which negates any supposed lost braking power caused by the larger tire diameter. It is in fact quite common for a vehicle to have better braking with larger tires specifically because of the upgraded axles and brakes. Further, most modern 4wd vehicles have much improved factory braking systems (such as four wheel disc brakes) over their earlier counterparts. As such it is not unheard of for a new 4x4 with larger tires to stop faster and safer than it's equivalent model from just a few years ago, that is equipped with factory tires.

The final assumption that the regulation makes is that the vehicle would be a hazard while towing at normal highway speeds. Quite frankly, restricting the speed to 20 km/h below that of the rest of the traffic on the highway is more dangerous than any imagined danger from the larger tires.

In addition the proposed regulation does not specify how the tire size will be determined. It is a well known fact that true tire diameters are often different than manufacturers labeling. How will this regulation be enforced? Will each police officer be equipped with a caliper or will the tire's diameter be determined from the manufacturers (often ambiguous) sidewall markings?

Overall the proposed legislation seems well balanced and thoroughly researched with the exception of the tire size restriction. If a vehicle meets the frame height, bumper height, suspension and steering criteria what need is there to restrict the tire size? Indeed, it could be said that larger tires afford increased stability as they are more often than not wider than their factory installed counterparts. I for one would be much more concerned about a vehicle that is at the maximum allowable frame height with relatively small tires installed than I would about a vehicle that is below the maximum frame height with larger tires installed.

I urge you to reconsider this part of the proposed legislation as it is unreasonable and superficial. It appears that the tire diameter restriction was included without much forethought as to the actual impact that tires larger than 35 inches diameter pose and without consideration of how it will actually be enforced.

Thank you for your time,

Paul Gagnon

If anyone else has any other information or links please post it here.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[canucksafari]

I have had some dealings with the CCMTA in the past. Writing to them is a waste of time. They are not an elected body and have no accountability to the tax paying public. They are a private organization who's membership is made up of insurance company reps, automotive dealership reps, automotive manufacters reps, and gov transport ministry reps. Once you join, you are sworn to keep confidential the discussions and issues of their meetings.

If you want to have an impact, then get the businesses that make money from 4x4 mods involved and putting direct pressure on elected gov reps. As individuals, it doesn't hurt to also communicate to your MP or MLA your displeasure but our current provinical gov and federal gov are more likely to listen to businesses than the people who elect them.

You might point out that we already have laws in place which require that any lift over 2" must be inspected and passed as safe. Personally, I think this is nothing more than a way for the auto industry to get people out and buying their new stock lifted trucks rather than holding on to their old modified rigs.

 

[mermaid.5]

You might point out that we already have laws in place which require that any lift over 2" must be inspected and passed as safe. Personally, I think this is nothing more than a way for the auto industry to get people out and buying their new stock lifted trucks rather than holding on to their old modified rigs.

The law actually states anything over 10 cm ( 10cm's is a tick over 4 inches) requires inspection, just to clarify.

 

[canucksafari]

The law actually states anything over 10 cm ( 10cm's is a tick over 4 inches) requires inspection, just to clarify.

Good to know. Does that also include lift from increased tire size or just suspension and/or body lift.

Personally, I would mind any mods over 2" lifted or lowered requiring a VI. I sure others like myself have seen some scary mods running on our roads. IMO, a required inspection would be better than just saying nothing over 2", like they have done in some states in Australia.

 

[Wil]

Looks like this group is something North American wide and has been in consultation with SEMA. Interesting that an ICBC employee is the lead on this.

 

[Cody1771]

very intresting read, i agree with everything that paul has stated, i know for a fact that my 86 chevy stoppes a hell of alot faster than it did stock because ive done break checks out of curiosity. sure seems that there is one hell of a warpath on OHV users these days or is it just my imagination?

 

[83LB]

The law actually states anything over 10 cm ( 10cm's is a tick over 4 inches) requires inspection, just to clarify.

You need a new ruler, 10cm=3.937in.

 

[mermaid.5]

Ooops I said that wrong!!! I meant 4 inches is just a tick more than 10cms.

Nice catch 83lb!!

My point was supposed to be that anything with a 4 inch lift is included.

Here is a quote from the applicable section;

Application
25.20 This Part applies to a vehicle that was

(a) disposed of as salvage and subsequently rebuilt,

(b) altered by changes to its suspension height by more than 10 cm from the original basic specification of the vehicle manufacturer,

(c) altered so that its

(i) freight carrying capacity has been increased beyond the original gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle, or by design changes other than those established by the manufacturer of the vehicle, or

(ii) seating capacity has been increased, or

(d) built after January 1, 1971 from new or used parts, other than a trailer with a licensed gross vehicle weight of 1 400 kg or less, and that does not display the statement of compliance under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada).

 

[Road Dog]

There's still the question of how is the "suspension height" measured? Do taller tires change the suspension height? Or a body lift?

If I was installing a lift I'd measure the shock length before and after to give me a "lift" value. But out on the street there's no before so how does an inspector know? I guess over 4" a good lift is adding a lot of other stuff (drop pitman, suspension links, steering links, etc).

Plus there's different heights from the factory -- 2WD, 4WD, and "offroad" options have different suspension heights.

 

[Cody1771]

i think "suspension hight" is deamed as a modification of frame height, body lifts dont come into play if im correct... exept in my opinion trucks with body lifts should have a lowered GVW when it comes to payload in the bed... so i think that yes tires are counted and suspension lifts that modify how high your frame sits off the ground.

 

[VanBCguy]

So in regards to this over 4" lift inspection, what happens when you take it to a shop for a 4.5" (or larger) lift? Do you have to go get it inspected? Does it essentially have an automatic V.I. on it? If a cop pulls you over, do you have to prove that you've passed a V.I.? And worse yet, what if you're savvy enough, have the right tools and knowledge and a lovely garage and did the lift yourself, what then? Where do you go? What do you do?

I'm confused. This is the first I've heard of this.

 

[Bronco Boy]

There's still the question of how is the "suspension height" measured? Do taller tires change the suspension height? Or a body lift?

Really?

It clearly states: "altered by changes to its suspension height by more than 10 cm from the original basic specification of the vehicle manufacturer"

Suspension is suspension. Tires are tires. Muffler is muffler.

The suspension is measured by measuring the suspension, not the tires or the muffler.

 

[DMMcG]

So in regards to this over 4" lift inspection, what happens when you take it to a shop for a 4.5" (or larger) lift? Do you have to go get it inspected? Does it essentially have an automatic V.I. on it? If a cop pulls you over, do you have to prove that you've passed a V.I.? And worse yet, what if you're savvy enough, have the right tools and knowledge and a lovely garage and did the lift yourself, what then? Where do you go? What do you do?

I'm confused. This is the first I've heard of this.

As the owner of the motor vehicle it is your responsibility to have it comply with the regulations. There are many shops that will install after-market parts on your vehicle, and some will do it safely - and are designated as inspection facilities. They won't "do an inspecition" unless you ask them to, but the reputable shops will ensure that your vehicle is 'safe' in terms of whatever mods they're making.

Once you're driving your modified vehicle on the street it is subject to a VI (whether modified or not). Technically, you (as a reponsible owner) should be having your vehicle undergo a VI once you modifiy it beyond the parameters stated in the Regulations. I don't think I've ever met a single person who has voluntarily subjected their vehicle to a VI - they wait on enforcement to help them abide by the law.

 

[VanBCguy]

Thanks Dale. Good answer.

 

[Loopie]

How about interpreting "suspension height" as how high the vehicle is suspended off the ground?:*******
My guess is that they want it measured at the vehicle body.

 

[d0ubledown]

I don't think I've ever met a single person who has voluntarily subjected their vehicle to a VI - they wait on enforcement to help them abide by the law.

thats because a VI can be handed out at any time, any place under any circumstances, whether an inspection was just done 2 minutes ago or not. its all whether or not the cop feels like issuing one to you or not. you could show him your sticker and inspection report and claim you're within regulation till your face turns blue, and he could still slap you with a VI.

id like to see what this special interest group says about a truck thats running 40s on just 3" of suspension lift.

 

[canucksafari]

There is no such thing as a voluntary provincial VI. Either a peace officer has ordered it or you have needed it to get an out of province vehicle registered. I have known people who have voluntarily taken their vehicles in for a mechanical inspection which coveres everything in the provincial VI plus additional mechanical elements. They do it to pretrip their vehicle. You can spend $100-200 on a voluntary inspection at home or have to deal with difficult and expensive repiars on the trail or road later.

 

[derekj]

I got a box 2 on my truck a few weeks ago. The officer told me about the 10cm suspension rule. I was not aware of this law either. Lucky for me my truck falls within the bumper and headlight measurements in the vehicle inspection manual.

 

[Diesel_Canuck]

id like to see what this special interest group says about a truck thats running 40s on just 3" of suspension lift.

I'm wondering if I have to worry, because I'm running 43's with only a 3" body lift. My headlight height is fine, but my front bumper is way too high. I'm hoping that my GVW is high enough that the bumper height requirements don't apply.

 

[DMMcG]

There is no such thing as a voluntary provincial VI. Either a peace officer has ordered it or you have needed it to get an out of province vehicle registered. I have known people who have voluntarily taken their vehicles in for a mechanical inspection which coveres everything in the provincial VI plus additional mechanical elements. They do it to pretrip their vehicle. You can spend $100-200 on a voluntary inspection at home or have to deal with difficult and expensive repiars on the trail or road later.

Really?

The legislation is relatively clear. If you modify your vehicle beyond the parameters set out, then you shouldn't be operating it on a highway until you've had it inspected at a designated facility.

Part 3 — Salvaged, Modified and Reconstructed Vehicles
Interpretation

25.19 In this Part authorized person, corporation, designated inspection facility and inspection certificate have the same meanings as in Part 1.
[en. B.C. Reg. 304/2001. ]

Application

25.20 This Part applies to a vehicle that was
(a) disposed of as salvage and subsequently rebuilt,
(b) altered by changes to its suspension height by more than 10 cm from the original basic specification of the vehicle manufacturer,
(c) altered so that its
(i) freight carrying capacity has been increased beyond the original gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle, or by design changes other than those established by the manufacturer of the vehicle, or
(ii) seating capacity has been increased, or
(d) built after January 1, 1971 from new or used parts, other than a trailer with a licensed gross vehicle weight of 1 400 kg or less, and that does not display the statement of compliance under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada).
[en. B.C. Reg. 304/2001.]

Limitation on operation

25.21 A person must not drive, operate or park a vehicle on a highway until it has been presented to a designated inspection facility and an approved certificate of mechanical condition in a form set by the director has been issued in respect of the vehicle by an authorized person.
[en. B.C. Reg. 304/2001; am. B.C. Reg. 135/2003, s. 3.]

You might be referencing the reality of how the legistlation is applied, rather than the actual intent of the legislation?