Author Topic: Possible Changes in TC's immobilizer requirements? (Read 6713 times)

sailor723 · « **on:** November 20, 2007, 06:46:00 am »

Article is this AM's Globe and Mail Report on Business about the number of cars deemed inadmissable due to Sept 1 engine immobilizer regulations www.theglobeandmail.com/business

Snowman · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2007, 06:58:05 am »

I fail to see why it is the governments problem when people do not perform due diligence on a purchase that does not meet regulations?

inco · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:11:21 am »

How true. Lured by the low prices people left their ability to think at home.

safristi · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:43:43 am »

I fail to see why it is the Govs Business to MANDATE IMMOBILISERS....must be c'os they do this to 95% of the Elected Representatives...a.k.a BACK BENCHERS...SEAT WARMERS... CHEERLEADERS....et al...

......

pickles · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2007, 08:25:28 am »

Strange why manufactuers will make the immobilizer for Canadian vehicles but for the same vehicle in the us the immobilizer is not even available as an option.

tpl · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2007, 08:59:43 am »

It would not surprise me if the immobilizer was not completely present on US bound vehicles and turned off in the computer. Or maybe there is a fuse missing or a pin in a connector not installed.
But without a mole working at the car co's we'll never know

sailor723 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:12:39 am »

Also interesting how even those US vehicles with immobilizers often "somehow" fail to meet the CDN immobilizer standards

gord_boyd · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:52:24 am »

This reprieve is a partial success that my M.P and others have been working on. Now Transport Canada should delay for one year the implementation of this rqt. It is the only solution
that also accomplishes the Ministry of Finance's stated goal
of Canadians getting fairer retail pricing in Canada.

Snowman · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:56:45 am »

TC notified the public and the manufactures 3 years ago for fack sakes. It is only an issue because of a high dollar, vehicle prices and ignorant buyers.

The Fuzz · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:58:53 am »

Quote from: Snowman on November 20, 2007, 06:58:05 am

I fail to see why it is the governments problem when people do not perform due diligence on a purchase that does not meet regulations?

Gotta blame someone...It can't possibly be their fault.

2latecrew · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:59:28 am »

Quick theives here is your chance. There will be dozens of brand new vehicles sitting in Canadain parking lots and drivways for MONTHS that have no certified imobilizer. Go steal them NOW.

safristi · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:59:41 am »

U seem to BUY everthing TC rams down out throats.......that's a TURN AROUND....

sailor723 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:47:34 am »

Quote from: Snowman on November 20, 2007, 09:56:45 am

TC notified the public and the manufactures 3 years ago for fack sakes. It is only an issue because of a high dollar, vehicle prices and ignorant buyers.

Partly true...these people should have done their homework, but....Both the US and CDN governments have expressed their desire to remove such regulatory impediments to trade. It's fairly obvious that the case of US vehicles with immobilizers that are slightly different than CDN standards could fall into this catagory. It's also fairly obvious that some of the car manufacturers are using this issue as a way of keeping Canada as a captive market.

Trainman · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2007, 12:29:28 pm »

Quote from: sailor723 on November 20, 2007, 10:47:34 am

Quote from: Snowman on November 20, 2007, 09:56:45 am
TC notified the public and the manufactures 3 years ago for fack sakes. It is only an issue because of a high dollar, vehicle prices and ignorant buyers.

Partly true...these people should have done their homework, but....Both the US and CDN governments have expressed their desire to remove such regulatory impediments to trade. It's fairly obvious that the case of US vehicles with immobilizers that are slightly different than CDN standards could fall into this catagory. It's also fairly obvious that some of the car manufacturers are using this issue as a way of keeping Canada as a captive market.

Or the US lumber lobby putting the pinch on Canadian lumber producers. It goes both ways, this idea of removing barriers to trade.

Interesting to see people complain about the cost of insurance and then complain when the govt. mandates something that should help to reduce the cost of that same insurance. If we as car owners where more diligent in keeping our cars secure (like using the club or installing aftermarket systems) then we may not have been put into a situation where the govt. felt they had to start mandating things like immobilizers. I have no sympathy on this issue for those people who wanted to go across the border and buy something that is not legal in Canada.

2latecrew · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:51:24 pm »

Quote from: Trainman on November 20, 2007, 12:29:28 pm

Quote from: sailor723 on November 20, 2007, 10:47:34 am
Quote from: Snowman on November 20, 2007, 09:56:45 am
TC notified the public and the manufactures 3 years ago for fack sakes. It is only an issue because of a high dollar, vehicle prices and ignorant buyers.

Partly true...these people should have done their homework, but....Both the US and CDN governments have expressed their desire to remove such regulatory impediments to trade. It's fairly obvious that the case of US vehicles with immobilizers that are slightly different than CDN standards could fall into this catagory. It's also fairly obvious that some of the car manufacturers are using this issue as a way of keeping Canada as a captive market.

Or the US lumber lobby putting the pinch on Canadian lumber producers. It goes both ways, this idea of removing barriers to trade.

Interesting to see people complain about the cost of insurance and then complain when the govt. mandates something that should help to reduce the cost of that same insurance. If we as car owners where more diligent in keeping our cars secure (like using the club or installing aftermarket systems) then we may not have been put into a situation where the govt. felt they had to start mandating things like immobilizers. I have no sympathy on this issue for those people who wanted to go across the border and buy something that is not legal in Canada.

Govt mandated imobilizers will reduce insurance company payouts. There is nothing i've seen that gaurentees that it will reduce premiums. Unless you assume that any savings will be passed onto consumers and NOT onto shareholders.

Interesting to put the blame on people for not securing their cars well enough rather than on the people who actually steal the cars though. Why not blame the education system. "well if the govenrment was more dilligent in educating youth they would find work and not need to steal cars leading to increased insurance premimums."

supercrip · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:18:43 pm »

Obviously, the people who are in this predicament didn't do their homework and are suffering the consequences for their lack of exercising due diligence. That being said, I have always had an issue with the "Policy Wonks" at TC who consistently drop their drawers in front of the insurance lobby and seem to only believe in a Made in Canada solution to things without looking at the impacts on the market. What that does IMHO is limit the choices and raise prices for consumers. I think what we need ideally, are harmonized vehicle standards for the North American Market only then will prices and choices be better for Canadians.

tpl · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:22:43 pm »

"Interesting to put the blame on people for not securing their cars well enough rather than on the people who actually steal the cars though. Why not blame the education system. "well if the government was more dilligent in educating youth they would find work and not need to steal cars leading to increased insurance premimums.""

/joking
If you cut of the feet and hands of all car thieves they would no longer be able to steal cars. Trouble is you'd end up paying them welfare for the rest of their lives. Sooooo maybe you just dismember all malefactors ( icluding people who do 50 over and lying politicians) and put their parts in the Organ Banks for deserving people who need new kidneys and eyes and feet and hands....
Larry Niven suggested this in a sci fi story years ago.. maybe he was right.

/end joking

Seriously and off topic.... why are the bad guys always victims instead of victims being victims ?

jcon · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:23:55 pm »

Quote from: supercrip on November 20, 2007, 02:18:43 pm

Obviously, the people who are in this predicament didn't do their homework and are suffering the consequences for their lack of exercising due diligence. That being said, I have always had an issue with the "Policy Wonks" at TC who consistently drop their drawers in front of the insurance lobby and seem to only believe in a Made in Canada solution to things without looking at the impacts on the market. What that does IMHO is limit the choices and raise prices for consumers. I think what we need ideally, are harmonized vehicle standards for the North American Market only then will prices and choices be better for Canadians.

You would need each state in the US to agree to this first. Doubt it.

It's not only the insurance companies that have pressured manufacturers and TC to mandate immobilizers. Many public groups have been pressuring them as well.

safristi · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:26:33 pm »

..Policy WONKS have no business other than in the bathrooms of the Nation...signed

PEER HELLYES TURDEAU...........I've a good mind to..........if i could just find it somewhere...

who'd like a nice MANDATE....going cheap?

TransPOO canada stinks.....they
AUTOBEBAHNED....

jcon · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:31:42 pm »

Quote from: safristi on November 20, 2007, 02:26:33 pm

AUTOBEBAHNED