guymacdonald Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I brought this from another site. Read this, and CAREFULLY choose your answers. We need to let "them" understand our point of view. https://surveys.gov.ns.ca/TakeSurvey.aspx?P...rveyID=96KInp21 "I know there are some of you out there that really don't give a sh*t because you now trailer your rigs, just remember a few years ago when you used to drive your lifted rig on the road and how it would have effected you...In fact if you aren't in favour of helping us than essentially you are against us. It is part of our hobby and we need all the help we can get. Please don't let "the man" control our lives like they do, the f*#kers steal our money to buy themselves TV's, computers and sh*t, take nice extravagant trips around the world at YOUR expense. C'mon guys, help us out here, the survey will take you a couple minutes. Thank you!! Cheers!" Jeff PERSONALLY I AGREE WITH JEFF :smiley-signs115: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDNECK Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 filled it out 3 times now ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sar4x4 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattX Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Already done.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damnjeep Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I brought this from another site. Read this, and CAREFULLY choose your answers. We need to let "them" understand our point of view. https://surveys.gov.ns.ca/TakeSurvey.aspx?P...rveyID=96KInp21 "I know there are some of you out there that really don't give a sh*t because you now trailer your rigs, just remember a few years ago when you used to drive your lifted rig on the road and how it would have effected you...In fact if you aren't in favour of helping us than essentially you are against us. It is part of our hobby and we need all the help we can get. Please don't let "the man" control our lives like they do, the f*#kers steal our money to buy themselves TV's, computers and sh*t, take nice extravagant trips around the world at YOUR expense. C'mon guys, help us out here, the survey will take you a couple minutes. Thank you!! Cheers!" Jeff PERSONALLY I AGREE WITH JEFF :mad: Sad to say I'm one of those folks that Jeff was referring to. I haven't been interested in this topic for many years as I have not had a lifted streetable anything for a long time nor have intentions of getting back into that. I will however help. I'm interested in what people had to say about the survey. What are your opinions? I glanced at the survey but not at the actual proposal paper. I'm not familiar with "the current practices" or anything regarding lifted vehicle inspections. CCMTA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.ccmta.ca/english/producstandser...ublications.cfm they have a formula they would like to use to determine allowed lift , stock tire size,stock wheelbase and stock weight . Some guys did the math and ZJ is around 3.9" (total combination) of tires , suspension and body lift. Not many people are voicing there opinions out in the open Rico , Like the N.S.J.C. most are doing it threw pm's or member only sections and such . Media has contacted people and this is why this is being done. I'm not sure this is the right thing to do , no mention of lowered cars ,hard tail bikes or antique cars this time ..... why?? imo it's to divide into smaller groups and single each out separably , less numbers to fight each time . I have much to say but "for now " am staying somewhat quiet , i wheel with many people and groups but am not in any club "yet" Right Lilmonster . For now i'm sitting idle and let the clubs "which should be working together "and other's do with it in March meetings . I too could say who cares , i have a full size truck and can run 35's on it with no lift if i want to ........ but that's not what the wheeling community and this sport means to me and most guys i wheel with . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damnjeep Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.ccmta.ca/english/producstandser...ublications.cfm they have a formula they would like to use to determine allowed lift , stock tire size,stock wheelbase and stock weight . Some guys did the math and ZJ is around 3.9" (total combination) of tires , suspension and body lift. Not many people are voicing there opinions out in the open Rico , Like the N.S.J.C. most are doing it threw pm's or member only sections and such . Media has contacted people and this is why this is being done. I'm not sure this is the right thing to do , no mention of lowered cars ,hard tail bikes or antique cars this time ..... why?? imo it's to divide into smaller groups and single each out separably , less numbers to fight each time . I have much to say but "for now " am staying somewhat quiet , i wheel with many people and groups but am not in any club "yet" Right Lilmonster . For now i'm sitting idle and let the clubs "which should be working together "and other's do with it in March meetings . I too could say who cares , i have a full size truck and can run 35's on it with no lift if i want to ........ but that's not what the wheeling community and this sport means to me and most guys i wheel with . That's what I find interesting. If its such a big "4x4 community" problem then why is everyone only talking about it in private messages or private sections and not out there so everyone can voice an opinion? From my own experience in the past when they first had those "voluntary planning" meetings (what a self serving joke that was) I went to a couple of meetings. Only saw a few familiar faces. Wanted to get involved and get others to voice their opinions but was met with so much apathy that I just dropped it. I founds clubs (at that time) were good at talking "in private" but short on any real action. I hope these days that isn't the case and more folks actually DO something as opposed to just talking about it. Like I said. Lift laws truly don't affect me. But I don't mind helping by signing petitions etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Like i said , there are people that are and have been in contact with Access Nova Scotia peoples since last year when this came to light , at that time everyone seemed to be involved from 4x4 clubs to classic car clubs to tuner clubs . There has only been one group involved at this time with this survey and to my knowledge is headed primarily by N.S.J.C. and some of there associates like Pecks auto ,CVO and a few other's . Was stated that media has made contact and felt they should not be involved yet ....... I am going to wait (probably shouldn't) until the proposed meeting they are to have this month and see what they have to say . I don't like the waiting game ....i don't think it will work in our favor. We'll see what happens . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damnjeep Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Like i said , there are people that are and have been in contact with Access Nova Scotia peoples since last year when this came to light , at that time everyone seemed to be involved from 4x4 clubs to classic car clubs to tuner clubs . There has only been one group involved at this time with this survey and to my knowledge is headed primarily by N.S.J.C. and some of there associates like Pecks auto ,CVO and a few other's . Was stated that media has made contact and felt they should not be involved yet ....... I am going to wait (probably shouldn't) until the proposed meeting they are to have this month and see what they have to say . I don't like the waiting game ....i don't think it will work in our favor. We'll see what happens . Thats one of the main problems I see. Too many people take the wait and see approach. Not taking about you in particular. Just a general statement. Politicians only listen to the loudest voice. And after the fact when rules and whatever have been passed because there wasn't enough opposition BEFORE... Well. How hard is it to change a law once its passed? What politician is willing to do it? I've always said let the execs of various clubs speak for the clubs but anyone/everyone interested should think and speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 This is true and i agree , this paper work they have going to the meeting on the 23 of March i believe is like a pre meeting before the changes are gone to get written in stone. I want to see what is said from that before the proverbial $ hits the fan so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XMan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Done.... Seething at this hypothetical problem that is now being considered for real solutions. The problem first needs to be defined on something more than preception concerning raised vehicles and right now there are no provided facts that suggest raised vehicles are either involved in more accidents - specifically more at fault accidents caused by the vehicle being raised. There is an sense that it is intuitively correct to suggest a raised vehicle has lower safety specs due to the way the increase ride height effects OEM design, handleing, braking, centre of gravity..etc I would suggest that most of us are looking for improvements in handleing and that the suspensions available on the aftermarket are improvements becasue that is what the buying public is demanding. As far as the home built systems, there are some talented folks out there building high quality stuff designed to meet a need and generally speaking improved handleing in all respects. If the concern is interaction between raised vehicles and passanger vehicles then I would like to see the evidence this is an issue and would like to know why this isn't a broader issue that would look at legislation to bring all vehicles into line. Looking only at raised vehicles means that if cars get lower then legislation will need to be put into place that again lowers raised vehicle heights so that soon we'll all be rolling out in lowriders. I think this is a game of preceptions vs a factual and real problem. YesI can see that a raised vehicle T-boning a miata might be problematic but then short of an outright ban on anything non-commercial it will remain a problem which by the way I am not convinced happens frequently enough to be something that now needs to be addressed by legislation. I think back to the old days when there were no options for lifts readily available. People used timber and hockey pucks and multiple leaf springs without addressing the other systems. We self regulated in that when more and better info and aftermarket systems were made available for the demand we bought them. I don't know of anyone currently runing a 5 puck body lift. We all have insurance, there are rules for operating on public roads and inspection laws all of which cover 99% of the issues here. So inventing problems and then coming up with solutions that you want to implement for real is simply idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcoastcam Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Done... again!! :mad: Dave, you would be a good person to have speak with Access NS on this subject. It's too bad you're not home yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guymacdonald Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 :mad: Dave, you would be a good person to have speak with Access NS on this subject. It's too bad you're not home yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 :mad: Dave, you would be a good person to have speak with Access NS on this subject. It's too bad you're not home yet. a BIG x2 :smiley-signs064: when are you back Dave proposed meeting is on March 23rd , not sure if anyone else could get into it or not ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 A list of MLA'S for your area in case anyone wants it . http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/people/members/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 and yet another one http://www.ckbw.ca/bridgewater-news.html?wp_start=3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XMan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Collectively do we support single point or mulit point measurements or none at all as proposed? From those with mechanical knowledge are there things that some do to lift their vehicle that might not be considered unsafe? This is type of feed back we could provide to get out in front of the uninformed non-wheeling public. Does anyone have a good grip on what the current MVI process does to address safety issues on raised vehicles? I feel woefully unedecated about what they are proposing and what is already in place but the very design of the survey is flawed. For me I don't know what the specific concern is but the design of the questions are based on the question already being answered. In other words "we are going to put legislation in place and you can give us feedback on how we fix the problem" Completely ignoring that fact that some may not agree there is even a problem to be solved. Without knowing the facts and without the problem being defined it's like trying to polish a turd. People who have a lifted truck roll up behind them or beside them may react from a preception of safety concern or just annoyance when they fill out this survey. Its the same sort of feeling I have when a car pulls up beside me with a booming audio system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattX Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Dave and I see eye to eye on this.... even though he is slightly taller than I. Maybe my eyeballs are mounted further up in me gourd. :mad: Personally, I don't support single or multi point measurement until there is proof that anything needs to be done. I see on another well known offroad site that they seem to be taking a compromised approach and trying to meet the proposed gov. regulations at a mid way point. That is a position of weakness, imo, because there has been nothing shown that there is even a problem to begin with. If the government perceives that we are willing to compromise, it will end up far from where we want it to be. Give 'em an inch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 From what i can get out of it , last year when the mvi regs were to be changed everyone got together and apposed it saying they just need to make the mvi proses clear and not leave it open to interpretation . A straight line across the board so to speak .it would actually to make clear "reconstructed vehicles in the mvi" witch isn't really been an issue and now want to class a lifted truck in that category. Reconstructed comes from cars and trucks that have been wrote off by ins. company's and fixed then re registered with this stamp on reg. paper's From this they took it as a public safety issue and got in with the ccmta who have made the equation for tire size,frame heights, factory weight to determine what is safe altered height from factory center of gravity. They apparently did test ......... one truck , a f150 fullsize with 38" tires . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90bronco Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I agree 100% , there has been nothing shown to support this change . I can to a point see there question on "reconstructed " as it states in the mvi book but it is vehicle compliance imo that is making the most stink about the issue. I can understand tire coverage and that because of rocks and windshields....... other than that , no dice for me on the reconstructed title or either type of measurement. I also do agree with Danmjeep that this should not be kept quiet hidden behind a locked fourm for a select few to decide the fate of our hobby . Point in case ..... the fda will not impose regulations on ultralight planes as they believe it would diminish the hobby taken from a news post because of 2 ultralight crashes in my area about 3-4 years back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liltoy Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Like most I don't see where the problem started from, no reports of lifted trucks killing people all over, no reports of lifted trucks rolling over and no reports of people getting jammed under them. I'll admit there are/have been some inproperly lifted trucks on the road, mine being one of them (until I got it that is), but these problems are problems that shouldn't have been passed by MVi if they were lifted or not. The part I find funniest (not really) is the braking test with larger than stock tires. Yes I agree it will take a longer distance to stop with larger tires fitted, but so will; a full load of gravel in the box, a big salter in the box, or a trailer (with or with out trailer brakes) hooked on, etc. The gravel and salter will also affect the roll over test as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XMan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 In some cases it could be argued that a lift and larger tires increased performance in all areas. Less nose diver more rear tire friction by keeping weight over the tires, larger tires larger contact patch all providing better braking. There is no doubt a point of dimishing return where heavier tires simply overwhelm the brakes but most upgrade the brake components as part of their design plan. In essence we have as a group become self regulating as the current culture is best performing not necessairly tallest rig. My draft letter to my MLA. Any comments to improve it are welcome. ___ Dear Ms Kent, I am a recreational off-roader. My SUV is a daily driver and has been modified to add protection while going off-road and in order enhance the overall performance. The modifications include raising the suspension and larger tires. I am representative of the "weekend warrior" crowd and likely will not be affected by any legislation proposed in the discussion below as the modifications I have made to my vehicle are modest. I do however have concerns with the process currently being engaged upon and am writing to you to ask that you take these concerns forward as an honest broker on the discussion. The current discussion regarding raised vehicles brings forth a number of concerns for me and many of my fellow enthusiasts as it has the potential to impact our sport. The basis of the current discussion seem to originate in supposition and an innate emotional appeal versus facts. For myself my concern resides with what appears to be an invented problem or a theoretical exercise regarding a potential concern with respects to raised vehicles. To qualify this, there is a prevailing idea that there is a "A growing concern exists regarding the increasing number of raised" and a belief that it is intuitively correct that raised vehicles are less safe. Speaking from experience my raised suspension is a highly engineer system that is fully integrated into the safety systems of the vehicle and is an improvement in every way over the original equipment. I have better handing and control, less dive under braking which keeps the rear wheels more firmly planted allowing for more friction hence better braking, the suspension is less prone to roll therefore enhancing resistance to roll over. I do not believe I am a one off example. The "CCMTA Best Practice For Regulating Excessively‐Raised" http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/pdf/ans-ccmta-b...ed-vehicles.pdf classifies excessively raised vehicles as: "Excessively raised vehicles can generally be classified as light trucks that have been equipped with after-market products (usually body and suspension lift kits and/or oversize replacement tires) that increase the ride height. In many cases, these modifications compromise the vehicle’s original design safety features." The assumption is that "in many cases the modifications compromise the original design safety features" This is an opinion and does not seem to be supported by any provided facts. Most aftermarket kits are sold by companies that invest significant money in R&D to engineer products that meet the consumer demands for improved handling characteristic both on and off road. These suspension manufactures in many cases are the original parts suppliers for the car manufacturer and have intimate knowledge of the safety design specification of the vehicles. Within the same document the following principals were used as guiding principles: "Guiding Principles were established, in that the group intended to create a document which was: 1. Reasonable 2. Simple to understand 3. Appropriately targeted 4. Technically supported 5. Practical to enforce" Critically missing from these principals is principle that the work be 'factually support'. Factual support that would take this from a perceived problem to a problem based on factual concerns would be: 1. Are raised vehicles involved in more accidents then non raised vehicles of the same make/model? 2. Is the accident attributable to the manner in which the vehicle was raised? 3. Are aftermarket kits actually negatively impacting vehicle safety designs such as braking, handling and rollover risk? My immediate reaction in reviewing the CCMTA Best Practices document was that a number of consultant had gotten together to come up with a project to sell the government in order to earn fees. I believe there are legitimate concerns that are in part limited to "old school" practices by the off-road community to raise a vehicle but that these practices are not main stream and are mostly addressed by practicality and by current MVI processes. There is a discussion paper that outlines the concerns http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/pdf/ans-discuss...regulations.pdf as follows: "According to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), raising the ride-height of vehicles could: - degrade braking performance; - compromise fuel system integrity; - create a mismatch in the geometric alignment of energy-absorbing structures between excessively raised vehicles and multi-purpose vehicles and passenger vehicles; - increase roll-over propensity; and - change handling characteristics by altering the designed integration of the original tires, and the steering, braking and suspension systems" The key word is 'could' again if the facts are to be ignored then the process of investigating the concerns are flawed. "Old school" techniques such as extreme body lifts (six inches+) that lift the body of the truck from the frame to allow larger tires to be fitted may have used hockey pucks or wood as the spacer. Today rarely would you find more than three inches of body lift that utilizes the same or better material then the factory spacers and use far better grade fasteners then factory. This is due to there now being an aftermarket parts industry that is based on engineered designs and also because demand from the consumer is for integrated systems that enhance overall on and off-road performance. Like me, many use their off-road capable vehicles as a daily driver. With regards to the mismatched "geometric alignment of energy-absorbing structures between excessively raised vehicles and multi-purpose vehicles and passenger vehicles" which in lay terms is to say a raised vehicle bumper may pass over a non raised vehicles bumper or may pass over the integrated metal part of a car door and impact the window, as in the compelling picture on the cover of the CCMTA Best Practices document. My concern is that the discussion is currently limited to raised vehicles and places the onus on the "raised vehicle" crowd but does nothing to address the issue of lowered vehicles, either lower by manufacture design or aftermarket equipment. I believe a larger and fact based discussion is required on this issue. In closing much of the discussion appears to be based on a foregone conclusion regarding whether a raised vehicle is less safe due to it being raised and whether it is less safe not just in theory but in reality to other vehicles. I submit that the majority of aftermarket systems available are fully integrated systems designed by engineers and designed to work with the vehicles safety systems, furthermore the consumer is demanding more in terms of performance, a better ride, improved handling etc. I do agree excessive bumper heights due to raised suspensions could be dangerous in an accident with other non-raised vehicles but in light of there not being any facts presented that there are increased accidents between these two classes it is difficult to determine if it is a issue in theory or reality. Furthermore, and not addressed, is the need for a broader discussion to cover the compounding of the potential problem should a vehicle be lowered with aftermarket lowering kits or simply by having worn out springs. My request to you is to ensure a valid process that addresses the broader issues of safety and is based on facts and an informed committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liltoy Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Thought maybe some would like to read what is happening in the states, 4wheel and off road has been doing a segment in thier magazine. http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/techarticles/...know/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liltoy Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Been doing some thinking and think I have an idea as to why this has come up. Have you noticed in the past few years how many lifted trucks are on the roads? I don't mean trail trucks running down the road, the street queens/ mall crawlers with lifts that wouldn't do so hot off road but "I look bitchin ridin up here" trucks. It has become cool to drive a lifted truck, like it became cool to ride a sport bike a few years back. What happened there was insurance companies stopped giving insurance to sport bikes, because too many people went out and and bought a nice new shiny sport bike to look cool on then dumped it and put it through ins. This ended up geting most sport bikes black flagged with ins companies. Now we have people wanting to look cool so they build/buy these street trucks with no purpose other than to look cool. The more of these we haverunning the roads the more attention lfted trucks will get, be it lifted for off road or not. The more of them the more likely there will be accidents involving lifted trucks. Not saying street queens are the sole reasoning for this BS but definitly a part of it I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.