Judging vs. The Law

[Guest imported_Thriller]

I was a little bitter (so what else is new) earlier this week. I got a piece of mail from the provincial insurer - they are saying the '76 Century is now on the "most at risk" list for being stolen (we do have a car theft problem here...young punks going for joy rides). They try to sell it as a public safety thing, but honestly, they just need to give the punks a good beating, then pound some sense into their parents...kids 10 years old stealing cars...sigh.

Anyway, the gist of the letter is that to renew my registration in August, I have to get an approved immobilizer in my car. This will be free for me, but ultimately is a modification to the car. I know it can be easily stolen, but really, it's locked up almost all the time it isn't at a show. Now, it isn't a big problem for this particular car, since the way it sits now, it would have to be judged in the Modified class, so the addition of the immobilizer wouldn't be a huge problem for me.

I'm going to talk to the insurer, seeing as it is a collectible car...I'm sure that's an argument I won't win.

What are the thoughts? Is an immobilizer going to become an acceptable addition in judging? There's a bit of electronics under the hood and a component near the ignition with a flashing LED. Of course, they like to put on window stickers as well.

Again, it isn't a big deal for me with this particular car, but where will it end? Is Ellie next? What about the '54 wagon? Or Ewing's '38 Special? The argument is that older cars are easier to circumvent. At least I feel pretty confident that no punk could effectively steal the '41 since they wouldn't know how to use a clutch in this day and age.

Just some food for thought.

[Reatta Man]

Never heard of a government requiring you to get an immobilizer.

Kinda scary....the anointed one floated a trial ballon soon after ascending to office that he wanted to tax people per mile. The idea was quickly shot down in flames, but it makes you wonder.....the same technology that can find your car can track your car, including how often you drive it.

And most of us are not naive to think that just because one of their money-making ideas was shot down NOW doesn't mean it won't come back later. They will probably have a thin veneer of PC around it, such as claiming all the money they raise from the car mileage tax will go to pay for 'free' healthcare for children in the U.S.

For an old 'gas guzzling clunker' as so many bureaucrats see our cars, this could be a way to add a few hundred bucks per year per car to their pockets.....eventually...

As for the judging, good question! Will be watching to see if any judges post an opinion.....

[JZRIV]

Derek,

As I was reading in disbelief, I thought, how could this be happening in a US state.....then I saw you are from Canada.

So once the immobilizer is installed, who comes around and checks it to make sure its still there. Can you just remove it after its installed? Lets face it, the chances of your car being stolen is nil because of how its used. The government program probably took millions of dollars just to develop and they couldn't even make a dinstinction between a car used for regular transportation and a garage kept show car.

What a disgraceful waste of taxpayer money.

I did not know Canada has government run automobile insurance? Out of curiousity, how much does it cost per year to insure your car?

[Bill Stoneberg]

I dont judge the Modified class or the Driven class but if I was judging 400 points and saw the modifications both on the dash and under the hood I would count off for them. One caveat on that, is I would have to know that they dont belong. That could be very difficult on a more modern car as your 76 because of all the other stuff (emissions etc.) that is probably there already. The blinking red light on the dash, thats a bit easier to see.

How modified is it Derek ? You may not do well in that class either as it seems they dont like "Mild" cars. This is my opinion only, I could be totally wrong on that.

[Guest my3buicks]

Derek, take that question straight to the BCA Head Judge, don't rely on 2nd hand thoughts if the question is important to you. You may also want to have the information on it being mandatory addition available to send him for review.

[Guest ewing]

Manitoba has government run car insurance , as does Saskatchewan and BC I believe. It is a provincial jurisdiction.

I'll be interested to see how MPIC ( the MB insurer) reacts to your plea to exclude your collector car.

I would be cautious about removing one once installed , as I can envisage a scenario where your car is in a collision and MPIC voids your coverage. Not because the removal of the 'imobilizer' caused the accident, but because you tampered with an MPI required devise. A worse case scenario is where if your car was actually stolen, and caused damage, you could be out your public liability insurance . Low risk, but too high a potential financial consequence.

I would be shocked to see a letter arrive for the 50's and earlier cars, but it raises a point that our club here should raise with MPI thru our local MB clubs organization , MAAC ( MB Assoc of Auto Clubs).

You are raising a very important issue here!

[Guest DaveCorbin]

Dear Derek:

Keith has the right suggestion. I went through this kind of a fight about 25 years ago over hand controls for people who need them. My position was, that as far as the judges are concerned, the hand controls are and should be, invisible.

My logic was: The law doesn't allow discrimination because of handicap, what's with this argument? I also documented that Buick dealers installed hand controls for our WW2 guys and Buick picked up the whole tab as a way of saying "thanks!".

This isn't the same situation exactly, but seems to have similiar logic.

Regards, Dave Corbin

[HurstGN]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JZRIV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Derek,

As I was reading in disbelief, I thought, how could this be happening in a US state.....then I saw you are from Canada. </div></div>

Jason,

Why would you think this can't happen in the USA? We have restrictions placed upon us too. Like, if you buy a new car, you MUST have CA emissions certification, even though you live and title the car in PA. Yup, Swindel got that one through and we never saw it coming. Also, there's a bill in the PA transportation committee to restrict you to 100% factory mufflers and exhaust. There's one that's going to get lots of us in trouble, and kill lots of sales of aftermarket parts in PA.

As far as the immobilizer goes, I don't agree with the way it's being imposed upon you, but if you have to for legal reasons, well, you have to. I'd hope that the BCA judges would take into account that you are compelled legally to make this modification, and NOT penalize you for it. The way I see it, if you make a modification because you want to, then you can be penalized in judging. If the modification is purely due to legal reasons, then you should not be penalized. I'd hate to see the BCA take a stand that forces a member to break the law in order to be judged at an event.

Just one members opinion.

Dan

[riv2x4]

Hopefully it can be viewed the same as city stickers on the windshield, you just have to have them. Documentation, Documentation, Documentation.

Larry

[imported_buick5563]

Derek,

At least if it's on there, make sure wires are neatly wrapped and the installation is done well. None of us (politically speaking) want Big Brother taking over our lives, yet at least in Canada it seems EVERYBODY is insured. I've been rear ended 10 (THAT'S RIGHT TEN) times, to the point where I have very limited motion looking over my left shoulder. Three of those times were from drivers either completely uninsured, or driving with squirrely insurance. Not that it would make a lick of difference in my chiropractic bills, but at least I wouldn't be paying them personally, after my fine insurance company (USAA) decided I was all better. Auto theft is actually WAY DOWN here in Austin. Can't explain that.

Off topic...

Does anybody's local laws state that seatbelts are mandatory in cars that didn't come equipped that way? Just curious. I know that seatbelt usage is not only NOT penalized, but encouraged.

[JohnD1956]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buick5563</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I've been rear ended 10 (THAT'S RIGHT TEN) times, to the point where I have very limited motion looking over my left shoulder. </div></div>

Strange, from what I've read that doesn't prevent hefting 16 oz glasses several times per day

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buick5563</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... Does anybody's local laws state that seatbelts are mandatory in cars that didn't come equipped that way? </div></div>

As far as I understand, NY requires you to use the seat belts if you have them, including if they are user installed.

[JohnD1956]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the provincial insurer....... are saying the '76 Century is now on the "most at risk" list for being stolen </div></div>

I can't imagine that a 76 Century is so prolific in our Northern neighborhood so as to make it the "most at" anything, except "cool".

Lets see, if there are 5 of them, and one is stolen, that does mean 20% are stolen, but really, what a farce. Isn't there an insurance commission you can address this injustice to?

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnD1956</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buick5563</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I've been rear ended 10 (THAT'S RIGHT TEN) times, to the point where I have very limited motion looking over my left shoulder. </div></div>

Strange, from what I've read that doesn't prevent hefting 16 oz glasses several times per day </div></div>

Now you know why, Sir

[JohnD1956]

And an excellent reason, if I may say so, too. Fortunately for me, I have not had this displeasure, although driving on the roads lately, I do notice an awful lot of cars riding very close to the rear bumper. Sure does make me concerned about finding replacement parts for the Wagon.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

I figured this would get some activity...thanks John for stepping in with some information about MPIC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnD1956</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't imagine that a 76 Century is so prolific in our Northern neighborhood so as to make it the "most at" anything, except "cool".

Lets see, if there are 5 of them, and one is stolen, that does mean 20% are stolen, but really, what a farce. Isn't there an insurance commission you can address this injustice to? </div></div>

Not the most cool, when compared with other collectible cars around here, but it is unique. I can't argue with your math...I need to argue with "The Man". I won't fight this hard, but I will be asking questions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buick5563</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least if it's on there, make sure wires are neatly wrapped and the installation is done well. None of us (politically speaking) want Big Brother taking over our lives, yet at least in Canada it seems EVERYBODY is insured. </div></div>

I won't be tolerating a sloppy installation.

The insurance piece is one of the beautiful things up here...even in provinces that don't have provincial insurers (like Alberta), you need proof of insurance before you can register a car and get a plate. That doesn't stop someone from not renewing, but those tend to be few and far between. Another nice thing is with having provincial oversight, we tend not to see some of the exorbitant rates that some other jurisdictions see.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HurstGN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as the immobilizer goes, I don't agree with the way it's being imposed upon you, but if you have to for legal reasons, well, you have to. I'd hope that the BCA judges would take into account that you are compelled legally to make this modification, and NOT penalize you for it. The way I see it, if you make a modification because you want to, then you can be penalized in judging. If the modification is purely due to legal reasons, then you should not be penalized. I'd hate to see the BCA take a stand that forces a member to break the law in order to be judged at an event.

</div></div>

You hit the nail on the head...it's the imposition that I don't like. If we would just hold the criminals accountable, perhaps they wouldn't be turned loose to steal for another joyride.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: my3buicks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Derek, take that question straight to the BCA Head Judge, don't rely on 2nd hand thoughts if the question is important to you. You may also want to have the information on it being mandatory addition available to send him for review. </div></div>

Alan is here occasionally...I'll send him a note about it. Not having been a member all that long (6 years), how are judging changes made? While the Head Judge may have a significant say in it, I'd find it hard to believe that it is a dictatorship. That's part of the reason I posted it here - to get a bit of a feel of the pulse of some of the membership, along with some of the judges and BoD.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bill Stoneberg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How modified is it Derek ? You may not do well in that class either as it seems they dont like "Mild" cars. This is my opinion only, I could be totally wrong on that.

</div></div>

Really no body modifications...it has seen some engine work and has a 4-bbl in place of the original 2-bbl, but is the original Buick 350. The transmission has a stall kit, dual exhaust has been redone (so there is minimal clearance now...thanks...with our roads, it's a pain), and there are Center Lines on instead of the widened painted Buick road wheels. Oh, of course, the engine is also an incorrect colour...sigh.

As previously stated, this car doesn't make sense to go for 400 point judging - I'm sure it wouldn't get a bronze...I'll leave it as a driver and try to improve some aspects (such as appropriate wheels). There's some damaged interior bits to try and find replacements for as well. In this particular case, I'm not terribly worried about this particular car. I'm thinking more about precedent. Oh, I may have mis-stated things earlier - it wouldn't be against the law to leave this car without the immobilizer. I just wouldn't be able to register it and therefore legally drive it on the streets. Perhaps if the work on vintage plates here goes through we may have something to go on.

I apologize that I forgot to take the letter with me to work today so that I would have some contact information. I am off at a symposium tomorrow, so Wednesday would be the earliest that I could contact them and work toward some answers.

The worst case is accepting that one would enter 400 point judging with a slight handicap that a point or two could be lost on interior and in the engine bay for additional components. I understand the judging standard is against the car as it left the factory, but since seat belts aren't penalized, I wonder if this item could be in a similar vein. Of course, how many exceptions do we wind up making before losing sight of the concept of our 400 point system.

Thanks for the comments all.

[Guest 53Nailhead]

Derek, there's several ways to immobilize a car, does this unit have to be installed by some 'certified' company (money grab), or can you purchase & insatll yourself? Is 'Silver Wheels' insurance out west? I can't see them having this as a requirement.

[JZRIV]

Jason,

Why would you think this can't happen in the USA? We have restrictions placed upon us too.

Dan

Dan,

I didn't say it couldn't happen, rather I implied as it stands now, every state has the freedom to insure cars through private companies. If you buy a high risk car, you do it knowing your rates will be higher and the individual with the high risk car pays the premium, not the rest of the tax paying public. Works for me and god I hope it stays that way.

Of course with the government gaining control of banks and automakers, how far behind are the insurance companies?

I suppose if I had to have a device such as an immobilizer installed on a collector car, I would do it regardless of any pending point deductions as well as have as much influence as possible on how and where it is installed.........but I would not do it without resistance.

[Guest ewing]

they are mandatory on some cars ( deemed high risk to be stolen). If mandatory, the MB insurance pays the whole tab. I have had 3 cars deemed high risk, and the insurance co paid. On top of that they reduced the annual insurance premium by $40/yr once installed. So they do make it easy on the wallet and give some ongoing incentive to comply. ( not as a penalty, but in reduced insurance premium). How's that for a novel approach?

The issue is car originality and how intrusive is the immobilizer.

The only visual cue is a very small light that flashes red on the dash, the idea I believe is to let potential thieves know it is on the car, so ... don't bother breaking in and damaging the door just to find they can't start the car...

The insurers had a couple of issues here, one being monetary cost... the other in that many young thieves were ramming police cars with the stolen cars, ... using them as weapons.

The rate of theft had to be slowed down and as far as I have heard, no car with an immobilizer installed has been stolen to date.

Actually working here as car / truck thefts are going down.

So here is a thought, if one doesn't want his collector car to get a new hols in an original dash, how about suggesting a small 'L' shaped piece under the dash to mount the LED light that can be seen ( which is the objective) and can be removed at some later date ( say if the car is sold out of province, or whatever works for the insurer to satisfy their rules).

Some thoughts for you Derek as you talk to MPIC.

Keep us posted.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 53Nailhead</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Derek, there's several ways to immobilize a car, does this unit have to be installed by some 'certified' company (money grab), or can you purchase & insatll yourself? Is 'Silver Wheels' insurance out west? I can't see them having this as a requirement. </div></div>

Les - yes, it has to be done by a certified installer. There are quite a few, but unfortunately the good ones are considerably booked up. I guess that is why they sent the letter about 4 months in advance.

We recently got a Silver Wheels dealer out here. I haven't spoken with them for any of the cars yet.

The problem is that this is required for the annual registration. In Manitoba, there is a basic amount of insurance that comes with registration, but almost everyone puts additional coverage on (particularly liability and if you choose a lower deductible, glass claims are generally free). It is kind of complicated, but Manitoba Public Insurance is a crown corporation tied to the provincial Department of Driver and Vehicle Licensing. So, unless they give some sort of collector car exemption, no immobilizer means no registration.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JZRIV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suppose if I had to have a device such as an immobilizer installed on a collector car, I would do it regardless of any pending point deductions as well as have as much influence as possible on how and where it is installed.........but I would not do it without resistance.

</div></div>

That's pretty much where I'm at.

Hopefully I can make the call tomorrow and have something to report back tomorrow evening.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

Well, I have an answer, but it isn't the end of the story. You can see at this page at MPI that they have an exemption for collector cars. There is a catch though - you have to apply for it and apparently, thus far, exemptions are pretty rare. That being said, the immobilizer program has been focused on later model vehicles that were being stolen.

So, I have to get good photos together, fill in the form, and await their answer. If nothing else, the fact that this car could use work would make it difficult to work around an immobilizer - it would probably have to be removed (which they have probably made illegal in the first place) and enabled / re-installed after engine / electrical work.

I should also ask what happens to the immobilizer when it is without a battery for about 6 months over the winter.

I think I have a pretty good case seeing as it is a special edition. While not an exquisite car, it is pretty unique, spends the vast majority of its time in locked garages, and will wear a Club (I thought I already had one on it, but I seem to be mistaken...time to go shopping).

[NTX5467]

It seems that y'all might have forgotten how easy it is to break the steering column on those era GM cars and steal them. We used to keep all of that stuff in stock, back then, for "theft recovery" repairs.

I have no doubt that what is required is supplied by an "approved vendor" of sorts. In reality, it might be possible to retrofit a GM VATS ignition cylinder and computer module to an earlier GM column and vehicle. This would be completely incognito, as for judging, as everything is hidden from view. These can be sourced from salvage yards, too, then you'll need to find out which code is in the computer and get a matching chip key to make it work.

That would leave the flashing light and window decals to deal with--the flashing light could be triggered by a door switch on the driver's door key cylinder or by a remote keyless entry device.

I realize that judging is supposed to be "End of the Assembly Line Correct", but if a municipality might require particular additional equipment in order to legally register the vehicle OR (as Mr. Corbin mentioned) certain hand controls might be needed for the vehicle to be operated by a diabled driver, those items would NOT be judged as "factory equipment" nor would make the vehicle "modified" under any definition thereof--by themselves.

In the 1980s and later, there were many anti-theft devices which were attached to GM steering columns, whether a metal "can't take it off without diamond bit cutters" shield, various types of ignition interrupter devices (with appropriate "keys", and remote keyless entry devices (many with an ignition interrupter circuit). Some of these things looked better than others while others (the keyless entry items) were largely invisible. Their intent was to prevent theft as the factory has (seemingly) done little in the way of designing steering columns and such to prevent these thefts while still having a good degree of serviceability of the columns themselves. IF some might desire a deduct for "non-original parts", then as the intent of these devices is for the vehicle owners to be able to drive and enjoy their cars (rather than making them "trailer queens/kings" exclusively), I might suggest a point deduction of "1 point" ONLY.

As much as Big Brother might be looming on the horizon, I rather suspect we'll not see many of these equipment addition mandates other than in a few specific situations. To me, that atrocious "POA Valve Eliminator" device is a MUCH worse "sin" than some government-mandated anti-theft device ever would be!

Regards,

NTX5467