re: Missing the SUV point and all that (Still NAC)

[TJCallahan@domain.elided]

In AD v8n544, Michael from Calgary wrote a very interesting and pointed article on how the US Feds have apparently ignored the social contract in favor of furthering industry.

Indeed, he made some very compelling arguments for this in the form of:

"It is criminally unethical to require some passenger vehicles to comply with strict safety, emission and fuel economy regulations and at the same time allow other passenger cars primarily used for the same purpose, by the same users, on the same roads and under the same driving conditions to be exempt from such regulations."

and ...

"The SUV is quite simply inconsistent with America's declared political and social values.  Whether you agree or disagree with the regulations, the inconsistent application of the regulations is indefensible."

I'm curious about a few things ...

The governments and legislation in the USA and Canada are birds of a feather, aren't they? That is, there are more similarities than differences, at least in the fundamental principles, aren't there?

What legislation has the Canadian government put in place to address this situation? 

Are the same SUV's sold in Canada that are sold in the USA classified differently in Canada? 

Are those same SUV's required to meet the more stringent passenger car emission and safety standards in Canada? 

Are SUV drivers required to pass more stringent tests in order to drive the SUV's?

I think some of the SUV's are actually *built* in Canada, aren't they?

Can you enlighten us on these points? I'm not familiar with the laws and licensing in Canada.

To the rest of the AD - are there places in the rest of the world where these types of standards are applied as uniformly as suggested here?

Thanks. Enjoy yours.

Tom
Seattle
10123
11615 (Enjoying a freshening for the convention)
K1500 (Backup convention vehicle)

--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided