Jump to content
SAU Community

New Laws Re Lowering Cars

Messiah

By Messiah,
in New South Wales

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

GTR-N1 Grand Master

GTR-N1

Posted
Posted
my question is how do we prove that the car was lowered before the set date

In your satchel containing your owner's manual and log book, you also keep a copy of...

i) dated work on your suspension

ii) engineer's report on the dB rating of your exhaust

iii) other items that might need to be certified = etc etc etc

Then... all copies need only be signed by a JP after he/she sights the original side-by-side.

Cheers, Terry X-X Justice of the Peace

5hu7o Experienced

5hu7o

Posted
Posted

i Quouted this from Jdmstyletuning.com

Media Release 22 July 09

AAAA: New NSW Government suspension regulations a farce

In an attempt to hamper modifications made by “car hoons”, on 16 July the NSW Minister for Roads Michael Daley announced changes in regulation that will cause havoc for both the automotive industry and thousands of drivers on NSW roads with minor, currently legal suspension modifications.

The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA) is outraged by this poorly conceived new regulation. The AAAA is the national industry association representing over 1250 manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers and retailers of automotive parts and accessories, tools and equipment.

The Minister announced the new regulation in a media statement headed “Tough new rules for car hoons” and said the regulation will take effect from 1 August 2009. The regulation will mean that virtually all suspension modifications and wheel and tyre upgrades will require certification by authorised engineers.

AAAA Executive Director Stuart Charity said this announcement shocked both the industry and driver groups alike. “The industry has worked closely with governments nationally for many years to develop and promote vehicle modification guidelines designed to meet appropriate road safety requirements,” said Stuart Charity. “The industry is alarmed at this unilateral and unreasonable announcement.

“Neither the industry nor key driver advocacy groups have been consulted regarding this new regulation. No consideration has been taken of the impact that this proposed regulation will have on the wide range of road using industries that must make suspension modifications to their vehicles to improve safety and load carrying capability. Among these roads users are the building, construction, mining and rural industries.

“In addition, there are thousands of private vehicle owners that make suspension modifications to tow their animals, boats and caravans, or simply to improve vehicle handling across a range of driving conditions,” he said.

Unproven assumptions

Stuart Charity said the Minister, or his advisors, made untrue assumptions about the facts of suspension modification and in the language used to announce this proposal.

“Firstly – and unbelievably – they assumed that if you modify the suspension on your vehicle, you are a ‘car hoon’. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is fact. Recent AAAA research actually revealed that about 80% of the end users of modified suspension are aged between 26 and 49 years of age. Owners of 4WD vehicles are one of the largest groups making aftermarket suspension modifications and 66% of them are aged between 36 and 49 years. So, the major users of aftermarket suspension modifications are not the 18 to 25 years old high risk group. We also know that ‘hoon drivers’ are only a small portion of the 18 to 25 years old group.

“Secondly, they assumed that if suspension modifications are tougher to access, then there will be less hoon behaviour on NSW roads. The reality is that those who behave illegally on the road are also likely to make illegal suspension alterations.

“A third issue is many of the modifications outlined in the Minister’s press release that will require engineering approval, are legal in every other state in Australia, making this ‘NSW only’ scenario unworkable.

[more]

“Finally, the automotive aftermarket industry is totally dismayed at the arrogance exhibited by this announcement. This industry has an annual turnover of $5 billion, exports of $600 million and employs 30,000 people. In NSW, the AAAA membership is 400 companies employing 8,000 people. The AAAA enjoys close working relationships with NSW Government organisations, including the Road Transport Authority, which appears to have ignored an independent engineers report on the improved safety performance of suspension lift modifications submitted in June 2009.

“Given that the automotive aftermarket invests significant resources to ensure that road safety is paramount in the design, engineering and performance of aftermarket products, it is impossible to understand how the industry’s long term contribution could be ignored on this occasion.

“The real issue is that in trying to target ‘car hoons’, the NSW Minister has attacked the wrong ‘cause’. Hoon driving is a driver behaviour issue. It is not a vehicle suspension issue, or even a vehicle modification issue.

“We call on the Minister to immediately withdraw this ill-conceived, unworkable regulation and to engage in appropriate stakeholder consultation with a view to developing common sense laws that have the support of key industry and driver groups,” said Stuart Charity.

[end]

Photo caption StuartCharityAAAA.jpg – Stuart Charity, Executive Director, Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association,

Further information:

Stuart Charity

AAAA Executive Director

T: +61 3 9561 7044 Barry Oosthuizen

AAAA Communication Advisor

M: 0413 185 135

E: [email protected]

STYLN Collaborator

STYLN

Posted
Posted

im stoked to hear some reason got made with the minister taking his raules back for revision. It should never have happened without the proper parliamentary and public consultation in the first place.

when i first heard it i naturally assumed that the laws had already gone through the right channels but NOPE. For that reason i very openly condemn the ministers actions and still call for his resignation as a public voter.

There are many reasons behind it and many effects of what their trying to do. The older crowds, 4wd's, sports cars and service providers (elect, gas, phone etc) are all behind the reason for the changes being revised and relooked over.

Put simply the hoons he so quickly hid behind and illegal cars he claimed to be targetting were not going to feel the pinch anything like the majority of law abiding and roadworthy public would have. Hopefully they put some serious thought into what, why and if at all these laws need to be brought in (VSI50). Our current controls and engineering requirements are already suitable as our engineer in newcastle stated, the problem rests squarley with not providing the resources to train the police and enforcers, as well as providing the resources on the street to pull up and remove said vehicles.

MAKE NO MISTAKE THOUGH PEOPLE, BUMPER HEIGHTS WILL ALL END UP CLOSER TOGETHER SOONER OR LATER.

Just coz sydneykid says its a furphy doesnt mean he's informed. Yes the rear end collision is more common and yep bumper heights vary when it happens but as the statistics show its not the rear end accidents that kill or seriously injure people majority of the time. When we calculate our BCR's for how much money to ask the feds for and how to fix a blackspot itersection rear end crash gets us next to nothing. While head ons and run off roads bring big dollars and big improvements everytime. How does a dilligent RTA employee such as myself improve the accident history of rear ends, when people are so closely following the car in fornt, or traffic waves back with a sudden stop wave? we cant...

I'd love to see anyone roll into crashlab and argue the results when its put in front of you. My example was extreme to dumb it down somewhat but i assure you its a real issue. I urge you to go crash your car into a raised 4wd head on and then come back and tell me its a furfy???

Or run a pedestrian over and see where the head impacts the hood on both low and high cars? Will the head hit something soft or something hard i wonder...

The example i saw was a BA falcon offset head on with a standard commercial van. Both readily used on our roads day in day out by millions. It clearly showed problems with the crash despite only 200mm difference in bumper heights.

STYLN Collaborator

STYLN

Posted
Posted

A letter to the Minister from Athol Mullen - RTA Engineering Signatory in Cardiff, Newcastle.

The "Car Hoons" news release

On Thursday, 16th July 2009, NSW Minister for Roads, Michael Daley MP released a News Release titled Tough New Rules for Car Hoons.

The intent of the announcement was ostensibly to crack down on "car hoons" who drive vehicles that the minister thinks are unsafe.

Unfortunately, the content of the news release is factually inaccurate and the minister (or whoever wrote the news release for him) clearly either does not know or understand the content of the NSW RTA Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Modifications, the Australian Design Rules and Schedule 2 of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007, or is misrepresenting that code of practice and those legislative instruments.

The majority of the "car hoons" that the minister seeks to regulate more strictly are driving vehicles that are not legal. That's right, not legal. Some may have documentation that makes them appear legal, but proper inspection would reveal either that the vehicles are not consistent with that documentation or that the documentation has been issued in error. So, if the people that will be affected are not these "car hoons", who are they? The answer is almost everybody else.

Examples of people affected include ordinary motorists who replace sagged, worn out suspension springs in their vehicles; infrastructure corporations such as rail maintenance and electricity companies; farmers and hunters who have their vehicles raised for normal day to day farm operations; grey nomads who have heavy duty springs and tyres fitted to their 4WDs so that they can tow their caravan or camping trailer to visit remote parts of the country; predominantly family oriented 4WD enthusiasts and clubs; charity groups who are helped by 4WD clubs to take terminally ill children to places that they couldn't otherwise access; environmental rehabilitation groups who are assisted in removing rubbish by 4WD clubs; emergency response groups including SES; 4WD tour operators; participants in charity bashes; the residents of remote communities for whom 4WD tourism is the basis of their local economy; hot rod and modified car owners and all of the industries that support these people in their activities.

What is the minister's definition of a "car hoon"? Elsewhere, he refers to "young hoons". Given that some of the people affected are senior citizens, what is the minister's definition of "young"?

The real problem is that the government have starved the RTA and Police Force of the funding required to effectively operate, let alone training Inspectors for Vehicle Regulation (IVRs) and Police Officers, and to assist in ongoing review and training of Engineering Signatories to ensure that the existing system operates as intended. This is not just my personal opinion, but is based upon public and private statements made by IVRs, police officers, RTA staff and other signatory engineers since the current labor government, then led by Bob Carr, came to power in 1995.

For example, a few years ago, a Highway Patrol police officer stated in a usenet news group that they couldn't get funds to purchase paper for their photocopier, but that they could use petrol that cost more than the paper and waste considerable time to drive to another station and back to collect a ream of paper, because the fuel was in a different budget.

As an engineering signatory, I have offered to run a training "question and answer" sessions for local Highway Patrol Police Officers several times over the past decade. The officers and Patrol Commander that I suggested it to were positive about the idea, but it went no further because there is simply no funding available to do it.

So we have unsafe, illegally modified vehicles being driven on the roads, with the Police and RTA not having the resources and training necessary to detect and defect all of those vehicles. The minister's solution is to change the rules, thinking that the vehicles are actually legal because they haven't been defected. The new rules can only be described as draconian, misguided and almost certainly unworkable. The irony is that they won't have the slightest effect on the illegally modified vehicles that were ostensibly the target. Drivers of illegally modified vehicles will continue to operate those vehicles outside the law, regardless of how strict those laws are made.

So lets take a look at a few statements from the news release.

* "At the moment, vehicles can be raised or lowered by up to 5 centimetres without approval, and by up to 15 centimetres with authorised engineering approval."

The statement is completely and utterly false. It may have come about from an attempt to simplify the actual rules, but the result is nowhere the truth. Under the existing Code of Practice, vehicles can be raised or lowered by up to 1/3 of the original suspension clearance without requiring certification. This is a direct function of the vehicle design, varying from less than 20mm on some cars to around 70mm on some 4WD vehicles.

The 15cm limit with an engineering certificate does not exist in any way, shape or form. To raise or lower a vehicle by more than the 1/3 of suspension clearance described above, the design of suspension must be changed or an entirely different suspension fitted in place of the original. In these situations, the design of the suspension and the position of that suspension relative to the chassis rails will determine the resulting height of the vehicle. This means that there is no defined 15cm limit. For example, a light commercial vehicle from the 1920s to 1950s that is fitted with more modern suspension components might be lowered by more than 15cm, bringing its front bumper bar to around the same height as a modern vehicle, and hence improving not only its handling and braking but also its compatibility with modern vehicles in a crash.

If the existing 1/3 of suspension clearance rule is replaced with a blanket 50mm limit with certification, as proposed, many cars will now be able to be lowered further than is presently legal, and well beyond the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. The initial version of Vehicle Standards Bulletin 50, the RTA policy document that attempts to implement this ministerial directive is ambiguous on this point.

* "I don't want to see young hoons putting their lives or the lives of others at risk, just because they think their car looks better 15 centimetres closer to the ground."

This statement is remarkable in how it shows how out of touch with reality the minister is. For cars newer than the 1960s, it would be a genuine struggle to physically lower them by 15cm without major modifications. Even ignoring for a moment the legislated requirement for a minimum ground clearance of 10cm (or more depending on wheelbase), the physical modifications required to lower a car 15cm would essentially require the removal of the entire suspension and could certainly never be legal. On a few models of 4WD passenger vehicles, lowering them can be physically possible because they are a raised version of a normal height car, but they cannot be legal at that height because they change ADR category (MC to MA) due to that lowered height, and they cannot be shown to comply with the ADR requirements for that changed category.

Perhaps the minister can name a model of car popular with "young hoons" that has an original ground clearance of at least 25cm, such that it can be lowered 15cm and still comply with the ADRs and maintain the legally required 10cm?

* "It can affect handling, braking and safety features such as electronic stability control."

A correct statement, but the assumption that the effect is automatically negative is remarkably naiive, as is the assumption that vehicles where these are negatively affected will be legal.

Many older vehicles that are lowered are done so as part of modernising the suspension and improving the vehicle dynamics including handling and braking. Such vehicles usually have their other safety features improved at the same time, such as by fitting seatbelts, a collapsible steering column, windscreen washers and demister and improved windscreen wipers. Encouraging such vehicles to continue to be driven without these modifications would be to discourage safety improvements.

Modern safety features already limit the extent of modifications that can be carried out on vehicles. For example, because the dynamics of how the front of a vehicle collapses in a crash are critical to the operation of SRS airbags, 4WD vehicles that are equipped with SRS airbags cannot be fitted with a body lift, (spacing the body up on the chassis) unless it is possible to prove that the SRS system will not be adversely affected by the body lift. To date, I have never seen such proof for any vehicle model, and body lifts are not legally fitted to any SRS airbag equipped vehicle that I know of.

For vehicles where ESC is fitted, a similar situation applies, with alterations in suspension height and tyre diameter being restricted. As I understand it, aftermarket companies in the USA now offer "piggyback" computers to re-tune the ESC system to compensate for suspension height and tyre diameter changes. Aftermarket companies in Australia already offer re-tuning kits for ESC on several models of car. This needs to be addressed specifically for ESC equipped vehicles rather than trying to apply a rule relating to ESC to vehicles that are not fitted with it. When there is an Australian Design Rule that mandates the performance of ESC, such recalibration will be mandatory for continued ADR compliance.

* "Raising a vehicle's suspension can also reduce the driver's ability to see pedestrians and cyclists, and higher headlights can startle other road users,"

Is the minister allowing Harold Scruby to write his speeches for him?

Raising a vehicle within the limits of safe and predictable handling and within the ADR prescribed limits for light heights, including the ADR prescribed legal maximum height for headlights effectively limits any adverse reduction in vision of pedestrians and cyclists close to the vehicle while improving vision of people and objects further away.

For vehicles 1994 and newer, ADR 8/01 also prescribes a Primary Vision Area, and legal raising of such vehicles is limited by the ability to maintain compliance with that requirement.

An ADR compliant headlight installed at a height within the prescribed limits of the ADRs and adjusted in accordance with those rules is legal in NSW according to the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007.

Again, the minister appears to be confusing illegally modified vehicles with legally modified vehicles.

If the minister is genuinely concerned about vehicle lights startling other drivers, it would be far more productive for him to act upon the continued widespread illegal use of front and rear fog lights and the failure of the checking of headlight aim during registration inspections. It is over a decade since an RTA IVR told my then employer to "at least wipe the dust off the top" of his headlight aim testing machine "so that it looks like it has been used". Judging by the number of vehicles driving around with obviously misaimed headlights today, this problem appears to remain widespread.

* "Mr Daley said any vehicle being raised or lowered would require certification stating the modifications conform to safety standard requirements."

This proposal means that many vehicles that presently wouldn't require certification will require certification in the future. Leaving aside the issue of how it is determined whether a vehicle was raised before or after the implementation of these new rules, there are the connected issues of the fact that many new vehicles are raised within this range by rural new vehicle dealers before delivery, and the availability and distribution of engineering signatories across the state. Quite simply, the economic implications of requiring certification of these vehicles are staggering and the limited availability of signatory engineers makes it virtually impossible to implement.

* "The changes also mean any modifications must meet specific requirements such as the vehicle having at least 10 centimetres ground clearance."

This is a misrepresentation of the current situation. Regardless of whether a vehicle is certified or not, the 10cm minimum ground clearance requirement is already an enforceable requirement within Schedule 2 of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007. It is not a new requirement. I also understand that regulations governing licensed vehicle repairers makes it an offence for them to modify a registrable vehicle such that it does not comply with the ADRs or state regulations. Again, the minister appears unfamiliar with the existing legislation and appears to be confusing illegally modified vehicles with legally modified vehicles.

* "Vehicles raised above the 5 centimetre limit will only be granted conditional registration for use under specified conditions like competing in an off road competition."

This assumes that vehicles raised by more than 5cm are not "daily use" vehicles. That is an assumption that many people in rural NSW would dispute. During the debate about banning bullbars in urban areas a few years ago, one farmer who had to travel to Sydney on a regular basis to take his then pregnant wife to see a specialist asked whether this would mean that he would have to unbolt the bullbar from his vehicle and chain it to a post on the side of the Great Western Highway on every trip. Conditional registration that limits the use of raised vehicles in the city, as Mr Daley's policy advisor has apparently stated as being part of the intent, would seem to imply that rural people would have to change their suspension during each trip. An obviously absurd and impossible proposition.

This also assumes that the vehicle owner is rich enough to pay to buy an additional vehicle and pay for registration and insurance on an additional vehicle. So much for the Aussie Battler.

I note that the method of implementation of this announcement is by way of a policy document issued by the RTA, and not by legislation. It is extremely worrying that the rule has not been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and has not apparently been the subject of any consultation with any affected groups outside the RTA.

I call upon the minister to immediately order that Vehicle Inspectors Bulletin 50 be rescinded, and given that the minister appears to have displayed gross incompetence and appears to have lost the confidence of a significant portion of the voting population of NSW, I call upon the minister to resign.

Posted by Athol Mullen at 3:43 PM

STYLN Collaborator

STYLN

Posted
Posted

JULY 31

Minister for Roads Michael Daley today met with representatives from the 4WD community and car industry who asked for the introduction of proposed vehicle modification rules to be delayed and for more time to consult.

Mr Daley said he agreed to put the rule changes on hold and that more consultation was needed following the meeting.

“I’ve listened to feedback from the industry and the community, and have agreed to set up a working party to look more closely at how we are going to address this road safety issue,” he said.

“All of those who attended today’s meeting agreed that safety is paramount and that unsafe modifications of vehicles do need be stamped out.

“The working group will include representatives from the NSW Centre for Road Safety, Four Wheel Drive NSW-ACT, Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, the Australian 4WD Industry Council as well as other agencies and experts,” Mr Daley said.

Executive Director of Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association Stuart Charity said this was a terrific outcome.

“We’re passionate about road safety and we understand the intent of the regulation is to make the roads safer,” he said.

We’re looking forward to working towards a practical solution that meets road safety objectives while also taking industry views into account,” Mr Charity said.

Greg Redfern from Four Wheel Drive NSW-ACT also welcomed the outcome and said the working group would have their full support.

“We want to eliminate unsafe practices in the driving community and we’ll work with the government to make sure these new regulations meet those objectives without any adverse consequences for the motoring community at large,” he said.

“We all agree that there is no place for extreme and illegal modifications, but the clubs in our association follow a strict code of conduct and ethics, and we want to make sure they’re not punished,” Mr Redfern said

Miss Turbo Grand Master

Miss Turbo

Posted
Posted

Some completely useless information I thought I might share:

One of the RTA guys responsible for this was in my ski class back in July. He said that this law was specifically targeted at fwd cars that raise their vehicles to unsafe heights. His phone kept ringing as apparently there had been a newspaper article the day before and people at the RTA appeared to be freaking out about it... he also mentioned that it had taken almost 2 years for this law to be approved

AND as we were getting off the mt perisher chair lift, his ski got caught on my ski and he made me fall over and hurt my knee grrrr :thumbsup:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...