Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yes but it is not longer reasonable grounds if the modifications they are quoting are legal.

I'm dubious as to suspicion alone.

"reasonable grounds" still apply if the modifications are legal, the "reasonable grounds" to inspect the vehicle is to see if it modifications are in fact legal and comply with the regulations.

If they do comply, then you will be sent on your way without a defect notice.

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A point I'm trying to make is...

"What if you can't remember where the bonnet release is?" OR...

"What if you don't know where it is?" OR...

"What if your bonnet release is fixed in position with a coach screw"...

Does Mr/s Plod have the authority to touch your car and release it himself/herself???????????????

I DOUBT THIS VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because, once you release the bonnet, you are in effect giving him/her the 'authority' to inspect.

I reckon:

1. If the copper knows he/she can show you. You then have no excuse.

2. Ditto point 1.

3. I always thought having your bonnet fixed in position was illegal anyway and grounds for him to defect you without even opening your bonnet.

I also doubt their authority to touch your car, but if it all becomes too much for them they have an easy way out.... EPA notice. It's much more hassle than the defect anyway.

I reckon:

1. If the copper knows he/she can show you.

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

Victorian Law does not require the officer to see a thing to report you to the EPA

That's the whole bullshit part... Any officer can report you without any fact, proof or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

They just "say" they "suspect", and off you go.

However, another interesting point, you can find the name of the officer out under freedom of information laws.

My next EPA i will be doing this, and then contacting a lawyer on top of writing an official complaint etc etc.

Its nothing short of absolute bullshit that you have to take your car for a test - which you have to pay for... OR take half a day off work to take it for a full inspection... especially if you are indeed legal.

My last EPA i wasn't even pulled over, i was 'observed' on the street - i mean what the f**k... the officer was standing out the front of a maccers or something and decides to report me based on no fact whatsoever... *sigh*

All of this based on no proof, fact or anything else what so ever. It does not even require suspicion. You just get reported and that's that.

They law has to be changed and some proper controls put in place, but like all things law related - good luck with that.

That's a very good idea, you're a smart man, i too got done by some lazy cop who suspected my car was too loud, most likely at a hungry jacks when i drove past it on my way home, i've been driving for 4 years with no hassles until some police officer thought he can note something down to show he was working at that time instead of piss farting around.

Victorian Law does not require the officer to see a thing to report you to the EPA

That's the whole bullshit part... Any officer can report you without any fact, proof or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

They just "say" they "suspect", and off you go.

However, another interesting point, you can find the name of the officer out under freedom of information laws.

My next EPA i will be doing this, and then contacting a lawyer on top of writing an official complaint etc etc.

Its nothing short of absolute bullshit that you have to take your car for a test - which you have to pay for... OR take half a day off work to take it for a full inspection... especially if you are indeed legal.

My last EPA i wasn't even pulled over, i was 'observed' on the street - i mean what the f**k... the officer was standing out the front of a maccers or something and decides to report me based on no fact whatsoever... *sigh*

All of this based on no proof, fact or anything else what so ever. It does not even require suspicion. You just get reported and that's that.

They law has to be changed and some proper controls put in place, but like all things law related - good luck with that.

don't have time to read the whole thread but the cop on NS said while a person doesn't have to open the bonnet of the car, he could just require you to do a road worthy check right on the spot or 9am the next morning at a place of his preference. So, probably better to open the bonnet.

don't have time to read the whole thread but the cop on NS said while a person doesn't have to open the bonnet of the car, he could just require you to do a road worthy check right on the spot or 9am the next morning at a place of his preference. So, probably better to open the bonnet.

Hey mate, do you have a link to that thread on NS? Wwould be interested to read it.

Cheers

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

external gate?

Hey mate, do you have a link to that thread on NS? Wwould be interested to read it.

Cheers

vic legal advice thread. and it can be any station they nominate, so if your attitude sucks, expect a 500km+ drive haha

Edited by RB_Ryan
That's a very good idea, you're a smart man, i too got done by some lazy cop who suspected my car was too loud, most likely at a hungry jacks when i drove past it on my way home, i've been driving for 4 years with no hassles until some police officer thought he can note something down to show he was working at that time instead of piss farting around.

wow that i did not know, that seem very unfair they should at least pull you over and tell you.

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

Kinda luck of the draw in that case... if he knows where it is, you can feign ignorance all you want, but if he can tell you exactly how to open it you're farting against thunder.

You could refuse to open it straight out of course rather than feigning ignorance. In which case you will probably be receiving an EPA notice within 4 weeks of the encounter anyway :(

I am damned if I do and damned if I don't regardless given my mods, so I just hope for nice or clueless coppers every time.

  • 3 weeks later...
Police need "reasonable grounds" to stop you and do an inspection. Once this has been established, they can do any tests which the inspecting officer or member of the police force decides to be appropriate,

So if an officer sees you have modified wheels on your vehicle even although they might be legal, this is the "reasonable grounds" to do an inspection to see if the vehicle is complying with the act or regulations. Once they have established this "reasonable grounds" then they can do a complete inspection of the vehicle, which includes opening the bonnet if they want.

There is no requirement for an officer to tell you what "reasonable grounds" they had to do an inspection, although most will if you ask.

I can't believe I missed this post previously.

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me :P

I can't believe I missed this post previously.

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me :(

Yeah I agree. just because there is a visable modification on the car from the outside, does not imply that there are more inside, or under the bonnet. Conversely, just because there are no modifications that you can see from or on the outside of the car does not imply that it's legal under the bonnet.

But meh, I don't get any trouble from the police anymore.

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

Its "reasonable grounds" because how does an officer know that your legal modification eg.1" larger wheels is legal, unless they inspect the wheels. if it's legal then you will be sent on your way.

it's a bit hard to inspect a vehicle which is on the move :D

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me :D

The government allows a person to modifiy their vehilce within the standards, so there needs to be away that they can confirm that it complies to this standard.

Curious about this longshot situation:

Lets say you have a 100% stock car and you get pulled over. Cop is stupid and tells you to get an EPA or RWC check. For some unknown reason you don't fight it and get the EPA check / RWC. Does the police compensate for making an error or do you just cop it and it all comes out of your pocket?

1. Look at the end of the day if one doesn't know their rights they obviously cant do shit and have to cop it no matter what. pardon my french.

2. IF! and i say IF! one knows their rights.. grow the balls to stand up for yourself and say something... but look ull get dicked anyway...

so fkn gooooooood luck! its just to much fkn effort to do all that bullshit when all they have to do it put ur rego on a paper....so u end up loosing anyway..

look a lot of you may think I'm wrong but do me a favor n prove me wrong.. please.

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Haha I do that.. thats when it chirps..The bit point for me is almost non-existent. Otherwise I stall it. But yes, in terms of performance, the clutch is solid af.
    • Greg speaks wisdom. These dirty old Datsuns are only value when they are cheap. When they are not cheap, there is no value. Sounds contradictory, but it's true. We are now 20 years past the hey day of modifying cheap 90s JDM cars for small amounts of money. This is a different world. If you are rich and can afford not to care about what is effectively wasting money on an old Datto shitter, then I have no reason to argue against it. But if you are wanting to experience what we all experienced back in 2005 (and I bought my car last century!) then there is no way to do it.
    • Short answer: No. Medium answer: No, because you still need to conjure the things out of thin air to bolt them to a NA to make it a NA+T. Long Answer: No - The things you need to conjure - meaning a turbo, intercooling, manifolds, exhaust, intake/manifold/piping, clutch, injectors, fuel pump, AFM (?), ECU + Wiring (woo, N/A loom fun) have to come from somewhere. You could have many scavenged these things from an OEM car that someone had upgraded from and use some of these. This will be cost prohibitive now, especially so in the USA. You'd probably pay the same for newer, upgraded components that are better than old OEM stuff from 25-30 years ago. None of these big ticket items are re-usable for the N/A car. Why not buy new and upgrade while you're there? The only real consideration is turbo and fuel sizing and determining whether you want to stay within the bounds of the OEM engine or get into rebuild territory. These limits ARE lower with a N/A motor and especially N/A gearbox at the starting point. And if you're gonna upgrade those then you may as well consider having them built to begin with. Because everyone here knows you're never far from that next engine rebuild once you start making the power you want... The cars you see on the internet and SAU etc have been built over decades. If you're really clued in... you would sell your US car to somebody for what you paid for it. You would then scour AU JDM pages or SAU and buy a car like Dose's on this forum with your powerful American Dollar. This will save you so much money in the long term. Importing it could be tricky. Or it might not because USA. I have long said the only reason 90's Japanese stuff took off was because a) Japanese people had Japanese cars so that is what they used b) Australians could import these cars to Australia with very minimal changes and use them on the road here c) Neither country had well-priced access to US or EU Sports Cars. I don't believe the JDM scene would have taken off in Australia at all if we had EU priced EU BMW M offerings, or more especially the AUS V8 Scene would never have existed if we had the multitude of US cars like Camaros, Mustangs, Corvettes at the prices you folks do. After all - Do the math. I would say put a V8 in your R34 and that's the smart way forward. It is. I did it. I know this from my own experience. But at that point there's no reason to simply not buy a C5 or C6? It would be simpler and easier and cheaper and bette-
    • Reading all this... hurts lol. I have an ENR34 5MT and I paid an inflated USA price for the car alone, had to do tons of preventative maintenance past that, and so I'm over $30K USD into the car already and haven't even touched power.  I wanted to +t it. Not even trying to make GTR numbers, I'd be happy with 250hp.  Can I get away with paying much less to make that happen?
    • Damn you’ve done well, definitely snapping necks.
×
×
  • Create New...