Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:36 AM, turbodragon said:

You really love getting the press involved huh? LOL

Nope, no name. I've tried since day one to get the name of reporting officer so I could have a chat to him and see where the error has occured. Unfortunatly, EPA continue to withhold the name of the officer for some reason or another.

If I was able to get the officer's name, I would no doubt follow the path you mentioned as the two conflicting stories will raise alarm bells. Hopefully the officer isn't in on it also. EPA = Untrustworthy!

the are not allowed to with hold the name of the officer. The name should also be stated on the fines! if not id be def chasing it with the correct sources as i sated earlier in this thread

Why does this not surprise me...it seems bureaucratically easier to process you,even with bullshit amendments, than to do the paperwork involved to cancel it.

Feel for you man. But as Paul said, even more reason to fight it. Would be awesome if something like this got media coverage. I know more than enough stories or people with stories to create a segment out of it.

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:38 AM, Plattsy said:

deffo mate. bring it to light. you have to knowledge and what not, what bout people who would just do it because they wouldnt know any better. get the story out there my friend!

That's true, but the way I see it, it's going to turn into a massive finger pointing exercise and with the EPA being a government branch, they're going to have a lot more money to throw into defending themselves than I do in accusing/prosecutting them :(

I wish the whole bullshit thing could be exposed...everything from the corrupt cops who feed off EPA's ridiculous laws to the EPA itself and the lack of a vessel through which to challenge infringement.

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:42 AM, Frosty said:

the are not allowed to with hold the name of the officer. The name should also be stated on the fines! if not id be def chasing it with the correct sources as i sated earlier in this thread

Believe me mate, I've tried numerous occasions to obtain the name so i can chase it up without EPA getting involved and possibly getting their stories changed.

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:42 AM, Birds said:

Why does this not surprise me...it seems bureaucratically easier to process you,even with bullshit amendments, than to do the paperwork involved to cancel it.

Feel for you man. But as Paul said, even more reason to fight it. Would be awesome if something like this got media coverage. I know more than enough stories or people with stories to create a segment out of it.

Thanks mate, I feel for me too. Paul does have a point, but again, my resources in terms of fighting it are limited compared to EPA.

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:45 AM, blah_blah said:

There's my point exactly! Why are we "guilty until proven innocent"? EPA clearly don't see the flaw in their "schemes", which is all good cos EPA will get their own soon enough*

*I may or may not be condoning the act of EPA Staff Carpark dobbing

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:50 AM, turbodragon said:

Believe me mate, I've tried numerous occasions to obtain the name so i can chase it up without EPA getting involved and possibly getting their stories changed.

Stuff the EPA! call the SRO and have them place the fine/etc on hold and have them investigate the issue.

I bet the EPA staff will be exempt from the guilty until proven innocent approach.

Love how the spokesperson from EPA says she was misquoted...and her follow up or supposed original quote is completely different in every way. Guessing she had a quick lesson in Australian law that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if she was misquoted, that is how the system works down at the EPA the burden of proof is on you which contradicts everything our legal system is supposed to stand for. I have no idea how these laws were passed and powers were delegated in this way?

Turbodragon...if the EPa seem to think you can put in a stat dec in the case of a wrongful infringement, then perhaps write an email saying you would happily sign a stat dec contrary to the information contained in the infringement. This seems to be all that is required in defence of the EPA litter fines...if the spokesperson's often changing words are anything to go by. After that, they would need to take it to court to prosecute you further.

  On 08/04/2013 at 2:14 AM, Birds said:

I bet the EPA staff will be exempt from the guilty until proven innocent approach.

Love how the spokesperson from EPA says she was misquoted...and her follow up or supposed original quote is completely different in every way. Guessing she had a quick lesson in Australian law that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if she was misquoted, that is how the system works down at the EPA the burden of proof is on you which contradicts everything our legal system is supposed to stand for. I have no idea how these laws were passed and powers were delegated in this way?

Turbodragon...if the EPa seem to think you can put in a stat dec in the case of a wrongful infringement, then perhaps write an email saying you would happily sign a stat dec contrary to the information contained in the infringement. This seems to be all that is required in defence of the EPA litter fines...if the spokesperson's often changing words are anything to go by. After that, they would need to take it to court to prosecute you further.

Typical EPA and their back-pedalling. To be honest, I think I will gain more satisfaction in keeping an eye out for d*ckhead drivers on the road and then reporting them to get an EPA test. If we do this enough, the "general" public will see the flawed logic of the system (the same way they've seen the littering system flaw) and do the uprising for us.

Edited by turbodragon

And if there was a great deal of paperwork involved in cancelling a test, the more EPA staff we dob in, the more work it generates for them. Eventually, they'll either have to suck it up and continue to process/cancel dodgy dobbings or make a change to the system.

Good idea...we should actually flood/clog the system with hundreds of reports...prove that the system can be abused. Report camera cars on the side of the road, government and police vehicles etc. Will create all sorts of headaches.

  On 08/04/2013 at 1:53 AM, Frosty said:

Stuff the EPA! call the SRO and have them place the fine/etc on hold and have them investigate the issue.

Who are they SRO?

In my line of work its the State Revenue Office and they don't deal with this issue

  On 08/04/2013 at 2:23 AM, Birds said:

Good idea...we should actually flood/clog the system with hundreds of reports...prove that the system can be abused. Report camera cars on the side of the road, government and police vehicles etc. Will create all sorts of headaches.

Agreed. We should start reporting and abuse the system that's abused us (sounds kinda strange now that I read that last line out loud lol). I think a Meet n Greet should be organised at a central point, and then we start fanning out and get as many number plates/time/location as possible and meet back to process our good work haha

  On 08/04/2013 at 3:09 AM, kaitoukid said:

The central point being EPA HQ carpark? :P

LMAO!

In theory, it's a great idea. In practice however, we would be pretty much writing our own Test Notice (as well as the other 100+ we manage to get over the course of a few hours hahaha)

  On 08/04/2013 at 2:29 PM, xALmoN said:

we can all take the tram, if you're that worried.

F*ck that, I don't have a concession card. I'm already pissed off about having to pay $41 for a noise test, let alone another $10 to catch a tram to EPA headquaters.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
  • Create New...