Stupid car rules..

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:33 am

Thank I8AFRE, i thought it was pretty straight forward.

Someone must be smoking some of the Mr Wong special, or I8AFRE and others had learn to read my chingrish already

Liquidity · Post by **Liquidity** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:55 am

dstocks wrote:I think youre all a bit narrow minded!. I own a 4WD. I have a property in the country and work in the city. My poor FTO does NOT like the dirt road and I have a causeway that floods every now and then and cars cant cross it. I also need to pull a large tandem trailer. Had a VRX magna for a while and if I hadnt bought the 4WD, the trailer would have destroyed it. I dont want a 4WD, they drink too much, are gutless and generally handle like a dog, but have no choice. There are a LOT of farmers out there in the same boat. Just because a there are few misguided people in the city that never get their 4WD dirty (maybe a little more than a few), doesnt mean everyone should be penalised. Besides, I pay more towards the upkeep of the roads with the F#@$#$G government taxes on fuel.

OK, had my rant now, feeling much better

if you need it, you should have no problem getting a licence for it. Like a motorbike. And if you think theres "just a few" city monsters getting around with massive bullbars, i suggest you spend more time in the city.

I mean jesus, the bmw, lexus's etc, with maybe 2-3 inches of ground clearance, marketed as 4wds....theres heaps going around.

sublime19 · Post by **sublime19** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:59 am

I8AFRE wrote:I think that what FTO338 is saying is that OEM is different because although they are made of the same material the OEM will have crumple zones built into them so that they crush without taking the heads off. Now thats not to say that the aftermarket ones dont they just havent been tested companys like lotus and corvette spend millions of $$$ a yr on safety like crash test dummies, which is were the real results come from

man wtf are u on about lol.. i think it's pretty obvious that OEM isnt the same as aftermarket so i dont know who u'r explaining to! you just wanna get your post count up... get out u noob!@

Post by **I8A4RE** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:56 pm

Now u got the same promlem as what i had before, why dont U READ the posts before u post i was talking to BOBZ

HE WROTE

disagree, it dosent matter if the product is OEM or aftermarket as it does very little in terms of protecting the occupants in a crash, however how the bonet deforms and does not move back into the passenger compartment in a front impact is very important, this is the reason why I would not buy an aftermarket bonnet because I like my head sitting on top of my shoulders.
If the product is well designed and engeneered then it will behave in the right way under impact but it costs money to develop.

And then u moron, FTO338 even thanked me for explaining to bobz

Thank I8AFRE, i thought it was pretty straight forward. Someone must be smoking some of the Mr Wong special, or I8AFRE and others had learn to read my chingrish already

khunjeng · Post by **khunjeng** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:05 pm

If it doesn't have ADR approval then you can't use it. Who cares if its oem/aftermarket etc. But as a general rule many a/m fibreglass bonnets don't have ADR approval. Many of us have been through this many times. APart from safety reason, your giving your insurance comapny another escape clause NOT to pay out your claim.

Just becuase its CF or Fibreglass doesn't mean its not strong if designed correctly for the axis of impact.

Post by **I8A4RE** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:19 pm

But thats the whole point it does matter if it is OEM. OEM IS ADR APPROVER (corvette, lotus, etc). If its aftermarket it might not be (most probably wont be). Otherwise ppl with the above mentioned cars would not be able to get insurances or registration or probably wouldnt be brought in to the country cause they would not pass certification

Post by **dstocks** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:55 pm

i suggest you spend more time in the city.

I admit Canberra isnt as big as Sydney or Melbourne, but last time I looked it was known as a city. Maybe it should be based on use, or....

Dont you think there are enough taxes already.... I certainly do. Let me guess, its OK to charge someone with a 4wd, but not someone with a bigger engine that puts out more emissions (Watch that space in coming years) or stop someone from driving a higher powered car until thay have more experience. I have to say, if you bring in one new rule (that you may agree with) I guarantee there will be another 5 implemented that you wont...

Liquidity · Post by **Liquidity** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:36 pm

there's already laws about emissions. whats the point here?
We're not discussing potential abuse of power, we're discussing a problem and the most effective solutions.

Post by **dstocks** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:41 pm

What im trying to suggest is it depends on who you ask as to what problems there are. A few years ago I would have agreed with what is being said. Now, not so sure about that.

The FTO has shocking visibility because of the rear pillar (worse that the 4WD I have). You have to be aware of the gaping blind spot. Turning performance and braking isnt great on the 4WD, but what difference does that make - safety maybe. Well, I would say take a look at road statistics of grey imports/sports cars vs 4WD and I dont think either would look too good. Granted for different reasons - one because of the vehicle dynamics and the other because of the people that tend to drive them. Am I generalising here, well maybe, but it all ends up having the same outcome. Introducing a precedent like this would just open up the flood gates for a lot more. The government is only too happy to impose more restrictions and red tape, particularly if they earn more money from it.

I believe that the current situation is not good, but changes only lead to a worse one. Take the GST as an example.

Oh, and on the bullbar thing - I agree, they are more dangerous to pedestrians than a CF bonnet could ever be, but they do save your car (and potentially more than that) if you live in an area with Kangaroos. Not willing to make a call either way on that one..... Having said that I believe that rather than penalising motorists with things like 50km speed zones because of pedestrian traffic concerns (which I believe makes bugger all difference despite what statistics they throw at us), more should be spent educating idiots (and kids) not to step out in front of cars. The same goes for bullbars, why do we persist in putting plans in place to SUPPOSEDLY reduce damage to pedestrians instead of teaching them to follow the rules of the road and not step in front of cars!.

What does all this have to do with the original thread - well nothing and everything, it just depends on how you look at it. Thats why its called Gibberish corner...

Post by **BorepYano** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:45 pm

woah, philosophical... i got confused lol (granted i'm half asleep, but back to the topic)

ok, u have a very good point about educating ppl not to step out in front of cars, but there will always be the drunks, very small children with bad parents, idiots and forigners (i say forigners, cos a 19yr old chinese international student here, ran out in front of a car and was killed, he was trying to cross the road... thats what u had to do in parts of china to cross the road, he was only here for weeks,

), and of course the idiots that speed or just people that have made a bad judgment and lost control of the car. education is going to do some good, but these things will still happen.

the whole CF/fibreglass bonnet thing, fair enough, the rule is there to protect you - the driver/occupents of the car when u have an accident. as for 4WDs... i'm not sure about now, but there was a huge thing about them a few yrs ago, they were classified as a farming tool, so they didnt have to go through the crash test etc... they didnt crumble, so if u had a head on with one of them then u'd end up a puddle of blood and flesh with engine bits where your private bits used to be. and u add a bull bar on to that... not pretty.. anyways, i think there should be a very simple test for people who drive 4WDs, or even just a free lesson or someting, just so they can understand that what they drive is massive and heavy, and they handle different to a normal car.

another thing about 4WDs is their head lights, they r not right for city driving, they r set too high still!!!

as for the bull bars... i have no idea on what to say about that, i see that they r useful and needed in the right conditions, but inner city driving, they r definately not and are definately dangerous... so thats a 50/50... what if we just made 4WDs with cow catchers? lol

another thing, the BMW, volvo, lexus, porshe 4WDs should all be F*cked off. seriously can you really see anyone using one of them for actual 4wheel driving? those are just attempted penis extentions

Post by **dstocks** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:33 pm

Now that I can agree with (and I mean pretty much everything you said)....

Post by **I8A4RE** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:32 pm

Clap Clap Clap, well done dstocks and borep couldnt agree more with u guys.

But one the headlight note both 2 of the three FTO's that went on a cruise with me (mine Being the third)Both your guys headlights were blinding.

And ive got a simple solution which has so many bennefits i dont think i could list them all................. 6 monthly (for cars older than 10 yrs) and yearly (for cars newer than 10yrs old) inspection checks. They have been done in new zealand for the entire time i was driving their. On of the checks is headlight adjustment. taxi's in australia have to do it now so why shouldnt the rest of the public

Post by **dstocks** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:06 pm

Yeah, think thats a good idea. As long as you dont get charged for it on top of everything else. Would also have the added benefit of getting rid of some of the death traps off the road.

sublime19 · Post by **sublime19** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:38 am

dstocks wrote: Oh, and on the bullbar thing - I agree, they are more dangerous to pedestrians than a CF bonnet could ever be

you did relate to the original comment dstocks lol, that comment u made right there is all i was basically saying

and with people walking out in front of cars, I don't think you can teach people that, it's either idiots who want to be heroes, or dumbasses who forget to look before crossing.

I'll give you an example of both -
My friend was driving in the 50 zone at the beach, and this lady was walking with her bf and looking at him instead of the road and crossing at the same time.. and she walked right onto the road while holding her bfs hand and hit her head right on the windscreen of our car.
She was knocked out for 5 minutes but she was alrigth after apart from bruising to her leg, and the boyfriend new it was her fault.
And an example of being a total dumbass... I'll never forget this, it was by FAR the worst thing I have ever seen and definately hope I don't live to see something like that again... I was at the train station, the train was coming and this kid, around 16-17 .. stupid little sh*t.. he sees the train and he's on the other side of the fence, so instead of going into the train station the proper way, he decides to jump the fence, run onto the tracks and haul himself up.. now the platform is too high and he cant pull himself up, so as everybody is watchin u see him get sucked under by the train.. it stops and you can just hear him wailing, it sounds like he's in so much pain I can't even describe it.. everybody's looking at him u can see him under there and the train has ran over both his thighs.
There's about 7 fire trucks and they're all cutting open the fence but theyres no way they can get him out cos he's gonna bleed to death and they can't lift the train up and as he's totally destroyed waist down. Then the cops told everybody to go home and I'll never forget it.
"Better late than never"

The next day i went back and the train staff "didn't know what i was talkin about and nothing happened" so I just let it go..

Post by **BorepYano** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:19 am

agreed with the inspection thing... oh boy ppl with mods are probably not going to like that lol

um... i can explain my head lights, 1st off they need adjusting, i tried to take them out and kinda threaded a bolt

so the driver side is held in by zip ties for now, my driver side should be a little higher and my passenger side should be a little lower (accidentally moved by the tiniest freaking amount when i tried to get it out).

and i may have been high beaming a lot as well, the little stick thing (u know the stick that u use to indicate, waht is that called anyway?) is kinda stuffed so whenever i indicate left i end up highbeaming ppl by accident

Post by **dstocks** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:13 am

Ive seen a few "interesting" cars up there in QLD BorepYano (braces for reply)......

Not quite sure how they get through rego checks?????

Yeah, youre right about what you say sublime, guess the perspective changes a bit if you see it first hand. Cant see how 10kmh makes that much difference though and if it does, why not change to 40km, or even better 30km. Before you know it, no driving in suburbs. I know that would never happen, but really, people have to take responsibility for their own actions sometime???.

sublime19 · Post by **sublime19** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:53 pm

couldn't agree more with u there dstocks!
if only people took responsibilities for their actions, people wouldn't worry so much about getting caught for things they shouldn't be doing, and most importantly we wouldn't have some ridiculous traffic rules if only people took responsibility!

Post by **BorepYano** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:36 pm

with the inspection thing, i think there should be some sort of happy mideum between not having it and the stupidly strict inspections of road worthy certs.

there should be an inforcable standard for this yrly inspection if it was to go ahead.

eg:
last week a friend of mine managed to get a RWC for a volvo that cant get into 3rd gear.

a while ago another friend got failed because the rubber seal on his door was cracked.

my old work horse (95 corona wagon) is missing 3rd cylinder, its still on the road.

a friend's tyres on his comm are 5 mms "too wide", had to fork out for new tyres before he was on the road.

not only are these cars in the same city, in fact they all ended up at the same queensland transport centre for registration.

the yrly inspection shouldn't be a whole RWC inspection, a tiny spot of rust shouldnt take your car off the road. i think it should be just looking at the important safty things. thats the only way that i will really support its going ahead in qld (if it was up to me lol)

with that said, i admit that we have heaps of death traps here, as much as i want to clear these off the road... there will be a lot more innocent ppl hit by the inspections (for crying out load my driverside head light is still held in by zip ties)

Post by **I8A4RE** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:02 pm

1) Yeah the checks can be done by any fully qualified automotive mechanic that works in a work shop that is licensed to do them (which is evry single one even little workshops on the side of petrol stations can do these checks.

2) The checks only cost $14

3) they are pretty much about safety, headlights, tire tread depth, nothing falling off your car etc.

Nacho · Post by **Nacho** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:40 pm

I don't know much about CF so what actually happens when it breaks? Does it shatter like fibreglass? Or is it kinda like graphite and fractures?

FTO AUSTRALIA

Stupid car rules..

Re: Narrow minded

city

what

agreed

Yep

Re: what

Interesting