FTO AUSTRALIA

500 points per cyclist. 1000 for a child on a bicycle

what about wheelchair?

you took it too far :/

To answer your question:

yes they do. The main basis for them is they prevent unsafe modifications which inadvertently affect other road users.

Statistically young drivers are more likely to be in an accident even without modifications.
Young drivers are normally the ones who perform modifications to vehicle and more often illegal ones. This with inexperience increases the affect it has on society as it puts innocent people and property in danger.

Something as simple as illegal window tinting, at night, trying to reverse and having poor visibility- you never know what or who you could hit, injure or kill. This affects the community.

EG: If you hit a person you injure or kill them. Clearly this would affect an individual, family, friends, a local community society, etc.

If you hit property and damage it. This affects the individual party(ies) commercial and personal enterprise, communities and society in the form of levies, premiums, excesses (Sub-EG: as is the case you pay more on excess if you're younger driver in an accident).

Vehicle modification laws are trialed and tested. Yes, people can still have accidents while being in the confines of the law however, as they are within 'what is lawful', the above examples are either minimised or do not occur.

/end

hope this helps

You obviously have faith in the system. Unfortunately, I dont. And here are a few examples asto why:

1. Why are FTO Factory HIDS not allowed when FTO's are complied. Answer: Because they aren't self leveling and so ADRs require them to be removed or modified. So if this is true, why have new cars been allowed to be sold into the market without self leveling HIDS. Answer: Politics and big business. Car companies do not want grey imports so they apply pressure to the government to make it harder.

2. Another perfect example is aftermarket exhausts. From memory an FTO (and other cars) must have an exhaust that is less than 88 decibels (I think its 88). This is supposedly to protect the public from noise. So why is it a Harley straight out of the factory can have an exhaust that easily hits 100 decibels. Answer: Politics and pressure from minority groups.

3. A third example. Many cars made in the 60's and earlier didn't have seat belts and had very few lights on the rear of the car (no reverse light for example).If it is all about safety and the community, why aren't these cars required to comply to the same design rules as newer cars. Answer: Politics and the uproar that would occur if they tried.

You are naive if you think its all about safety and the community. This may be a small part of it, but the rules are very patchy and are aimed at benefiting some while penalising others. To be all about safety and the community, everyone would have to be treated equally.... Fact is,in this case safety is the thin veneer of truth hiding the real reasons; which are generally political and not at all equitable.

Sorry,gone off on a bit of a tangent. This doesnt really answer your question, but is something that continually bugs me, so had to have a rant.

dstocks wrote:
2. Another perfect example is aftermarket exhausts. From memory an FTO (and other cars) must have an exhaust that is less than 88 decibels (I think its 88). This is supposedly to protect the public from noise. So why is it a Harley straight out of the factory can have an exhaust that easily hits 100 decibels. Answer: Politics and pressure from minority groups.

Actually it is 90db for the FTO. There is a year cut to determine, but something like 197X. Anything before that is 100db.

Harley's do comply with the noise limit, however it is the owners that opt for a noisy exhaust. Same as my bike. It has a butterfly valve in the exhaust system that remains closed till 3,000rpm factory (so it is legal). Why 3,000rpm? Because this is what the noise test is done at. But that hasn't stopped me ripping off the pipe, and putting a Yoshi Pipe straight on to it. The Dealership pushed me to buy it off them before I even drove away from the yard...

1) My gripe with this law though, is that varex mufflers are illegal as it is not stock, but bikes have used that technology for years.
2) If you let cars have a legal limit of 100db, why does mine have to be 90db? If I drive past someone with 94db's I will get defected. But a louder older car gets away with it? That is the part that sh*ts me the most. Either make the older car have to comply, or leave the one limit at 100db.

And cops could really defect every Harley they pass, but imagine how much time that would take. And would it net any benefit? No? More cars to target than bikes...

I was pretty sure they were louder than the limit out of the factory. Oh well, I stand corrected. Still falls into point 3 though in that case.

The question was whether it serves a social function. I think modification laws do. I never said they were fair.

But at least you provide an argument for the other sway of the pendulum.

I have my opinion and you have yours, I never write things in hope to convince people otherwise so I hope you didn't take it like I'm doe eyed. no need to call me naive in what comes across as an attempt to belittle my opinion. To me, it's just the stronger side of the argument.

For the fun of it, the point you've made about older cars not having seatbelts and difficult viewing of their tail lights
New cars do have seatbelts compulsory fitted due to society's perception towards safety and for the community's wellbeing and there are more lights on the rear of new vehicles for the same reason. I personally do not think cars without seatbelts should be permitted on our roads, they should be towed to a track or kept in a garage. I wouldn't like any of my family or friends enter a car with no seatbelts, and I get shifty when I can't see rear lights properly,. But hey, that's me.

Anyway, i'm not discussing the legalities of specific examples but the objectives of having the modification laws in place.

I truly do believe that the laws do serve a social function.

(oh and I'm not angry or offended by any comments you've made)

Sorry, it was not my intention to offend. I guess in a funny way, we agree. Yes the rules serve a social function. Where we disagree is the reasons and decisions behind said function. And whether the rules actually provide a tangible benefit. In some cases they do provide a benefit to the public,but in many cases the only benefit they provide is to big business or loud minority groups that should be ignored.

Damn minority groups *shakes fist* I hate those guys.

And just to tell you, my personal opinion, old vehicles should have to be made to fall within the rules and regs of current laws, there shouldn't be a, 'my car is old therefore I don't need to...'

One set of rules for everyone and if you can't fall in line then bad luck. it's either allowed, or its not.

I think that also opens the doors for manufacturers to make money by creating parts for old cars that will permit the old vehicles to fall in line with legislation.

Cassf88 wrote:Damn minority groups *shakes fist* I hate those guys.

And just to tell you, my personal opinion, old vehicles should have to be made to fall within the rules and regs of current laws, there shouldn't be a, 'my car is old therefore I don't need to...'

One set of rules for everyone and if you can't fall in line then bad luck. it's either allowed, or its not.

I think that also opens the doors for manufacturers to make money by creating parts for old cars that will permit the old vehicles to fall in line with legislation.

But then a car would have to be "modified" every time new standards are introduced. And nobody is going to put for example airbags on a car from the 60's.

And just to tell you, my personal opinion, old vehicles should have to be made to fall within the rules and regs of current laws, there shouldn't be a, 'my car is old therefore I don't need to...'

Exactly!

But then a car would have to be "modified" every time new standards are introduced. And nobody is going to put for example airbags on a car from the 60's.

But if it decided that any new car should have this to be safe then maybe the old ones should either be made to comply or have some form of restricted rego. The double standards relating to these things make absolutely no sense.

dstocks wrote:

But then a car would have to be "modified" every time new standards are introduced. And nobody is going to put for example airbags on a car from the 60's.

But if it decided that any new car should have this to be safe then maybe the old ones should either be made to comply or have some form of restricted rego. The double standards relating to these things make absolutely no sense.

And I agree!

All for restricted rego or restrictions on driving the car on public roads. We pay TAC in our regos to, at times to what I see as questionable payouts for drivers/cars that shouldn't be on the rd. Maybe rebates from govt or manufacturers when a new safety feature becomes compulsory?

If new safety features become compulsary ie airbags installed in old cars
Then how would you put crumple zones into old cars? It would be impossible
So poor people would no longer be able to afford cars, as only new cars would be allowed on the road.
New automotive technologies are only for the rich whom can afford to upgrade their cars as new safety features are invented.

Okay, so being in the vehicle modification game, I figure I have something worthwhile to say here. Whether you believe me or not is a different matter.

Do the current vehicle modification laws perform a social function within society? Of course they do.

In a perfect world, the laws would be designed to maintain a uniform safety net across all makes, models and variants of vehicles sold in the Australian market. By making these laws tighter and more stringent, however, you essentially make it nearly impossible for the aftermarket industry to comply with current modification codes.

Take, for example, suspension kits. There are no laws stating that an owner of a vehicle is not allowed to pull the coils out of their vehicle, cut a few turns off them, and re-install the coils to essentially lower the vehicle. So long as the vehicle has been lowered within the legal limit, there is nothing wrong (by law) with this action. The owner does not have to certify the vehicle and, if fitted with ESC/TC/ABS, does not have to prove that there are no adverse effects to the safety systems installed by the manufacturer. Why? Because all the components are still original.

However, if I were to market a suspension system (whether a lift or lowering kit) to the general public, then I have to go through thousands of dollars of swerve, brake and safety testing to ensure that my suspension upgrade (which, lets face it, all aftermarket kits are designed to be better than the standard equipment) does not adversely affect the safety control systems. Under current law, any vehicle fitted with stability control from factory must not have any components fitted that will alter the safety system installed by the manufacturer (no matter how woeful it is).

So where does that leave me? I go out of business before I've even started, and people are limited to factory suspension systems which are often sub-par for what the vehicle is designed to do. The Triton, for example, has an absolutely woeful and simply dangerous suspension kit from standard, because it is designed to be a "do everything" vehicle. The shock absorbers in my vehicle may as well have been sponges, because they offered a similar level of resistance when controlling the factory springs. And yet, as a manufacturer of aftermarket suspension, we have to prove that our standard height kit on this vehicle is equal or better than the original equipment. And I can't use customer testimonies, because they could be corrupt, so paying an external engineer to test the gear for us is the only option.

BHP Billiton recently released a statement recently, changing their light vehicle policy. http://minecorp.com.au/news/bhp-billito ... cle-policy

Basically, they have decided that all vehicle modifications are bad, and that no vehicle is allowed to be modified from standard if it is to be used on one of their sites (genuine accessories aside). The reason for this: they are covering their asses. Fully Engineered GVM (Gross Vehicle Mass) Upgrades are no longer "legal" on BHP Sites, even though they are able to be fitted with federal compliance before a vehicle is first registered. No aftermarket bullbar, towbar and tray systems. Nothing. BHP are expecting a completely standard vehicle to survive the punishment and abuse dealt out by their mining sites. The 79 Series Tray-back, with a GVM from factory of 3300kg, will no longer legally be allowed to carry necessary mining rigs, as they will be over the vehicle limit. BHP have also stated that vehicles must have a 5-star ANCAP safety rating to be used on their sites, further limiting the number of vehicles they can choose from.

Also:http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Very interesting read on a study done in the U.S. about raising and lowering speed limits.

If new safety features become compulsary ie airbags installed in old cars
Then how would you put crumple zones into old cars? It would be impossible
So poor people would no longer be able to afford cars, as only new cars would be allowed on the road.
New automotive technologies are only for the rich whom can afford to upgrade their cars as new safety features are invented.

All im saying is that it should be consistent, otherwise it does not make any sense.You cant on one hand say that one car has to meet a certain standard while others do not. To answer your question though, there are plenty of cheap cars on the market with crumple zones and even airbags. Personally, I think the standards applied to new cars should be phased in to apply to older cars over time (say 10-15 years). Cars older than that can still be driven, but under a special registration.This would get the crap off the road while still allowing the enthusiasts to own and drive their "Vintage" car. Japan has done something that achieves this (although it wouldnt benefit me if they did it here). Their rego becomes more expensive based on age of the car. Eventually, the car becomes dearer to own than to pick up another one. Hence we end up with all the imports.

BHP are expecting a completely standard vehicle to survive the punishment and abuse dealt out by their mining sites.

And there is another of the issues with no allowing modifications. Its all very well to stop people modifying a car where it compromises safety, but what if it improves it. Suspension and brake upgrades if carried out by a professional will make a car safer and it will handle better. I dont understand why this is considered a bad thing.

fraz91 wrote:Also:http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Very interesting read on a study done in the U.S. about raising and lowering speed limits.

Would be interesting if they conducted a newer one like this, particularly in more populated areas/city spaces.