Hi all,
Have just been speaking to a guy from dept of transport who said that I cannot have tyes any larger that 15mm above specs for the vehicle (Nissan Patrol). This equates to a diameter of 820mm (<32") He says that as larger tyres will change speedo, change torque and affect braking they are not permitted at all. Also said that engineers will not deal with a lift of 4" (too high) for the lane change test. However I have also seen and know of vehicles running 35s and 37s that have gone through this test. WTF is he on about or have the regs changed just recently? Or is he being a nanny
Comments appreciated
Brad
Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
35" Tyres Illegal in WA - Apparently?
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
Re: 35" Tyres Illegal in WA - Apparently?
GQ Toy wrote: WTF is he on about or have the regs changed just recently?
1) He is telling the truth - the 15mm rule is aussie wide unless you get yoru car engineered for wider tires.
2) If I remember correctly, there was reg changes recently, well better enforcement of these regs, CBR(something like that not sure of nickname) had a thread on this mth or 2 back.
3) Its illegal to do it - so if you risk it crash, severely injure or kill someone lose everything you own when they sue u, and you get the pleasure of sharing a cell with a big black fella called BJ or Singo... They will teach you everythingt they know. Your butthole wont like it.
4) is one reason 4wds have such a bad name, people knowing shite is illegal, but say "phuck it"...
YMMV
Even if the engineer passes it and it involves federal legislation it will not protect you from litigation. The most likely course of this becoming a large issue is if you are involved in an accident and someone dies and a coronel enquiry is held. If the enquiry finds that the accident was cuased in some way by the modification to your vehicle you will be call before the enquiry. You get up and say you thought all was good and this is my engineers report to prove it. Coroner takes a look and says ok, solicitor for the family of the dead person says fantastic, now I am going to sue the engineer who will have professional indemnity insurance to cover his non compliance to federal legislation and I am going to sue the driver and take his house as ignorance is no defence. Saying you thought the truck was ok as the engineer wrote you a report is not going to save you in the civil case. The engineers report may save you going to jail in a criminal trial though. No engineers report and you get to loose all your worldly posessions and go straight to a cell with Buba. It is only a matter of time till a 4x4 comp truck is involved in something like this as it has happened with many modified street machines over the years.
Even if the engineer passes it and it involves federal legislation it will not protect you from litigation. The most likely course of this becoming a large issue is if you are involved in an accident and someone dies and a coronel enquiry is held. If the enquiry finds that the accident was cuased in some way by the modification to your vehicle you will be call before the enquiry. You get up and say you thought all was good and this is my engineers report to prove it. Coroner takes a look and says ok, solicitor for the family of the dead person says fantastic, now I am going to sue the engineer who will have professional indemnity insurance to cover his non compliance to federal legislation and I am going to sue the driver and take his house as ignorance is no defence. Saying you thought the truck was ok as the engineer wrote you a report is not going to save you in the civil case. The engineers report may save you going to jail in a criminal trial though. No engineers report and you get to loose all your worldly posessions and go straight to a cell with Buba. It is only a matter of time till a 4x4 comp truck is involved in something like this as it has happened with many modified street machines over the years.
Canetoad wrote:Even if the engineer passes it and it involves federal legislation it will not protect you from litigation.
How do you work that out? If the Engineer is an accredited state engineer(eg Vicroads), your car passed, and you inform state authority (eg Vicroads) your vehicle is considered Legal. fuck all lionel hutz can do..
He`s right just went through this before, an engineer certificate will get you out of most sh$t but in the case of death or anything Bad the insurance company can fight back to the cause of accident being the fault of a modification.bogged wrote:Canetoad wrote:Even if the engineer passes it and it involves federal legislation it will not protect you from litigation.
How do you work that out? If the Engineer is an accredited state engineer(eg Vicroads), your car passed, and you inform state authority (eg Vicroads) your vehicle is considered Legal. ***** all lionel hutz can do..
[url=http://downunder4x4.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1650]86 Hilux[/url]
and a 84 extra cab
If Rocks Had P^ssies Our Lives Would Be Perfect :D...
and a 84 extra cab
If Rocks Had P^ssies Our Lives Would Be Perfect :D...
No No No, Ignorance or misinformation is no defence, if you break a federal law which I am told tyre size is it does not matter what your engineer or Vic roads have said, you have still broken a federal law that has cuased a death in the opinion of expert advice. All it means is their is more people to include in the litigation, now we can include the registered owner of the vehicle, the state government and the engineer, getting richer by the moment. Now if your engineer approved a mod that goes against state legislation and it is ok'd through your state body that still does not prevent litigation only increases the number of parties involved. if you own the vehicle and you are responsible for modifications that in the opinion of expert advice was a reason for causing a death and it is proven that this modifications failed to meet federal or state laws you are going to all end up in court.
Surely if a modified vehicle has been approved by an accredited engineer,and the insurance company has been notified of the modifications and engineering certificate, then that same vehicle as inspected complies with the relevant Australian design rules for that type. That means it is as legal as a factory stocker and the owner has the same rights and protection as the owner of the stocker ?
Bill.
Bill.
I agree with Bill. What ADR says you can't incrase tyre diameter by more than 15mm. I would think it is merely a ruling by the local RTAs to ensure things like speedo, suspension fouling, roll-over ability, etc are not changed. That is why I have a speedo calibration report and an enginneers report including swerve and braking tests all stamped by the local RTA and on their files. I could go get my engineers report but I am sure the swerve and braking tests state to what Australian Standard they were done and by what standard method. Surely these would be exactly the same standard measurements and processes used by manufacturers in being tested for ADR compliance in the first place.
I don't have access to the ADRs but I assume they would say some like
ADR xyz : no part of tyre or wheel may foul any part of the body or suspension through out its range of movement.
I then fit 33's. with appropriate lift and bump stops and the engineer says I still meet ADR xyz and the RTA double checks and says yep - stamp approved.
My engineers report lists my bumpstop extensions btw.
cheers
MattC
I don't have access to the ADRs but I assume they would say some like
ADR xyz : no part of tyre or wheel may foul any part of the body or suspension through out its range of movement.
I then fit 33's. with appropriate lift and bump stops and the engineer says I still meet ADR xyz and the RTA double checks and says yep - stamp approved.
My engineers report lists my bumpstop extensions btw.
cheers
MattC
Sorry but the RTA or even the state government cannot legislate to make a fedral law (which has to be passed by the sennate) invalid. If a federal law states that you can only increase a vehicles tyre size by x then you can only legaly increase it by x regardless of state legislation. This by no means the only area where state and federal legislation is different, you see it all the time in the land and enviroment court. While I doubt you would be prosicuted under criminal law where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you where neglegent, in the civil courts where there is no such burden I think you would be in very real trouble of having sizable damages awarded against you. Forget about what the engineer has said becuase he will be in the court being sued as well.
Never said it was.. Misinformation is ok, if you have it in writing,you can get your $ back suing the Cookie that gave you the info.Canetoad wrote:No No No, Ignorance or misinformation is no defence,
if you break a federal law which I am told tyre size is it does not matter what your engineer or Vic roads have said, you have still broken a federal law that has cuased a death in the opinion of expert advice.
Bollox. If that was true, there wouldnt be engineers. Nobody would pass ANY mods with the risk of getting sued.. If they work within guidelines, then you and them are ok.
Then tell me what the point of getting a car engineered is? Its to state that it meets requirements for state laws (Since they are more than ADR's according to Vic Gov)..
Now if your engineer approved a mod that goes against state legislation and it is ok'd through your state body that still does not prevent litigation only increases the number of parties involved.
If it is within legal specs EG 35x12.5x15 that engineer has letter stating from the tire manufacturer (not the distributer) that its legal to run on a 15x8 and you do, thats not good enough?
if you own the vehicle and you are responsible for modifications that in the opinion of expert advice was a reason for causing a death and it is proven that this modifications failed to meet federal or state laws you are going to all end up in court.
Horseshit.
Mr bogged please don't take quotes out of context and statements such as bollocks just show ignorance rather than a reassoned arguement. Remember I said if the corenor found that the cuase of death was attributed to the modifactions done to the vehicle and that the said modification where illegal under federal legislation.
So if I follow your reasoning you think the fedral government can enact a law which has to be passed by both the house of represntitives and the senate however the law can be broken if an engineer thinks it is ok by following a set of guideliness set down by a government department, state government or industry body. Interesting concept.
If engineers where at no risk of litigation why are they forced to have 10 million dollars in professional indemnity insurance before they can be licenced. Why won't many engineers even go close to a modified 4x4 with large tyres and suspension mods.
The reason this has not become a big issue is becuase it has not come before the courts as yet. The exact same senario has happened in respect to occupational health and safety legislation, enviromental protection legislation etc it only becomes an issue when it comes before the court.
If you want to open an even bigger can of worms let an employee drive your modified 4x4 and be involved in an accident causing death to the employee, now you could be looking at criminal charges, charges under occupational heath and safety and civil litigation for damages.
Now I am not advising anybody on what they should and should not do this is just my non professional opinion.
So if I follow your reasoning you think the fedral government can enact a law which has to be passed by both the house of represntitives and the senate however the law can be broken if an engineer thinks it is ok by following a set of guideliness set down by a government department, state government or industry body. Interesting concept.
If engineers where at no risk of litigation why are they forced to have 10 million dollars in professional indemnity insurance before they can be licenced. Why won't many engineers even go close to a modified 4x4 with large tyres and suspension mods.
The reason this has not become a big issue is becuase it has not come before the courts as yet. The exact same senario has happened in respect to occupational health and safety legislation, enviromental protection legislation etc it only becomes an issue when it comes before the court.
If you want to open an even bigger can of worms let an employee drive your modified 4x4 and be involved in an accident causing death to the employee, now you could be looking at criminal charges, charges under occupational heath and safety and civil litigation for damages.
Now I am not advising anybody on what they should and should not do this is just my non professional opinion.
The 2 LandRovers I had engineered, registered and fully insured early this year had to be and were modified, tested and certified to comply with Australian design rules, not state ones. The engineer told us these vehicles can be driven on public roads anywhere in Aus. both trucks are placarded and approved on 36'' Q78 super swamper tyres which many people over here think are illegal. We downloaded all the Australian design rules off the net
The engineer had his copy, and we discussed and argued each modification until we were in agreement. Engineers are not infallable and sometimes interpret the rules and guidelines incorrectly. An intimate knowledge of mechanical concepts and engineering and knowledge of the brand of vehicle and its variants on the part of the vehicle modifyer comes in very handy. Eg, LandRover 110's are sold with 31 inch tyres. The 15mm rule doesn't legally permit 32's. But the 1 ton version of the Landy 110 which has the same hubs wheelbearings,spindles, swivel housings brakes etc
is available with 9.00 x16 tyres and depending on tyre brand these can be anything up to 37 inches in diameter.
I think that engineers should be held accountable for the modifications they approve and should lose their license if they blatantly breach the guidelines.( the engineers who certified some of the vehicles in the last Tuff Truck Challenge should be looked at}
Bill.
The engineer had his copy, and we discussed and argued each modification until we were in agreement. Engineers are not infallable and sometimes interpret the rules and guidelines incorrectly. An intimate knowledge of mechanical concepts and engineering and knowledge of the brand of vehicle and its variants on the part of the vehicle modifyer comes in very handy. Eg, LandRover 110's are sold with 31 inch tyres. The 15mm rule doesn't legally permit 32's. But the 1 ton version of the Landy 110 which has the same hubs wheelbearings,spindles, swivel housings brakes etc
is available with 9.00 x16 tyres and depending on tyre brand these can be anything up to 37 inches in diameter.
I think that engineers should be held accountable for the modifications they approve and should lose their license if they blatantly breach the guidelines.( the engineers who certified some of the vehicles in the last Tuff Truck Challenge should be looked at}
Bill.
Edward wrote:If engineers where at no risk of litigation why are they forced to have 10 million dollars in professional indemnity insurance before they can be licenced. Why won't many engineers even go close to a modified 4x4 with large tyres and suspension mods.
Sorry Teddybear, but they do engineer cars with big tires, and suspension mods.
100's gettin round with 6+inch lifts, and body lifts, and 35/37inch tires... So your theory goes right out the window with Ruff's toupe
If a federal law states that you can only increase a vehicles tyre size by x then you can only legaly increase it by x regardless of state legislation.
I am not arguing states can over rule federal. I am saying which ADR says you can't increase the diameter by more than 15mm. I would expect that is a state ruling to keep vehicles compliant with other ADRs unless properly modifed and engineered.
cheers
Matt
in queensland i think things opperate a bit differently (wacky) as you can get an engineers report and still be unroadworthy. not the case in victoria (the way its supposed to be)
id offer the feds/minister of transport a drive of my car with the standard tyres on (splittys), then a drive with a set of 35s and see which they think is a safer car. i know which ones are better! first hand experiance. non of this grapevine, i was told by a friend of a friend bullcrap.
so if i lift my car 4 inches, upgrade my brakes and put 35s on, get it all roadworthy/engineered/registered. im still driving an illegal car and im going to jail if i have a stack. i find that hard to believe, and i seriously doubt you will ever get picked up on it (unless your from QLD
).
to get it registered it has to comply with ADRs and to test the compliance, an engineer performs tests (the same tests engineers use to comply all cars coming out of factories today) he/she then writes a REPORT, this is given to the RTA. they see that it complies with ADRs and has passed testing and allow it to drive on their roads.
id offer the feds/minister of transport a drive of my car with the standard tyres on (splittys), then a drive with a set of 35s and see which they think is a safer car. i know which ones are better! first hand experiance. non of this grapevine, i was told by a friend of a friend bullcrap.
so if i lift my car 4 inches, upgrade my brakes and put 35s on, get it all roadworthy/engineered/registered. im still driving an illegal car and im going to jail if i have a stack. i find that hard to believe, and i seriously doubt you will ever get picked up on it (unless your from QLD
).
to get it registered it has to comply with ADRs and to test the compliance, an engineer performs tests (the same tests engineers use to comply all cars coming out of factories today) he/she then writes a REPORT, this is given to the RTA. they see that it complies with ADRs and has passed testing and allow it to drive on their roads.
Maybe QLD is different, but in the ACT the engineers report is submitted to the RTA along with an inspection - if they are happy with it then they stamp it and put it on file....and I am meant to keep a stamped copy in the car at all times.
In additon to swerve tests the engineer may require you to do repeated braking runs where they measure stopping distance and brake fade over multiple passes etc - to make sure you still meet ADRs
At my testing, the guy in front of me had some turbo'd skyline and had smoke pillowing from the front pads by the time the engineer had finished with him.
cheers
Matt
Did you have to make changes to the brakes etc to get approval; or is it a simple "she'll be right" and sign on the dotted line?
In additon to swerve tests the engineer may require you to do repeated braking runs where they measure stopping distance and brake fade over multiple passes etc - to make sure you still meet ADRs
At my testing, the guy in front of me had some turbo'd skyline and had smoke pillowing from the front pads by the time the engineer had finished with him.
cheers
Matt
Last edited by mattc on Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for the replies - I see it has raised some heated discussions. Sounds like I should get hold of a copy of the ADRs and state regs and have a chat to an engineer. The gist sems to be to upgrade/replace components to keep similar as possible to original vehicle ie bigger tyres = better brakes and change speedo etc.
Currently run 33's on the nissan and get less brake fade than standard triton (which also goes faster)
Currently run 33's on the nissan and get less brake fade than standard triton (which also goes faster)
Maybe I can explain this another way as some seem to be missing the point.
It does not matter what the modification is, the important issue as far as your liability goes is if you are in an accident and someone is killed and an expert crash investigater came to the conclusion that the reason for the accident was a modification to the vehicle ( in other words a standard vehicle would not have been involved in the accident due to it stoping quicker, handling better etc) then you will be exposed to litigation regardless of engineering cert's or ADR's.
I have been trying to think of vehicle related case law that you all may be familar with that shows the common law principal. The Ford motor company released the Ford Explorer onto the market which before release was exposed to all the tests and ADR's and passed for sale in Australia and the US. Through a damages claim in the US it was proven that a number of accidents occured becuase of the tyres that where fitted to the vehicle. Ford was not exempt from litigation becuase the vehicle had been passed for roadworthy and passed all ADR tests. What has happened is Ford where forced to replace all tyres on existing vehicles within a required build date range and lost a massive class action costing Ford 10's of millions. All Australian Ford Explorers where offered the change in tyres by Ford Australia, it was just fortunate for Ford Australia that they had sold only low volumes of this vehicle in the Australian market and none had been involved in a fatal crash that could be attributed to the tyre. If Ford had they would have been paying a huge settlement as well. I imagine ford will or has sued the manafacturer of the tyres for damages.
Note that the vehicle had passed all inspections for roadworthy and ADR's but it did not ristrict them from civil action. It is no different if you make a modification to your vehicle, if it is found that the modification was the cuase of the accident you will more than likely be sued regardless of engineers or ADR's. If you are running 38's which are engineered to meet the ADR's but it is found that they did not contribute to the accident then you are safe from litigation in regard to the tyres. I hope this is clearer.
It does not matter what the modification is, the important issue as far as your liability goes is if you are in an accident and someone is killed and an expert crash investigater came to the conclusion that the reason for the accident was a modification to the vehicle ( in other words a standard vehicle would not have been involved in the accident due to it stoping quicker, handling better etc) then you will be exposed to litigation regardless of engineering cert's or ADR's.
I have been trying to think of vehicle related case law that you all may be familar with that shows the common law principal. The Ford motor company released the Ford Explorer onto the market which before release was exposed to all the tests and ADR's and passed for sale in Australia and the US. Through a damages claim in the US it was proven that a number of accidents occured becuase of the tyres that where fitted to the vehicle. Ford was not exempt from litigation becuase the vehicle had been passed for roadworthy and passed all ADR tests. What has happened is Ford where forced to replace all tyres on existing vehicles within a required build date range and lost a massive class action costing Ford 10's of millions. All Australian Ford Explorers where offered the change in tyres by Ford Australia, it was just fortunate for Ford Australia that they had sold only low volumes of this vehicle in the Australian market and none had been involved in a fatal crash that could be attributed to the tyre. If Ford had they would have been paying a huge settlement as well. I imagine ford will or has sued the manafacturer of the tyres for damages.
Note that the vehicle had passed all inspections for roadworthy and ADR's but it did not ristrict them from civil action. It is no different if you make a modification to your vehicle, if it is found that the modification was the cuase of the accident you will more than likely be sued regardless of engineers or ADR's. If you are running 38's which are engineered to meet the ADR's but it is found that they did not contribute to the accident then you are safe from litigation in regard to the tyres. I hope this is clearer.
i get what your saying. if it performs worse and causes a crash, your up poo creek. but what if you can proove it performs better and that there was a different reason for the crash?
my 35 inch mtrs handled/stopped way better than crappy split rims. and the 15mm rule is a generalisation. not all cars react the same to increasing a tyre size by 15mm, a mini would notice an increase more than a hummer, this reason is why engineers take individual cases and write reports on them.
im sure if the engineer stood up in court and said: 'your honour these test reports show not only did the vehicle meet the requirements of road safety, but they exceeded them by *BLAH BLAH BLAH*' that the judge would take that into account. and would see that accidents do happen. human error is usually the cause of accidents.
going from a 32 inch tyre to a 33 inch tyre exceeds the legal limit for increased tyre size. the torque increase is about 0.0125Nm more (you will not even feel a difference with this tiny torque figure), but the weight reduction causes less inertia which gives a better braking performance. (splittys weigh lots)
my 35 inch mtrs handled/stopped way better than crappy split rims. and the 15mm rule is a generalisation. not all cars react the same to increasing a tyre size by 15mm, a mini would notice an increase more than a hummer, this reason is why engineers take individual cases and write reports on them.
im sure if the engineer stood up in court and said: 'your honour these test reports show not only did the vehicle meet the requirements of road safety, but they exceeded them by *BLAH BLAH BLAH*' that the judge would take that into account. and would see that accidents do happen. human error is usually the cause of accidents.
going from a 32 inch tyre to a 33 inch tyre exceeds the legal limit for increased tyre size. the torque increase is about 0.0125Nm more (you will not even feel a difference with this tiny torque figure), but the weight reduction causes less inertia which gives a better braking performance. (splittys weigh lots)
Ok I agree with Ford liability there but isn't that more an issue of product liability? That is the goods (tyres) were faulty and hence they were liable under product liability.... which is another issue altogether for modified 4wds. As it has been explained to me on the Ausjeep forum by one of the Jeep Vendors, if something on your 4wd fails and contributes to an accident and that failure was due to faulty product/workmanship then the ultimate liability goes back to the manufacturer or importer. Which if you privately import from the US for example means you are the importer and you are the one the insurance company will go after. Apparently, Oz cosumers can't (easily?) pursure product liability as individuals against foreign companies - maybe the FTA will chage this?
If in your example the 38's had a blow out and this was because they were faulty and you bought them in from the US yourself then you are liable. If you boight them local and had them legally fitted to correct rims etc then the tyre shop/importer would be liable (forthe product liability) Assuming they didn't blow out then I guess you are referring to something like increased braking distances....if your engineered 38's pass the ADR braking tests certified by an engineer then why is there a problem (assuming they are oz road legal - speed / load / no bald etc). Which I think is what you were saying???
Also for any home manufactured stuff which fails and causes an accident then guess who is liable. AFAIK, 4wd shops (all?) pay a lot of insurance to cover themselves either as manufacturer or importer.
These are just my thoughts.....I appreciate your discussion on this as I sought of enjoy trying to get the bottom of all this .... it could be worse - try and get a straight answer out of the Australian Tax Office ... in writing
If in your example the 38's had a blow out and this was because they were faulty and you bought them in from the US yourself then you are liable. If you boight them local and had them legally fitted to correct rims etc then the tyre shop/importer would be liable (forthe product liability) Assuming they didn't blow out then I guess you are referring to something like increased braking distances....if your engineered 38's pass the ADR braking tests certified by an engineer then why is there a problem (assuming they are oz road legal - speed / load / no bald etc). Which I think is what you were saying???
Also for any home manufactured stuff which fails and causes an accident then guess who is liable. AFAIK, 4wd shops (all?) pay a lot of insurance to cover themselves either as manufacturer or importer.
These are just my thoughts.....I appreciate your discussion on this as I sought of enjoy trying to get the bottom of all this .... it could be worse - try and get a straight answer out of the Australian Tax Office ... in writing
David, The guy who downloaded the ADR's for us is away wheeling for the weekend. I left a message for him to call me when he returns and will post the internet details on this thread, maybe later tonight.
The way I see it and the way that the engineer explained it . After the vehicle is certified and registered, the only way you are liable, in accident related claims, is if you allowed the components that caused the accident to deteriorate to a state of unroadworthiness.
Even though I run them myself, I would fully understand if the authorities banned all bias ply off road type tyres larger than 7.50 x16.
I have experienced sudden deflation on my q78's swampers due to faulty tubes on 2 occasions at about 50kmh and the loss of control was horrific.
At 80 or 100 kmh I would say my chances of survival would have been nil.
Bill.
The way I see it and the way that the engineer explained it . After the vehicle is certified and registered, the only way you are liable, in accident related claims, is if you allowed the components that caused the accident to deteriorate to a state of unroadworthiness.
Even though I run them myself, I would fully understand if the authorities banned all bias ply off road type tyres larger than 7.50 x16.
I have experienced sudden deflation on my q78's swampers due to faulty tubes on 2 occasions at about 50kmh and the loss of control was horrific.
At 80 or 100 kmh I would say my chances of survival would have been nil.
Bill.
To obtain Australian Design Rules information go to vicroads.gov.au
If you download all the design rules you will have a stack of printouts about 3 inches thick. BTW If anyone is interested, super swampers are DOT rated in the USA
that is they are rated at 140kmh.and can be legally fitted to all vehicles in Australia that don't have a minimum tyre speed rating sticker or placard that requires a higher rating than this. In the appropiate size of course.
Bill.
If you download all the design rules you will have a stack of printouts about 3 inches thick. BTW If anyone is interested, super swampers are DOT rated in the USA
that is they are rated at 140kmh.and can be legally fitted to all vehicles in Australia that don't have a minimum tyre speed rating sticker or placard that requires a higher rating than this. In the appropiate size of course.
Bill.
so every modified vehicle is up poo creek then. gee thats got to be nearly half the vehicles in aus. i recently regoed a troopy in queensland with bfg,s
hanging out the rear gaurds, it was inspected by queensland roads and not a word said. also i was pulled up by the vehicle inspection patrol three weeks later and not a word (although i did get done for a brake light)
thing is there surely has to be a clear ruling on this, theres too much confusion. i for one dont want to share a cell with bubba or anyone. and i dont want to think about killing someone in an accident, so someone has to make the rules clearer. we need a good lawyer (if there are any) 
hanging out the rear gaurds, it was inspected by queensland roads and not a word said. also i was pulled up by the vehicle inspection patrol three weeks later and not a word (although i did get done for a brake light)
thing is there surely has to be a clear ruling on this, theres too much confusion. i for one dont want to share a cell with bubba or anyone. and i dont want to think about killing someone in an accident, so someone has to make the rules clearer. we need a good lawyer (if there are any) Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests