Outer Limits 4x4 Board

oh yeah, the mirrors were on the doors, at home.

Gwagensteve wrote:Don't shoot the messenger mr Rainbow... This is coming straight from canberra, and all up I think it's a good thing

Actually state laws over-rule ADR's, hence no standardised federal rules (otherwise known as ADR's). Each state can pick and choose what it wants to allow from the ADR's that's why it's so hard to get anything complianced in Qld.

ADR's give them ALL of the rules, the states use the ones they want

IMHO ADR's are the standard a car has to comply to be sold from new in Austraila

the car has to be tested to comply to the standard as set by the ADR's
mods are set by the state, they say you can take this car that complies to the relevant ADR's and do this this and this to it.

You could probably build a monster of a rig and still comply to the standards set by ADR's but then you have to have it certified by the ADR standards which would be a bit more work than somebody having a look and adding a blue plate or similar to the vehicle

I had a look at that site and think running doorless would affect ADR's
2 anti burst latches
29 side intrusion bars
72 side impact protection standards

any idea which ones a zook has to comply to? (95 model)

Toj0 wrote:
Actually state laws over-rule ADR's, hence no standardised federal rules (otherwise known as ADR's). Each state can pick and choose what it wants to allow from the ADR's that's why it's so hard to get anything complianced in Qld.

ADR's give them ALL of the rules, the states use the ones they want

Who told you this. I've seen this comment in the past and I might be wrong but my understanding of the law is that Federal law overides any State law. The States can have laws additional to the Federal but you still have to comply with all Federal laws. You're saying that Canberra can make a Federal law and the States can just dismiss it. I'd like to see that

He's a cop and the President of our Suzuki club so he gets hassled to find out stuff like this.

ADR's are a vehicle BUILDING standard, they have jack to do with mods other than if a mod is allowed to be done it has to comply with the relevant ADR's still.

SPOA in QLD as an example, there is nothing to say SPOA doesn't comply with ADR's but it can't be done in QLD, you could get it passed if you went the ICV route but the testing would be $$$$ and you also have to comply to 2005 ADR's

cj wrote:

Toj0 wrote:
Actually state laws over-rule ADR's, hence no standardised federal rules (otherwise known as ADR's). Each state can pick and choose what it wants to allow from the ADR's that's why it's so hard to get anything complianced in Qld.

ADR's give them ALL of the rules, the states use the ones they want

Who told you this. I've seen this comment in the past and I might be wrong but my understanding of the law is that Federal law overides any State law. The States can have laws additional to the Federal but you still have to comply with all Federal laws. You're saying that Canberra can make a Federal law and the States can just dismiss it. I'd like to see that

Not dismiss, they can't go against an ADR, but just because it is an ADR doesn't mean they have to allow it. For example, (qld) the traffic Act, has now been standardised and is known as the Transport Operations and Road Use Managemant Act (TORUM). However although there are 1001 rules, in Qld some are applied, and Vic others apply. With respect to modifications, the ADR's apply a set of standards and rules. In Qld you can comply with ADR's but QT have the discretion to allow you to register that car based on the ADR and modifications they allow. ie 2" suspension lift only (body and suspension combined) or NO SPOA, yet there are many ADR approved body and suspension lift kits available throughout Aust. Believe it or not, Hilux's are not supposed to be sold SPOA in Qld, even though that is the way they are manufactured.

I know this because it's what I do. I don't think it's right though.

So do ya know if removing the doors on a serria, and retro fitting the side mirrors is legal in QLD?

In all honesty, No. But I'll find out Monday and get back to you. Some vehicles (pre a certain date) can run with or without doors (like seatbelts and indicators etc). Some can also be run without due to manufacturers guidelines. I'll find out about zooks and post the results.

Cool that would be great.

Yeah carl, that would be great

I drive with my doors off all the time. It would be nice to have a bit of paper to shove in the face of any DOT knobs should they go me for it

Whats the go...

Ok, this is only going to confuse things further.

Police response :- illegal in Qld - does not comply with ADR for vehicle manufacture. (This is a general response to the removal of all doors from all vehicles). Yes I argued the point, No point, there's too many individual officers in the QPS and you've got to remember they have to have a lot of general knowledge and application. Not just laws specific to one model of vehicle. (So if you get a ticket for something and you think your right and have legislation to back it then argue the point... Politely... or in court, that's why we have them).

QT response ; - 1st three people I spoke to NO idea. Last person I spoke to. In order to comply with ADR' a vehicle manufactured with door's must be fitted with doors unless the manufacturer specifies removable. I guess that unless Suzuki released a model without door's then doors must be fitted. I also questioned the legality of tube doors, and as expected was told that these would not be legal (although conceeded safer) unless engineered. It was said in order to pass engineering there would need to be some type of outer skin to the door to prevent limbs or items falling from the vehicle.

For further questions in Qld, call (07) 3253 4851. This is there modifications section, and they also have on hand all sections of ADR and TORUM. I found them very helpful.

what about the lj's that didnt have doors there is a model there

Hrm this is interesting...
Wouldn't having no doors be a rather large safety issue though? I mean doors act as a form of protection, in an accident where the side of the car gets hit if you don't have doors you're more than likely gonna end up as mush.

.::lil-oscar::. wrote:Hrm this is interesting...
Wouldn't having no doors be a rather large safety issue though? I mean doors act as a form of protection, in an accident where the side of the car gets hit if you don't have doors you're more than likely gonna end up as mush.

I seem to remember this being brought up early in the thread, the answer was as long as they didn't have intrusion protection in the doors it would be fine......in saying that, I would not feaal safe with the doors not on my rigs

Tiny wrote:

.::lil-oscar::. wrote:Hrm this is interesting...
Wouldn't having no doors be a rather large safety issue though? I mean doors act as a form of protection, in an accident where the side of the car gets hit if you don't have doors you're more than likely gonna end up as mush.

I seem to remember this being brought up early in the thread, the answer was as long as they didn't have intrusion protection in the doors it would be fine......in saying that, I would not feaal safe with the doors not on my rigs

Ever seena sierra that has been side impacted? The only strength in the side of a sierra is below the windscreen/ a pillar where the firewall meets the side of the zook, and the b pillar. You could literally kick a sierra door in so that the outer skin is touching the inner trim, so imagine what another car travelling at speed will do....

You are gonna end up mush, doors or not.

Atleast, whilst being illegal; a tube door would potentially be safer than your real doors. Seems worth the risk of a fine to me

Gutless wrote:

Tiny wrote:

.::lil-oscar::. wrote:Hrm this is interesting...
Wouldn't having no doors be a rather large safety issue though? I mean doors act as a form of protection, in an accident where the side of the car gets hit if you don't have doors you're more than likely gonna end up as mush.

I seem to remember this being brought up early in the thread, the answer was as long as they didn't have intrusion protection in the doors it would be fine......in saying that, I would not feaal safe with the doors not on my rigs

Ever seena sierra that has been side impacted? The only strength in the side of a sierra is below the windscreen/ a pillar where the firewall meets the side of the zook, and the b pillar. You could literally kick a sierra door in so that the outer skin is touching the inner trim, so imagine what another car travelling at speed will do....

You are gonna end up mush, doors or not.

Atleast, whilst being illegal; a tube door would potentially be safer than your real doors. Seems worth the risk of a fine to me

You can also kick a Patrol or Commodore skin in too till it meets the trim, so what's the point? Tube doors for Patrols and Commodores too?

Maybe you can prove you don't need them by spending $1000 in court everytime a different cop books you, but I don't see the point.

Some LJ's didn't have doors? Just buy an LJ then, don't expect that to prove a Vitara doesn't need doors.

Landrover doors make Suzuki look like bullet proof, but I still wouldn't drive without them, lost enough tapes through the gap at the bottom as it was.

I know that commodores have side intrusion bars in the doors, so you have a great leg on you to get thru that. Pootrols prolly have them too. And who is going to coart for a defect notice? Don't they just make you fix the problem and present a roadworthy within 7 days? Thats what happened when I was caught in my zook on the road..... didn't cost me a cent

Rainbow Warrior wrote:Maybe you can prove you don't need them by spending $1000 in court everytime a different cop books you, but I don't see the point.

Court only costs you money if you lose and costa are awarded or you get fined. Civil court is what costs money.

In criminal / magistrates / district court, if you already have the documentation you can represent yourself (or legal aide) and there is no initial cost. Also if a matter is contested and won by the defendant, it can then become case law and that way others don't need to go to court over the matter.

But we digress... Tube doors can be engineered if they have a skin, doorless is a no go unless someone can get Mr Suzuki to say that the Sierra / LJ / Vitara was or has been manufactured and released in a doorless form.

Gutless wrote:I know that commodores have side intrusion bars in the doors, so you have a great leg on you to get thru that. Pootrols prolly have them too. And who is going to coart for a defect notice? Don't they just make you fix the problem and present a roadworthy within 7 days? Thats what happened when I was caught in my zook on the road..... didn't cost me a cent

Intrusion bars ain't bullet proof, I've seen car doors kicked in by repetative application of No10 boots.

since someone bought up the subject of other vehicles just a little bit of usless info here but International bought out a very limited number of there Scouts with out doors i think that there were only about 10 - 15 vehicles produced like this officially but some smart cookies have made there oun version of these vehicles and run with out doors and they are perfectly legal they were only released in the usa with out doors but since they were released with out doors in one country they are now legaly allowed to be driven in aus with out the doors so if someone knows if even a small number of zooks were released (from factory) with out doors that means that going doorless is perfectly legal

flyinwall wrote:since someone bought up the subject of other vehicles just a little bit of usless info here but International bought out a very limited number of there Scouts with out doors i think that there were only about 10 - 15 vehicles produced like this officially but some smart cookies have made there oun version of these vehicles and run with out doors and they are perfectly legal they were only released in the usa with out doors but since they were released with out doors in one country they are now legaly allowed to be driven in aus with out the doors so if someone knows if even a small number of zooks were released (from factory) with out doors that means that going doorless is perfectly legal

I heard they sold a couple of V8 Landrovers with no doors, roof, bonnet, rollbars, dash padding, muffler or brakes in Zambia, must be perfectly legal here too