NRMA gets result on 'numberplate-gate'

Submitted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 14:55

ThreadID: 118999 Views:2956 Replies:7 FollowUps:19

This Thread has been Archived

MY D-mAx

http://www.mynrma.com.au/get-involved/advocacy/news/nrma-gets-result-on-numberplate-gate.htm

Reply By: MY D-mAx - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 15:28

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 15:28

sorry dont know what happened to the link above
This one should work

http://www.mynrma.com.au/get-involved/a ... e-gate.htm

AnswerID: 554294

Reply By: Les - PK Ranger - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 16:22

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 16:22

Use Insert Link button below reply window . . .

NRMA gets result on Nnumberplate gate

AnswerID: 554296

Follow Up By: Geoffr17 - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:03

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:03

Well lets here it for the arses at the RMS who registered this Caravan in the first place.

Trailer and caravan manufactures are getting away with murder almost as the old saying goes.

I have heard that when they produce a new model , it is inspected for registration purposes by the RMS etc., but subsequent trailers are not inspected as they are suppost to be exactly as the one inspected. They are registered without even being sighted.

This is ridiculous , the whole industry needs a Royal Commission into it.

I think was on this forum in the last week a Fellow purchased a Camp trailer that weighed 2 tons , and came with no brakes.

FollowupID: 840335

Follow Up By: vk1dx - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:23

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:23

The compliance plate on our car states eight seats. The car does not have eight seats. Nor does it have eight seat belts. Go figure that one out.

FollowupID: 840341

Follow Up By: Member - TonyV - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:06

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:06

Geoffr17,

Those "arses at RMS" would not see the number plate on a new caravan...

Why? because it has not been issued until after the inspection...

The van would turn up with a trade plate on it. The person who took the van to be registered would then fix the number plate.

Some manufactures, like car dealer would be able to register without inspection

TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile My Position Send Message

FollowupID: 840344

Follow Up By: Nomadic Navara - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:12

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:12

Quote "Well lets here it for the arses at the RMS who registered this Caravan in the first place."

I think you will find that the large builders work under a system of self assessment. The problem lies with the manufacturer and the agent.

PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile Send Message

FollowupID: 840345

Follow Up By: Geoffr17 - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:45

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:45

Again if that's the case all the more reason for a Royal commission into the manufacturers.

The RMS in NSW are the Government Authority for the Registration of Vehicles , so maybe they need to start inspecting these Vans , because if they are leaving the manufacturers to self access they are being duped and made to look stupid when cases like this come to light.

The " buck" stops with them , they are the Government Department to enforce Registration requirements.

FollowupID: 840348

Follow Up By: vk1dx - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:54

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:54

The woman who lives next door works at the RTA in Canberra. Leaves home at 6:30AM and just drove in, time 6:25PM. I wouldn't have her job for quids.

I agree with PeterD.

It would be the procedures more so than lazy work practices that could be the problem. We all know that mistakes can be made but I wouldn't say what Geoffr17 said. Leave the emotions out of it mate. I understand there can be a lot of frustration with rego, especially when a vehicle is modified, as was our Kingswood and the now the Toyota 100 series, but . . .

FollowupID: 840352

Follow Up By: Geoffr17 - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 21:40

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 21:40

I do agree it is the procedure.

The Manufacturers are not meeting the requirements for legal Registration of their Vans . The RMS controls the enforcement of those requirements and they are not making them adhere to the requirements and are Registering their Vans, why?

So as the lead story that started this thread ,Customers are being fined by the police .

It's a simple question.

FollowupID: 840361

Reply By: Notso - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:05

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:05

Don't know about "Result". My van's number plate is way above the 1.3 metres as required in the design rules. It is a widespread problem with the makers and also with the Registration system that allows a van to be registered when it clearly doesn't comply with the requirements of the legislation.

AnswerID: 554300

Follow Up By: Geoffr17 - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:16

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:16

My case in Point above. Who are the incompetent people working for the RMS etc.

So you Notso face a $415 fine when your Van should not have been approved for Rego to start with . The manufacturer should have been ordered to change it before they could Register any.

It's actually scarey that the RMS don't know the regulations that they should enforce.

I can only repeat Royal Commission into the whole industry and registration approval systems.

FollowupID: 840339

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 20:03

Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 20:03

Sorry, Geoff. It ain't the RMS that's at fault at all!
The manufacturers should have read AND UNDERSTOOD the regulations before they turned a screw, cut a panel, extruded a bit of adhesive or fitted a window! Then they should have designed a van which complies.

An older van is "deemed" to comply if it was legal when it was made, according to the regulations at the time. But there is no excuse for a new van to be non-compliant.

It is not productive to "bash" RMS employees, when the fault clearly lies with manufacturers (and even designers) of these new vans.

FollowupID: 840414

Follow Up By: Geoffr17 - Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:04

Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:04

I'm not trying to bash the RMS , But they control what is registered or rejected as not being compliant or meeting the Regulations.

So again I ask the simple . WHY ARE THEY BEING REGISTERED.

FollowupID: 840450

Follow Up By: Kay L - Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 20:29

Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 20:29

Hi there, I'm very interested in your comment "An older van is "deemed to comply if it was legal when it was made, according to the regulations at the time. But there is no excuse for a new van to be non-compliant" ; my van is a 2001 model, and the plate is at around 1375 mm to the bottom, as fitted by Supreme; besides the fact that I have 2 spares mounted at the back (again as per factory), I can't even see where else to legally fit the plate; does your comment DEFINITELY mean my van would be legal if it complied with the law in 2001? Although I don't know what the law was in 2001....it will cost a few $ to move it along with the wiring for the light, I'm sure a lot of people are in this boat.

FollowupID: 842050

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 20:37

Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 20:37

The 1300mm above ground level rule has been in place for at least 10 years, and likely longer than that. So any van made after 2004 should comply. If it doesn't, the manufacturer needs a rocket!

FollowupID: 842051

Follow Up By: Notso - Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 21:38

Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 at 21:38

An interesting bit of info.

From NSW Govt "Vehicle Standards Information Bulletin" No58

"Registration and enforcement

A vehicle with a number-plate positioned contrary to the requirements specified in this VSI No. 58 may not be registered in NSW. In addition, the registered operator of a vehicle found to have a number-plate positioned contrary to these requirements, or obscured by equipment or a load, during an RTA inspection or on-road police inspection, may be issued with a defect notice."

Note that it doesn't mention any fine for this offence.

FollowupID: 842056

Reply By: Chris v4 - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:42

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:42

they should check weights that are on the compliance plate first

AnswerID: 554304

Reply By: Slow one - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:51

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 17:51

Looks like the guy committed a hideous crime to cop a 3 point/ $425 fine. What a joke.

Guess the number plate could have flown could have fallen off and flown into controlled air space if mounted above 1.3 metres.

AnswerID: 554305

Follow Up By: Nomadic Navara - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:17

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:17

I think the problem could be that if the plate is too high then it would be out of the range of speed cameras. That is why the penalty looks like it reflects a speeding penalty. That's my guess. Anyone out there if the traffic enforcement area who can confirm or deny my theory?

PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile Send Message

FollowupID: 840346

Follow Up By: Member - TonyV - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:52

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 18:52

You may be part way there,

But just for speed cameras only part of the story and not the main reason.

Most static speed camera's take photos from the front, roadside ones do as well, at least up this way in QLD.
If you have ever seen a speed camera photo, the whole rear or front of the vehicle is shown, so number plate position is irrelevant.

I would suggest its for the number plate recognition cameras that pick up non-registered vehicles, trailer and caravans now that rego labels are no longer required in most states.

Number recognition also picks up owners details for unpaid fines, outstanding warrants, curfews, un-licenced and much more, including "being known" for certain types of offences, dealing in drugs, prostitution, kiddy fiddling, stalking, or restraint orders, 200 mts of the ex wife etc.

TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile My Position Send Message

FollowupID: 840351

Follow Up By: Slow one - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 20:18

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 20:18

Origin is about to star. I know it doesn't affect point to point speed cameras, toll cameras, fixed cameras, roadside cameras or mobile cameras.

I have no problem with the adr rule, just the enforcement of it when the person is entirely innocent.

Instead of the road peace keeping authorities letting their superiors know about flouting of the law by the manufacturers, some of them just decide to write tickets.

I guess I shouldn't really be surprised by this after all my many, many road miles.

FollowupID: 840355

Follow Up By: Member - TonyV - Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 18:26

Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 18:26

Slow one, my response was for Nomadic and his theory, apologies for not putting his name in front of my response.

As for being entirely innocent, this should have been taken to court by the caravan owner, it would then put the onus back to where it should be, the caravan maker.

Now its out there so there is no excuses now....

TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile My Position Send Message

FollowupID: 840404

Reply By: Member - Laurie K (WA) - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 23:55

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 23:55

I would have thought that a number plate that couldn't be seen or was missing would be a more serious problem. It looks like a law thought up by bureaucrats with too much time on their hands. Just sayin' ......

AnswerID: 554318

Follow Up By: Colcam42 - Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 13:10

Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 13:10

Yep, reminds me of a conversation I had with a policeman, he said he loves caravans, can always find something to book them for..........

FollowupID: 840389

Follow Up By: Steve - Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:43

Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:43

All with our safety in mind, of course

FollowupID: 840445

Reply By: Erad - Friday, May 29, 2015 at 09:39

Friday, May 29, 2015 at 09:39

Years ago, before I retired, I used to register my caravan only when I was able to get time off for a holiday. By the time I next had the next leave, the rego had run out, so it was a new rego again. The RTA as it was then used to do the inspection at the local office. I had to get a roadworthy certificate, and the RTA girl would walk out and see that it had pneumatic tryes, was a caravan, had brakes, look at the compliance plate and then go inside and register it for me. It was often the same for my car as well - I used to work overseas and the rego would run out whilst I was away. The goril used to even check the engine number and chassis number. Now, the RMS or whatever they are called this week don't do that 'service'. You have to go and get a 'blue slip', which used to cost $54.00 instead of about $16 for the roadworthy certificate. OK, you say, that means that the registration cost will be accordingly reduced by $54.00. Right.....

Sadly, every time I go into the RMS (Roads and Maritime SERVICES) office, I come out with my blood pressure so high that it is hammering in my ears, or maybe it is simply boiling. Whatever, I seethe, having to pay so much for so little. To be fair, the last time I went in there, I came out 2 minutes later (minus a lot of money) but much cooler, so finally maybe things are getting better?

AnswerID: 554359