Are long draw system unsafe in 4WD Nissan GU wagon?

Submitted: Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 18:37
ThreadID: 22314 Views:2349 Replies:8 FollowUps:19
This Thread has been Archived
I was told today -Sat 23 Apr 05- at the Brisbane 4WD show by a Blackwidows rep,
in ARB stand, long draw system (the draw systenm including the back seat removed
- about 1m60 long), in the Nissan GU wagon, are unsafe and do not meet
specifications and are not manufactured by Blackwidows.

I asked this Blackwidows rep "what safety rules and specification" he was talking about, but this Blackwidows rep could not come up with any answers.

Does anyone knows if there is any truth in all this? or just a "strategic" talk?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - John (Vic) - Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 19:06

Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 19:06
There was a post on here just recently about removing seats in vehicles breaches some State or ADR regulations, requiring the vehicle to be re inspected and new compliance plate issued, check the archives or I'm sure someone will provide more detail soon.

I would think that the BW rep was referring to the fact the the drawer would no be able to be fixed to the vehicle floor in the area that the seat was positioned in a method that would allow the drawer system to be certified for ADR or crash standards type of thing.

Go here and have a look click on the Safety Standards tab on the site.

http://www.blackwidow4wdstorage.com/

My understanding is that BW are the only drawer manufacturer to build draws to comply with the relevant ADR for barriers and drawer systems.

This is what he was probably referring to.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

AnswerID: 107954

Follow Up By: Lone Wolf - Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 21:09

Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 21:09
My next 4 x 4, I am considering permanently removing the rear seats, and welding up a cage in lieu.

According to my resources, which I am yet to verify, it is a simple matter of filling out a form, and parting with $70.00, to have the vehicle recomplianced as a 2 seater.

Same deal later, when I want to sell it....

I think it's a good idea that manufacturers are regulating themselves, or at least aligning themselves to comply with ADR's. But, at the end of the day, you can buy a brand spanking new 4 x 4, drive from the dealer, pop into Coles & pick up some shopping, and be involved in an accident, that lets the shopping fly out through the front windscreen. So, I guess at least anything that stows things, is at least better than nothing.

Wolfie
0
FollowupID: 364814

Reply By: Keith_A (Qld) - Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 22:27

Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 at 22:27
Hi Guy - my 99 DX GU has a roll out cargo draw. Professionally fitted for Powerlink (transmission coy) in Qld when new. 'Joey Bed' brand - the draw is 1.1m wide; .9m long and 14cm deep. It fits between the cargo barrier and the rear doors.
As stated above, perhaps the rep was referring to the removal of the rear seats in the ST - changing it from a 7 to a 5 seater - which then needs inspection and certification.
AnswerID: 107971

Reply By: Guy - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:08

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:08
Hello

Interesting posting from John (Vic)

http://www.blackwidow4wdstorage.com/SafetyStandards.html
The document says” The barrier also passed the Australian standards as NZS 4034.2:2001. “ (NZS is NOT an Australian Standard)

This webpage above doesn’t say anything about Australian Standards or draws standards.

A search on the “Standard Australia” webpage www.standards.com.au/ about “storage draws “ does not reveal any AS for moving vehicle.

Under “some” State laws there is a need for a vehicle to be, or inspected or comply with if the number of seats are increased or the structure/configuration where the seat is fixed has changed.

This applies to all vehicles and trucks and tractors etc.

This legislation varies between the different states of Australia.

But if I remove a seat from my vehicle and the safety or structure of the vehicle has not changed there is no need to re-apply for certification.

At the moment I’ve not seen in writing State Legislation and a clear interpretation of a State Legislation that says “ each time you change your number of seats in your vehicle you must re-apply”.

What I've read about re-applying for a lower seat number in this thread are myths, fears and strategies, which may represent financial, gain for some people.

To day as consumers we receive junk mail by the bucket load.

This is again a case of junk information where none of the information match and can’t be verified in writing and probably profit someone.

This is part of the myth-fear-scare tactics.

Blue
AnswerID: 107996

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:20

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:20
"But if I remove a seat from my vehicle and the safety or structure of the vehicle has not changed there is no need to re-apply for certification."

Incorrect in *SOME* states.. Dudes on OL trying to get roady for their trucks are being told they need to reinstall seats as its a EG "7 seater" to get the roady.
0
FollowupID: 364839

Follow Up By: Guy - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:33

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:33
Truckster
That's what I am talking about.

Can you name the State, date and legislation?

Just a rumor.

This is called the six level of separation.
0
FollowupID: 364840

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 18:08

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 18:08
Guy there is now a cross Tasman agreement on Standards.
If the NZ has a standard in place that we don't then they use the cross vested standard until the standard is reviewed and then it becomes a common standard between Australia and NZ.

I can't seem to find a link to the complete ADR regulations, It seems they are only available on CD Rom and you have to buy it.
Maybe someone else can point us in the right direction on that one.

BW refer to "ADR 3 - The function of this national standard is to specify requirements for 'Seats', their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimise the possibility of occupant injury due to forces acting on the 'Seat' as a result of vehicle impact."

I guess this one mainly addresses the issue of child restraints with the drawer system.

"ADR 42 - The function of this Australian Design Rule is to specify design and construction requirements to ensure safe operation of vehicles."

I guess this one would address the construction requirement of vehicle builds and fitments of various items within the vehicle.

Your talking about a drawer system 1600 mm long, the obvious question is "How would you fix the front area of the drawers to the vehicle floor in a safe manner ?"
It would overhang the rear foot well ??? and be suspended in mid air so to speak.

In the end why don't you email BW and ask them to provide you with the relevant ADR test reports etc.

As for the changing of seats and compliance issues I only remember reading about it on here and as I said Did you do an archive search ?
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 364859

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 18:45

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 18:45
Qld and NSW to name 2 states..
0
FollowupID: 364866

Follow Up By: G.T. - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 15:37

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 15:37
I think yhat Guy is onto the crux of the problem. If , as he says , you remove a seat from the vehicle and the safety or structure of the vehicle has not changed there is no need to reapply for certification . This must be correct as all station wagons would have to be re certified if you folded the back seat down and made the vehicle a two seater . Removing the rear seat entirely has the same effect and would not affect the safety or structure of the vehicle. However if you added a second row of rear seats ( as it can be done ) to make it a seven seater, obviously it would have to be re certified. I think that if a second row of rear seats are added , it would be possible to remove them with getting the vehicle re certified as a five seater. That`s common sense to me anyhow but authorities seem to have a certain lack of this at times!
Regards G.T.
0
FollowupID: 365042

Follow Up By: flappa - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:02

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:02
Your compliance plate tells you its either a 5 , 7 or 8 seater. In QLD , I believe this also appears on your Rego papers.

If you remove seats , it no longer complies with the compliance plate . . . simple.
0
FollowupID: 365044

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 00:57

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 00:57
Correct Flappa.

But dont bring facts into this.. its not what he wants to hear.
0
FollowupID: 365270

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:33

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:33
Why do you need draws that long?

99.9% of the 4wding population get away with normal draws..
AnswerID: 107998

Follow Up By: Guy - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:35

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 13:35
Truckster
Why do you need a 4WD 99% of the world population have sedan.?
0
FollowupID: 364841

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 14:13

Sunday, Apr 24, 2005 at 14:13
How could that be 30+% of all cars sold are 4wds...

Didnt think you could answer the question..

Oh, bring your 2wd and follow me to where I go.. Good luck.
0
FollowupID: 364842

Reply By: Guy - Monday, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:08

Monday, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:08
All the answers I have read so far are no more than myths, fear tactics, religious belief, unsupported media information, suppositions, guesses, salespeople talks, etc..

With the Internet I thought someone would've mentioned a legislative document or some sort of legal interpretation.

So far, pretty boring answers.
Guy
AnswerID: 108066

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 25, 2005 at 23:57

Monday, Apr 25, 2005 at 23:57
If you dont like the answers, dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out..

sorry we dont all know every single ADR letter for letter.. but then again neither do u. You asked, we told. Would you like a tissue?

Why dont you call the roads authority in your state or an engineer and ask them.
0
FollowupID: 364990

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:47

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:47
Thanks Bruce, Spot on with any luck the door will have hit him in the head.

Guy why did you ask on here if you don't like the answers we provide ? We provided nothing but support to your question to the best of our ability.

You then have the gall to level criticism that we did not give you all the answers you so desired.
You got a computer and a search engine "Get of your lazy arse and find out for yourself"
Or ring the RTA in each state and see what they say for themselves.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 365048

Follow Up By: Guy - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 17:12

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 17:12
>>>You got a computer and a search engine "Get of your lazy arse and find out for yourself"

Why are you getting insulting and personal because you disagree with me?
0
FollowupID: 365052

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 21:30

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 21:30
"Disagree with you "??????
I think you should re think that reply.

With any luck it's a revolving door.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 365079

Reply By: Guy - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 13:47

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 13:47
In the dictionary the defintion of an answer is:
"a reply or response to a question".

Did you reply to my specific question? No, you only answered with rumors.

If I ask you "what color is the sky to-day" and
you answer "the sky is 12 pounds of sausages"
this is not an answer to this question because the reply "12 pounds of sausages" has no relation to the subject "the color of the sky to-day".

All I have received so far are rumors.

My question wants a confirmation or certainty as to facts.

No one forces you to answer my question.

It is still "my question" and I am still at liberty to choose "my answer(s)" and ask for more clarification if I believe the thread goes "off-track". *
AnswerID: 108244

Reply By: flappa - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 14:55

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 14:55
Its not "rumors".

I have spoken to the Tech Inspectors for QLD, NSW, and the ACT.

In QLD it was a simple no brainer. If its a 7 seater , and there ISN'T 7 seats , it doesn't comply . . . anytime , it doesn't comply , it needs to be certified.

I did recheck that several months later , and they seemed to have revised it to any PERMANENT change. They did say temporary change (of 3 days) didn't need certifying. I questioned the time frame , and they were noncommital about it.

Both NSW and ACT , said the same thing. They didn't really mind seats in and out on a temporary basis , but , the same as QLD , any permanent change , needed to be certified.

Permanent change meant were the 2 rear seats couldn't be used , ie , Cargo Barrier installed , and or , a Draw system.

AFAIK , its only something recently , they are cracking down on.

In QLD it may not be such a drama because there is no yearly inspections. NSW does. The inspector "may" turn a blind eye , but again AFAIK , its now a directive on a notice from Head Office.

What the actual ADR , or legislation is . . . NFI , and nor do I care. As far as I'm concerned , rightly or wrongly , the RTA is the keepr of the rules.
AnswerID: 108252

Follow Up By: Guy - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:19

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:19
Are you a RTA inspector?
If you're so sure of your statements, just don't stop here.
Be real and ask the people you contacted to send you a written document, post the document here and we'll see the truth.
(just leave the letter_head, date and signature of the RTA staff who wrote this letter - no need for your name and address).

At the moment it is a rumor unless there is a written document.

Believe you me, there are more rumors than truth to a ratio of 1 to a billion.

PS:The only posting who's read my argument is G.T. and understand my valid point which may need to be challenged legally.

Guy
0
FollowupID: 365045

Follow Up By: flappa - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:27

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 16:27
No , I wont.

You dont want to believe . . . fine by me. No skin off my nose.

Doesn't effect me .

Just trying to help.

Dont want my help , fine . . .

Get it yourself.

I told you what I did , who I contacted , and the reasons behind it , not good enough for you . . . fine again.

DO YOUR OWN FRIGGIN HOMEWORK.
0
FollowupID: 365046

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 17:21

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2005 at 17:21
It's so typical of a government deprtment. Why are they "cracking down on it". Spending our money chasing up Joe Blogs because he put a cargo barrier in his car and removed his back seats so he can sleep in the back when he goes away. WTF!?
"cracking down" on sloppy road maintance would surley be a better use of time, resources and our taxes?.
"cracking down" on vehicles driving around with sloppy suspension and no brakes would surley be a better way to save lives.?
"cracking down" on unlicensed drivers and or vehicles would be a better way to spend their time...
0
FollowupID: 365054

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 00:48

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 00:48
Guy.
If your so sure what he said is bullbleep, why dont you call them yourself? Why should he chase up your crap for you? Your so sure of your facts, YOU prove them.

Your good at saying everything everyone else posts is crap.. Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and prove the 10 odd people here posting the same facts as wrong?

Flappin.
School holidays aint it still?
0
FollowupID: 365269

Follow Up By: flappa - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:38

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:38
Everyones just gone back I think T.

Must be missing the Grandkids.
0
FollowupID: 365290

Reply By: BlueSky - Saturday, May 14, 2005 at 08:10

Saturday, May 14, 2005 at 08:10
A lot of undocumented misinformation has been written in this thread.
I would like to clarify:
The State Government of Victoria does not make laws for the State of NSW, WA, QLD, TAS or Territories.
Each Australian State has its own law if accepted by the “Senate” of that State (QLD ratified laws with only one step – its parliament).
One particular general Australian Commonwealth law is ONLY enforced if the State Parliament/Senate of that State has ratified the particular general Australian Commonwealth law.
Protocol between States and the Australian Commonwealth are NOT laws unless ratified law.
A “proposed law” presented at the parliament is NOT law until it has been debated and passed by the Senate (except QLD). (This "two stage " voting is part of our democracy system).
In Australian and State common law and criminal law everyone is Innocent before proven guilty.
The opposite of this law is for example the well-published Indonesian law where everyone is guilty until they have proven their innocence.
One RTA administrator of any State Government is interpreting the State law of its State in the character the law was passed and debated.
This is not a well-publicized fact but RTA administrators have changed the character of the law and the “ intended law “ was put back on track. The typical examples are the “speed guns “ and “clamping system” laws, which were “missed”, executed.
Do NOT be “bullied” / manipulated by a few.
Check the law by obtaining legal answers in writing – A telephone call is not a legal document.
Obtain answers in witting from your Member of Parliament and senate.
This is what the democratic process is about.
Guy
AnswerID: 111254

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)