Fishing Rod Holders

Submitted: Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
ThreadID: 2514 Views:10465 Replies:13 FollowUps:9
This Thread has been Archived
I had a set of Fishing Rod holders attached to my Bull Bar until the kind motorcycle constable told me they were illegal (as he handed me a $100 ticket). This is in WA so I'm not sure about other states but I wanted to let you all know so that no-one else gets stung.
I hail from the NW of WA and EVERYONE has these holders fitted (come home from work, pick the rods up & go fishing for an hour or so while the sun sets...........).
I was unaware that these had been made illegal and really am bleep off that a caution wasn't issued given that I wasn't speeding & don't live in the city where these amendments may or may not be advised. So if you're from WA then look out 'cos I can tell you the wallopers are RED HOT on this !!!
Do you think I would have a chance of fighting it or do I have to lay down like a good little boy and cough up the Bradman?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Truckster - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
Yea thats a bit harsh, but quotas are quotas!

There was a thing in NSW papers on the weekend about changes to the Demeit points system and some rules... No idea what, IM in Vic, but heard it on a Newsgroup..

Might be one to keep in mind.
AnswerID: 9213

Reply By: Member - Graham - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
They have been illegal for a while hanging off the front of bullbars, but by the number seen around it's never been really policed. Could be due to the new rules finalised in regarding bullbars to conform to with there edges, that it's been brought to the fore again. At least we get to keep our bars.
AnswerID: 9217

Reply By: flappan - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
Thems the rules I'm afraid.

Shouldn't effect your licence at all though. Its a techincal defect not a licence one.

They are cracking down over this side as well, NSW and ACT and I assume QLD as well.

This is one issue I'm not sure I agree or disagree with. I can see the point in having them, but geez I wouldn't want to get hit with em.

Just a thought, my father inlaw ended up putting them on his roof rack, they work all right up there.
AnswerID: 9218

Reply By: ROWDY - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
As a compromise for not loosing our bull bars the powers that be decided that they would live with bull bars as long as they had no sharp edges/protrusions on them. They will allow fishing rod holders if the holder is mounted so that no part of the holder is projecting forward of the bull bar and is not mounted above the b/bar. Same for aerial mounts and driving light brackets.
Rowdy
AnswerID: 9228

Follow Up By: Axel + Karen - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
Definitley the way the law now stands in QLD ,,policing varies on mood and quota /police is fisherman/woman or not.
0
FollowupID: 4627

Reply By: OziExplorer - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
If you have a good driving record, I would write a polite letter explaing your case. A warning or to tell you that if you were seen again with them you would be fined. It is no wonder the police are getting such a disgusting reputation these days. In Victoria the police are now generally hated as they are pinging people for 62 and 63km/h when the allowance for speedos is + or - 10%. In N.S.W. the police are always just downright rude and arrogant whatever the situation. The N.S.W. police are being shunned and not given information by the general public. The police can only blame themselves. There is just no excuse for being rude or arrogant when there is no need for it.
AnswerID: 9234

Follow Up By: Truckster - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
I would agree 100% with the ratings on the bacon here.

NSW, I lived there 33yrs drove semis, down to 3tonners... Rode bikes before I got a car license.... and NSW filth are the dirtiest scum in the country.

Vic cops USED to be nice! One reason I moved down here - the Phillip Island GPs the first ones before it went to sydney, the cops were there for a good time, and didnt care what you did as long as it wasnt dangerous (well climbing the flag pole outside the Isle of Wight is!).. Now with the No tolerance thing, which is totally rediculous, name a car with a 100% accurate speedo...

That ray shuey looks like Mr Bubbles to me.... Totally self explanitory.

QLD, only been pulled up once, and the cop just wanted to see how i had mounted some accessory to my bike as he had one too!

NT.. Tough but Fair. I did the Wynns Safari back in the 80s and on a bike... I was out of the event and followed them to Darwin anyway, and the cops there as I say, tough but fair...
0
FollowupID: 4636

Reply By: Member - Nigel - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
Last time I checked, they were legal in Queensland if there were rods in them, but illegal without rods. So you have to have ones that fold back in behind the bullbar when the rods are taken out.
AnswerID: 9240

Reply By: fayhome - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
What did the infringement notice charge you (as the Owner)with?
Word for word.
AnswerID: 9241

Reply By: Derek - Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00
G'day Allyn. Nigel above is correct (for Qld anyway). When I was doing road worthys, fishing rod holders, airial mounts, spot lights and in particular tow bar tongues were illegal on a bull bar. Basically anything which protrudes beyond the forward extremity of the bull bar was illegal. My pet hate was tow bar tongues. My boss had to do a report on a fatality in a car which would have been averted if the car hadn't been a rust bucket. Consequently, from then on, he was hard on drivers with rusty cars. Safe driving and good fishing. Derek.
AnswerID: 9249

Reply By: Steve L - Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00
As far as I'm aware, these holders seem to be illegal in most states - and for some time. When you look at them, they are quite dangerous as they protrude from the front of the bullbar. All the models I've seen look to be a 5 minute job to put on when needed, and take off when they're not. Where's the problem?

I agreed that the police should either book everyone with them on, or not book anyone - going halfway isn't good. That said the other problem the police need to be more strict on are the ***'s that drive with their foglights on all the time - that's really annoying and dangerous (as well as being illegal over here, except in fog or rain).
AnswerID: 9254

Follow Up By: Member - Nigel - Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00
Gotta agree about the fog lights - very annoying and dangerous. It's illegal in Queensland too (unless there is actually rain or fog).
0
FollowupID: 4658

Follow Up By: Savvas - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
Factory fog lights on the front don't worry me .... but the d!cks that drive around with the rear ones on sure as hell do!
0
FollowupID: 4663

Follow Up By: Steve L - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
I also agree that the rear fog lights are extremely annoying, but the front ones, whether factory fitted or not, do not need to be on all the time. And as far as the size of the ones often factory fitted!! What do Subaru think their buyers are doing with their cars? The RAC Rally?Around Sydney, it's even getting to the point where people are driving at night with their fog lights and sidelights only on - they seem to think the fog lights provide enough light to see where they're going, when in actual fact they only light up a short distance but are high intensity when viewed from an approaching car! And the most commonly seen people doing this? Prado drivers!!
0
FollowupID: 4664

Reply By: Savvas - Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00
Allyn,

If you have a very good driving record, you could probably get off this with a polite letter to the police. You need to acknowledge your mistake, explain that you didn't know of the law relating to this issue, and that it won't happen again now that it has come to your attention. Pop me an email at savvas_e@yahoo.com.au and I'll send you a similar letter I did for a friend that got them off an ACT speeding fine.
AnswerID: 9255

Reply By: chrisfrd - Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:00
I think that everyone needs to clarify something here...

The RTA issued a compliance note for inspectors commonly known as the "hard-point rule".

THis decrees that anything sharp or hard in front of the bullbar is dangerous and a defect notice should be issued. This applies in particular to forward pointing antenna mounts and rod holders.

If your rod holders are mounted FORWARD of your bullbar, then you are asking for it, if it's BEHIND the bar, tucked up with no hard points to scalp a human-being in a frontal collision, then you have no problems with them on there. If you are pulled over by a fuzzer, then show them the PDF file located at:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vib05.pdf

Note that the above ruling has been adoped by many transport agencies....

If after seeing this, they issue a defect notice, then kindly ask them to note on the ticket that they had been shown the particular notice so that you can complain to their inspector. (Nicely!)

It should be noted that "fair-use" policy applies here. If you have rod holders mounted on the bull bar, it's not going to be a problem if anyone can't get caught in them in the event of a collision with a pedestrian.

I wonder though... How many people would survive a collision with a bullbar at 50-60K's???????
AnswerID: 9281

Follow Up By: Member - Chris - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
Couldn't agree more with the last bit. I've often wondered why the rest of the country has to follow a design rule driven by the whinging sydney north shore residents in their versions of the toorak tractors.

Making changes to my bar will defer the impact of a 2 tonne truck by about 30 ms - I suppose that's something. Next, someone will want pedestrian friendly tyres 'cos we leave marks on 'em

what are they doing on the road anyway! - fine the jaywalker instead.
0
FollowupID: 4665

Reply By: Savvas - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
Actually, Chrisfrd makes a very good point here. Allyn...did you get a fine or a defect notice?
AnswerID: 9301

Follow Up By: Allyn - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
It was an infringement notice payable withing 28 days just the same as a speeding ticket.
Can't understand the logic myself as I have a 4" lift kit with a 2" body lift and my bull bar is made from steel. No pedestrian would be effected by the rod holders.
My biggest whinge is not knowing else I would have removed them prior. I still believe a caution would have been adequate ( I removed them on the side of the road after Chips left).
I shall be in touch shortly re a letter
0
FollowupID: 4673

Reply By: Truckster - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
The problem is simple.


Harold Scruby...


he gets more air time in 1 day than the 4wd movement gets in 1 yr..
Has the 4wd association done anything recently? didnt think so.

Im with the bloke that said what are they doing on the road... BOOK THEM INSTEAD...

AnswerID: 9307

Follow Up By: Allyn - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
An excerpt from today's West Australian Newspaper.

THE State Government has lost millions of dollars in revenue because a legal loophole has severely curtailed the use of Multanova speed cameras.

The snag, which has cut the use of the Multanovas on freeways and major roads, is set to put pressure on police resources during pre-Christmas road blitzes.

Since July, when Victoria Park Town Council issued a parking infringement on a Multanova van parked on a reserve in Burswood Drive, civilian camera operators have not been able to operate on the city's freeways as well as many major roads.

Civilian operators are not exempt from regulations which prohibit walking and parking on freeways. There are 41 civilian operators working in shifts with 13 cameras on WA roads. Most are in Perth.

With freeways and major roads off limits, the traffic flowing past Multanovas has fallen by up to 54 per cent.

It is believed the restrictions may have cost the Government up to $5 million in lost revenue in six months. It receives an average of about $40 million a year from Multanova infringements.

Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations Support, John Standing, conceded yesterday that the problem had had a considerable impact on road safety enforcement.

He believed that local government had a responsibility to support the State's road safety and traffic management programs. But legal advice had left police with little choice but to withdraw civilian camera operators from freeways and other major roads.


This proves to me that revenue is all that concerns them. Three cheers to the parking inspector too I say.
Cheers


0
FollowupID: 4675

Follow Up By: Axel + Karen - Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:00
Love it... not u truckster,,,the parking inspectors..
0
FollowupID: 4688

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)