Knocked back on rego check today - 2 aerials on ARB bull bar ( at Back )
Submitted: Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:19
ThreadID:
53314
Views:
4568
Replies:
14
FollowUps:
17
This Thread has been Archived
Member - Willie , Epping .Syd.
Has this guy got it wrong ?
The same mechanic has passed it every year since 2001 . Has the law just been changed or is this guy a dummy ?
Thanks ,
Willie .
Reply By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:39
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:39
Willie
Have you forgotten your in the backward state NSW, a state that spends millions of tax payers dollars on road safety , speed cam' signs,and is the road toll any different.............NO.
I might add that Qld is nearly as bad with all the crap.
.
AnswerID:
280848
Follow Up By: Member - Willie , Epping .Syd. - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:36
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:36
Done and Dusted - how are you both ?
FollowupID:
545215
Reply By: Richard W (NSW) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:46
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:46
Willie,
Here is a link to the RTA re Bull Bars and protruding accessories.
RTA Vehicle Standards
Not sure if it will be much help.
AnswerID:
280852
Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:06
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:06
According to that link he is ok and the mechanic is wrong.
FollowupID:
545198
Reply By: Middle Jeff - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:46
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:46
Hi Willie
The guy is a dummy, did he give you a reason apart from there being two aerials. In the complex at work there is two RTA rego guys and one specialises in 4wdrives so I will
check in the morning and put another response up in the morning.
Have fun
Craig
AnswerID:
280853
Follow Up By: Member - Willie , Epping .Syd. - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:36
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:36
Thanks Craig ,
Willie
FollowupID:
545214
Reply By: Willem - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:57
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 21:57
Just removce them and then get the vehicle passed and then put them back on again. There is no gain in argueing with idiots.
Cheers
AnswerID:
280858
Follow Up By: Member No 1- Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:29
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:29
thats what i used to do in the mini ...when i was slapped with an unroadworthy sticker for beeing too low.....go
home pump up the
suspension...go get sticker removed ....then go
home and let
suspension down...worked for me
FollowupID:
545232
Follow Up By: Member - Willie , Epping .Syd. - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:55
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:55
Me too .
Mine was so low when I went to the registry they could not get it over the wheel guiding thingies that stop the car going into the pits .
FollowupID:
545278
Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 14:33
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 14:33
When I owned a Mini I didn't have to lower it or pump it up.
Getting in it or out of it had the same effect.
I wish I had never sold it. What a great car.
FollowupID:
545322
Reply By: Member - Vincent A M (NSW) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:02
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:02
Wille
from memory he is right, its just that the law is not enforced very often.The law also state no extra
driving lights may be above the headlights. The aerial can not be in a ?% angle of vision & must have a breakaway system so as to make it safer for a pedestrian hit. there is some exemptions for vehicle over a ? amount of weight. you will find this in RDA. The RTA may help but it will take time to find someone to help. or just remove aerial for rego & than refit like so many do
Good Luck
AnswerID:
280861
Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:11
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:11
"The law also state no extra
driving lights may be above the headlights."
- that restriction has been removed. There is a Jeep being sold which has
driving lights integrated into the factory roof bars.
Here are quotes from ADR 13
"Driving Lamps "
": Number - two or four. "
":Position - in width- no individual specification - in height - no individual specification"
":Electrical connections - The driving lamps must be able to be lighted only when the mainbeam headlamps switch is in the “lamps on” position."
FollowupID:
545282
Reply By: Member - extfilm (NSW) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:52
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 22:52
Hey willie,
By mistake,
Bulliten
I came accross this bulliten issued november 07. It may explain why they have been passed in previous years.
Peter
AnswerID:
280877
Follow Up By: Member - Willie , Epping .Syd. - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:43
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:43
It explains it
well and by the way , my aerials are totally legal .
Thanks for that , I will let him know tomorrow .
Willie .
FollowupID:
545217
Follow Up By: Member - extfilm (NSW) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 00:04
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 00:04
He will have a copy of the bullletin in his standards folder. By law one of his requirements is to keep his standards folder up to date, But I would print it out just in case.
I would also go in with a spanner ready to pull the offending aerial off.
My vehicle is exempt because it is a construction vehicle, I need a UHF to comunicate with heavy machinery on site and it would be ridiculous to remove the aerial after work everyday.
Peter
FollowupID:
545219
Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:27
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:27
That bulletin says the same as the link that Richard posted above.
FollowupID:
545229
Follow Up By: Member - extfilm (NSW) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:54
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:54
Hi
John,
I agree, It does say the same, but my point being the release date of the bulletin.
Peter
FollowupID:
545234
Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:37
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:37
Any chance that this bulletin can be have a permanent link to it on this site ?
It would be
well worth while for new people setting up their rigs to see the diagrams and explanation.
FollowupID:
545235
Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:42
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 23:42
What was his reply, when you said that you have passed this exact same setup for the last 6 years?
AnswerID:
280886
Follow Up By: On Patrol (East Coast) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:09
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:09
Gday Truckster
The RTA bulletin was only issued in Nov 2007, & that explains why it was not rejected before, however it was stated by Willie that his set-up is within the new laws anyway???????
So back to the inspector, he seems to be a bit over zealous in his interpretation of the directive.
Colin
FollowupID:
545247
Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:28
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:28
I couldn't pick up anything in that bulletin that specified "two aerials not allowed" so it becomes an interpretation of an individual.
Anyway, unless the pedestrian you hit only receives a "love tap" it wouldn't make one iota of difference what is mounted on the bullbar.
That will give Harold something to whinge about.
Talking about Mr. Scruby, we had a report in the local paper the other day, whereby he was quoted that the speed limit in
Adelaide's CBD should be reduced to 40km due to an increase in pedestrian accidents. Yeh right!
What is so different about
Adelaide that is not the same in every other City.
Waste of space, he is!
AnswerID:
280918
Follow Up By: Steve63 - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:14
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:14
Should ban mobiles on footpaths. Just about every git that steps out in front of us has one stuck to there ear. We have a red landcruiser, and it is as if we are invisible. No joke, I have been walked into three times by people on mobiles this week. Obviously it requires too much brain power to operate a mobile while walking so collision avoidence and common sense systems are shut down!
Steve
FollowupID:
545273
Follow Up By: Member - Willie , Epping .Syd. - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:57
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:57
At least the blood does not show against the red paint .
FollowupID:
545279
Reply By: Member -Signman - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:43
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:43
Hi Willie
Had
mine passed about a month ago- with a UHF on one side, and tapped HF on the other. No problems. Then again it was a 4WD enthusiast that does the inspections.
Did they give you a defect notice??? If not- go somewhere else !!
AnswerID:
280931
Reply By: Middle Jeff - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:52
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:52
Hi Willie
The guy is right, you are only allowed one aerial. realy obscure and very subjective. It is a combination of two laws, one is vision and the other is fittings to a bull bar.
So basically he is right and wrong, best thing to do is take one off and stick the cable in the grill, next year come over for a visit and see my guy here, I take it he gave you a white slip with a fault on it.
Have fun
Craig
AnswerID:
280932
Follow Up By: Middle Jeff - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:56
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:56
PS if you have both radios on when you go in then technically it is legal, a bit like having an empty fishing rod holder or bike rack on your car.
Have fun
Craig
FollowupID:
545266
Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:56
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:56
There is absolutely nothing in the Nov 07 Bulletin that limits the number of aerials on the bullbar. If two thin aerials obstruct the drivers vision, how does this compare with the obstruction to vision caused by the A pillar ! There used to be a reference to 30mm maximum aerial/pipe diameter, but that has now gone.
There will be a lot of tradesmen who will have to remove rack supports if you are only allowed one thin aerial.
The only exemptions are for Emergency vehicles.
If I was you, I would be contacting the RTA to complain about an Inspector who is victimising you and contacting the Bullbar manuafcturer to point out that their aerial mounts are now illegal.
AnswerID:
280944
Reply By: Member - Brian H (QLD) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:32
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:32
How does one expect the poor bugger to get it right, not everyone here can agree lol. To me its like most laws and rules they are open to an individuals spin on the wording.
Not having read what is and is not legal I cannot comment. just sound typical to me lol.
Hope it works out Willie. :)
Brian
AnswerID:
280950
Reply By: rosgeog - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33
Have I missed something but I thought that the problem was two aerials on the rear bullbar. How do they obstruct the driver's forward vision.
AnswerID:
280952
Follow Up By: Middle Jeff - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:49
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:49
The aerials are on the back off the bull bar, not the bull bar at the back, now I am confused!!!
Have fun
Craig
FollowupID:
545294
Reply By: Member - Steve Y (NSW) - Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 13:51
Friday, Jan 11, 2008 at 13:51
it reads to me that when the bracket is attached in such a way as it extends forward of the bar, IE, the GME U-Bolt type but with the bolts to the front or some one welded and bracket that goes up-and-forward.
From the RTA
Any attachment or protrusion projecting forward of bull bar or bumper bar which presents a danger to other road users
AnswerID:
280979