New RTA Modification Rules starting September 29... We have to stop this.

I dont know who is aware of these so i will put up what i have read.

As on the 29th of september 2011 the RTA is bringing in new vehicle modification rules (also been labeled the nanny laws). These laws will make it increasingly harder for anyone to modify their cars, with harsher restrictions on evrything. Some of the things for 4wds are maximum 6" lift of cab resulting from suspension lift body lift and tyres. Anything about 2inch lift needs to be engineered. you will no longer be able to fit tyres that increase rolling diameter, so no 32s on navaras.

Then there will be more restrictions on engine size, fitting of turbos and superchargers to na engines. It will also effect street cars and hotrods as they will be restricted to certain motors that they can transplant into their cars.

Here is the link for the section on motors.

We need to get on this fast and get it out.

There is a flip side to this.

Consider the nose-picking, pimple-faced moron that gets a 4.2L V8 commodore and puts twin turbos on it. He's got just enough brains to hold the spanner the right way and not enough to be looking in the right direction when his foot goes on the accelerator past the school where your kids are walking out on their way home.

The trouble with having to curtail morons is that those of us that might have some intelligence - and more importantly some simple common sense - have to jump through hoops, or pay extra, to do what we've traditionally thought of as free or acceptable.

Example: forest parks or beaches where we either have to pay to enter, or can't enter any more, because some small minority of wankers in 4WDs with muddies got in there repeatedly and dug the place up, making it unusable, or dangerous, for Joe Average. We can't take that back, we can't reverse the decision, and as soon as we do, the wankers will be straight back there with cans of beer in their hands and feet flat to the floor doing circle work on the exact spot you put your tent last year.

This legislation isn't going to stop the process. It just adds a safety check. It's designed to stop morons from harming US.

Although truth be told, those same morons (who have to have the installation instructions read out to them because half of 'em can't read) probably won't know about the legislation, but at least WITH the legislation in place, the police can take these idiots off the road, and hopefully before they can hurt someone.

Personally I don't care if they hurt themselves, as long as they do a complete job and remove themselves from the gene pool. It's when they hurt others with their stupidity that I get a little hot under the collar.

Legislation like this is designed to stop that. I don't want to appear like I'm against freedom of choice - I'm just pointing out that they're legislating to protect the greater populace from a minority of morons. And to a large extent, I doubt we'd make a lot of progress in this one - because excessive, unengineered lifts and over-powered engines truly ARE dangerous if not done correctly.

That's probably the goal of the legislation: make sure it's done right. Sure, some engineers are going to make a quid or two out of it, but that price is insignificant compared to the loss of life that could be caused by a moron in an over-raised or over-powered car.

The worst part about dealing with the drunken morons with overpowered cars that destroy the place and kill people - it's against the law to shoot them in the head before they do any damage. If we could do that, we might avoid legislation like this.

I see where you are coming from about the idiots on the road and yes there are plenty. Although the problem i have with these new laws is they are targeting the idiots in modified cars because they are a hazard on the road. However any idiot can kill someone or damage property in any car, doesnt matter of make model, body type, engine size, induction type, size of there tyres/wheels, how loud their exhaust is, wether they lowered it or raised its height. The government is talking as though someone in a modified car is bound to kill someone or cause an accident. Anyone could go out in a hyundai excel or a daihatsu charade or sumthin along those line, 4cyl completely standard and cause an accident that kills sumone.

Yes an idiot in a twin turboed v8 or any such can can cause an accidents, and i do not condone hooning or peopel driving like morons. But its the idiot behind the wheel that causes the accident not the twin turboed v8. And its only going to hurt the honest motorists as the morons and idiots will more than likely keep doing dodgy home mods and result in a modified car that they still drive like a moron in but cause its a dodgy job and wasnt done by someone with the right experience its now even more dangerous depending on the mod.

I understand about the 4Bs who go out and cut up in camping grounds and beaches and the like. And over raised cars are dangerous if not driven in a safe manner but so is any car. I think more attention should be focused at the morons and bad drivers not the modified cars unless the modification is a direct cause of the accident.

Na its about saving lives .

Funny how Australia is becoming a communist state after Kevin Rudd became best friends with China.

Kevin is gone, now its Juliars turn to save everyone from themselves.

Even though this is a NSW thing, I wish politician would just consult with people instead of pushing there stupid ideas through.

Lets face it, with enough thought. Any vehicle can be made safer, upgraded brakes etc.

Politicians aren't engineers, ask the engineers whats safe and what isn't.

Or ask TV hosts for the unqualified expert opinions and they can be told 130KPH on our highways is sustainable. There is no need for proof when you are a TV host.

I will admit, those 4wd's in Tuff Trucks needed to be engineered and roadworthy.

Its got me ~!@#$%^& how they passed them.

Oh and Krafty, "Speed kills". Didn't you know that.

Next time your on the Kubota, remember your driving a dangerous machine.

It should be walking pace around the farm

I get offended when I see a Jeep with 6" of lift & 37" bead locked muddies sharing the same road as my family and I.

Bring on the laws I say.

* Insert insults here *

With empty forks on the front it could be quite dangerous, atleast with hay on the forks there is a bit of cushioning before total impact. I'm surprised they don't make laws to protect us from such issues.

The thing about any of these types of laws is that they are made to protect many from the few stupid enough to not understand what they are really doing. I'm not a fan of each and every law that is made but I'm less of a fan of those idiots like Tony refers too who really do need someone to step in guide them away from the moronic things they do.

There is also part of me that sees it as a little bit of pay back, truckies have been getting more and more ridiculous laws passed on them for years it's about time governments focused more on the other morons.

in some ways i dont mind some of the restrictions,like a 6 inch lift on a 4by...
if you cant get thru without a lift that high just pick another track or just accept you wont get thru...

Ill second Jase's comment.

I see GQ's and 80 Series Landcruisers all the time with 6 inch lifts and 35's.

They look like there gonna roll over on the first roundabout.

Krafty, Ill second the trucking laws thing. Most of the fatal crashes were trucks are involved are caused by car drivers anyway.

I think all those idiots that do stupid things that ruin it for the rest us would do those stupid thing in whatever vehicle they had available to them.

Whats more dangerous, a "fully sick mate" Nissan Skyline or a run of the mill Commodore or Falcon that puts out 270kw standard?

Our government is trying to treat us all like idiots. Give it a few years and we will all be wearing the same colored clothes. (or maybe a burka

Every machine is designed for a purpose, maybe even two or three. I have no problem with HUGE mods, but there has to be a line drawn for (roadworthy).
If you want to determine where that line is you have to get involved in the process.

P.S. N.S.W. is the Original state, Convict state, so we need more laws to keep us under control. LOL

Dave said:

Na its about saving lives .

Funny how Australia is becoming a communist state after Kevin Rudd became best friends with China.

Kevin is gone, now its Juliars turn to save everyone from themselves.

Even though this is a NSW thing, I wish politician would just consult with people instead of pushing there stupid ideas through.

Lets face it, with enough thought. Any vehicle can be made safer, upgraded brakes etc.

Politicians aren't engineers, ask the engineers whats safe and what isn't.

Click to expand...

Actually, Dave, you're not far wrong there. Politicians are NOT engineers, but they make laws. And that's why they're making a law that says if we want to modify our vehicles, we need an ENGINEER to approve it.

Could this be some common sense that is so typically uncommon in political circles these days?

So I take it the idea is that by having to engineer approve mods we will save lives.

How many lives have been taken to date from an atmo diesel having a turbo fitted or a 4by that just had a set of tires fitted a size or two up.

Extreme mods should be approved but I believe there should be a sensible level of allowed/owner certified vehicle modifications.

New South Wales' interpretation of the NCOP? This has been coming for about five years. They already postponed VSI 50 in 2009.

You can fit tyres that increase rolling diameter - 50mm max increase on NA (Navaras, Hiluxes etc) and MC (Patrol etc) category vehicles.

The standpoint of many engineers is that a 4x4 is sufficiently capable with some close to stock sized mud tyres, twin lockers, some armour and a winch. There are some within ARB who think that and that's the approach that their product lineup takes. Anything more extreme and you want to have a no-compromise trailer queen with rear steer, hydro coilovers etc.

The REALLY frustrating thing about laws like these is that it gradually gets people addicted to others thinking for them. Nobody can decide for themselves if something is safe or not any more.

Time to enter the green card lottery I guess.

Laith said:

So I take it the idea is that by having to engineer approve mods we will save lives.

How many lives have been taken to date from an atmo diesel having a turbo fitted or a 4by that just had a set of tires fitted a size or two up.

Extreme mods should be approved but I believe there should be a sensible level of allowed/owner certified vehicle modifications.

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point Laith, i do agree big modifications such as engine transplants (except those that were a factory fitted engine for the same model car), dramatically alltering the height of your car (lowering or raising), putting massively big wheels or tyres on your car, chopping and rewelding the body etc all should be engineerd as if they arent dont properly can be very dangerous.

However things like going up a size or 2 in tyres or wheels, or moderately alltering the height of your car (as long as its been installed by someone with proper experience), fitting a larger diameter exhaust, or fitting a different cam etc.

Yes there are plenty of morons out on the roads that cause accidents everyday, however they are doing it in any car they can get their hands on whether thats a factory standard car or a modified car. And the government isnt focusing on the moron drivers as the problem but the modified cars.

I found on the queensland transport website a whole list of pdf files with all sorts of road statistics and i had a read through the 'Weekly Road Toll Report' https://www.webcrash.transport.qld.gov.au/webcrash2/external/daupage/weekly/roadsense.pdf

On page 5 there is a table listing the behavioural characteristics of fatal accidents between July 2005 - June 2011 in financial year periods. Now looking at the July 2010 - June 2011 statistics (as these were the only ones that had a percentage) there were 251 fatalities as a result of a car crash. Of that 251 fatalities- 96.4% were attributed to Human behavioural factors, 11.2% to road factors, 2% to vehicle factors, 36.4% that were road or roadside obstructions and 5.2% were of atmospheric/lighting conditions. The figures add up to more than 100% as it was stated on the page each incident could have multiple factors.

Further down the table in the same time frame, 19.9% of crashes involved speeding drivers/riders, 21.1% involved drink drivers/riders, 12.4% involved fatigued drivers/riders and 28% were unrestrained vehicle occupants, illegal manoeuvre 21.5%, dangerous driving 2.4%, rain/wet road 9.2%.

Now those are just the statistics for the july2010-june2011 period however the other statistics for previous time periods dont greatly vary.

Only 2% were related to a problem with the vehicle (so roughly 4-5 of those fatalities were cause by some sort of vehicle factor, but thats not to say that it was a modified car or not) where as 96.4% were human behavioural factors (so 242 of the 251 fatalities were caused by human behavioural factors).

In all these statistics (although i have not looked into other states statistics) i fail to see how the government has come to the conclusion to make it harder for us to modify our cars on the claim that it makes them unsafe and is causing deaths on the roads, where only 2% of fatalities in the last year in queensland were the result of a vehicle factor (now there is no explanation on what vehicle factor means, so there is no way to say that these occured due to modifications, there could be thousands of reasons why a vehicle factor cause an accident, some could be due to dodgy or dangerous mods).

As i said im not here to argue that there is no need to get vehicle modifications engineered if they will affect the safe use of the vehicle. However putting harsher restrictions on the modifications we can do to ours cars isnt going to stop the 21.1% of drink drivers or the 28% of unrestrained Vehicle occupants.

The majority of road tolls are there due to driver behaviour and poor choices.

I agree with the sentiment there, BP90. As long as that legislation allows us to make minor modifications that don't greatly impact on the vehicles, we should be able to do them ourselves.

If I read it correctly, it allows a 50mm (2") lift without certification, and things like 20mm rolling diameter increase as well. This isn't going to limit many of us anyway.

The problem with lifting say 125mm (5") is that the centre of gravity of the vehicle changes, the stresses on the entire subframe changes. An engineer would have to examine that to ensure that it wasn't going to induce fatigue through the stress, and that the functions attributable to safety - vision in particular - aren't overly impacted (hence the lane change tests).

By the sounds of it, this legislation isn't limiting what we can do - it's just limiting what we can do without getting it checked to make sure that it's still safe. If that's what it is - and I stress the IF there, because historically they've always thrown curve balls at us - then I don't disagree with the legislation at all. If there's "fine print" that stops us from doing even minor stuff, then I've got a problem with it, because it becomes more like micromanagement.

The other issue with these things is insurance. If we're involved in an accident then our insurer may not pay out if there are modifications which may structurally change the vehicle platform that haven't been certified. Check your policies - some might get away with it, but remember that most of the insurance firms out there are looking for a way to conserve their payouts, and the assessors will try to find a reason to not pay - that's part of their job. The obvious main part of their job is to calculate the cost of repairs, but they're also looking for "means of escape". We shouldn't give them that! You might find that with or without this legislation, certification of a significant modification is required for your insurance.

If you couldn't say, change the exhaust.

Would you run the risk ?

I reckon Id consider it.

Don't we have a system in place now that allows owner certified mods of a mild nature and Engineer certified mods of a more extreem nature.

Why do we need to change anything.

Good info there BP90 by the way. It spelt out what I assumed to be the case.

Laith said:

Don't we have a system in place now that allows owner certified mods of a mild nature and Engineer certified mods of a more extreem nature.

Why do we need to change anything.

Click to expand...

I believe the purpose is to make the rules between states more uniform. It's all a bit stupid though as every state then reinterprets the suggested national system to suit themselves. So we're back at square one really, but minus a lot of tax dollars.