so catch cans are ok then,
are the patrol body tail lights really being targeted?
i got them fitted with extra lights thinking it make me more visible and safer at night.
Printable View
so catch cans are ok then,
are the patrol body tail lights really being targeted?
i got them fitted with extra lights thinking it make me more visible and safer at night.
They never were targeted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireblade
It's how they roll off the factory/dealer floor.
Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk
I doubt they are. He's talking from the wrong orifice I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireblade
Cops drive Patrols with the same tail light setup , it's illegal or should I say against Australian road rules to have tail lights obscured from a 45 degree angle from behind .Quote:
Originally Posted by mudski
Which is why if there is a spare wheel on the back door unless it's perfectly in the centre the tail lights have to be below and visible ,so anyone who has modded their tail lights and put globes in them are in contravention of the Australian design rules and could theoretically be booked by a Mansfield type copper .
That law has zero weight in it. As long as the bumper lights are working no issue. My rear dummie lights have globes in them and it passed an engineers report and a RWC. You see other 4WD's with extra rear lights mounted on roof racks, trucks etc with extra lights. I think the user Government is just full of hot air. It would be interesting to know who this person actually is and their real reason for posting on our forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by GQtdauto
It's a stupid law to start with mate as to the motives of the poster who knows but I'm sure we've covered the tail light ADR rules before but might have picked it up elsewhere .
I have lit up my 'blank' tail lights (with the original ones remaining in the bumper). If I get booked or defected for this I would take it to court. Tail lights on each side definitely ARE visible at 45 degrees - just not all of them. I would contend that the additional ones only add to safety with absolutely no negative impact - just like the additional high level tail lights required by some mine sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by GQtdauto
Most judges/magistrates have a bit of common sense and would likely throw this out and might even say something appropriate to the prosecuting officer - that sort of thing has happened before.
Was going through the relevant legislation trying to find the exact wording but internet here is too friggin slow but from what I've seen you'd need to be an expert in legal ,scientific and automotive design terms to work out what the hell they are on about half the time .
Will keep trying though and must find out if it's all our rules or rules as dictated by the UN as they get a mention .
ADR 49/00 covers the lights but I didn't find any specific details about 'additional' or multiple tail lights which would help here.
It gives specs for brightness and angles etc for the various lights, but doesn't actually say ALL so I think it could be interpreted either way. If you have a light that does not quite meet these specs (it's around 30 degrees with the standard 17" tyre), but an original factory fitted one on the same side that does, is that a no-no?
As I said in a previous post, I would argue that it adds to safety.
Been thru the process a while back and it is several hours of my life I'll not get back.
The gist of the argument was this (and it also applies to all additional repeaters you see on mine spec vehicles etc).
ADRs specify the lights for each specific function are required to be visible thru certain arcs.
Mr Nissan removed the offending lights from the series 2 GQ onwards as otherwise the vehicle became non-compliant when the ADR was issued.
Mr Nissan removed the existing lights at factory and replaced them with the lights in the bumper as the existing lights would not have complied even with complying bumper 'repeaters' fitted.
Joe Punter has then fitted non-complying lights which technically are a defect no matter the source (factory or accessory manuf).
You could add a dozen rear lights in various places that when taken as a whole are compliant for visibility arcs but which as individuals are not and every individual light that does not cover the entire arc as req'd by ADR would be non-compliant and therefore defective.
Note that it isn't just Patrols affected, there are a few different vehicles of the time
The mermaids reckon the bottom line was this... Any light added must meet the purpose and specs of its function IE it doesn't matter if you already have lights that do, if you add more then they must as well, colour, visibility, intensity etc etc
Not sayin what is right, wrong, stupid, enforced or ignored... just sayin' what the Guvmunt dudes told me and, begrudgingly, to their credit they said the only dudes they defect are the ones that had overly bright or weird coloured lights and turned a blind eye to 'normal' dudes.