Shurely shome mishtake - common sense?reasoning? Now to work on the piece-of-shit helmet legislation and Dayglo Derek rumours.
GSX1400 Need I say more? Probably, yes.
The laws wont be retrospective , You can bet on it.
but it would make an interesting court case.. Red
Indeed , you got the spare $100K it would take to fight it ? Cause you know that the cops do (its only our money anyhow) Cause If one wins then all the defects/harrassment/bullshit would flow the wrong way to keep the Highway pigs happy.Originally Posted by Tim
but it would make an interesting court case.. Red
It doesn't need to go to court.
Its quite simple really
To allow new bikes to be sold without making them adhere to the current adr they have to change the adr and whatever they change in the adr will apply to all motorcycles that fall under the adr.
I have tried checking the new adr but the miserable cunts are making us pay for that privilege now, however I need a copy so ill try to sort it tonight on night shift.
Fuck, the authorities show a little bit of commonsence and all we get is whinging. I swear if some of you guys won the Lotto you'd complain about having to go to the bank to cash the cheque.
Whos whinging?
Best news ive heard in ages
yeah but it's not a true fender eliminator in the sense most of us would consider it - it's only the "spade" type section that is an addition to what most of us see as a standard rear fender (most new bikes have that section as removable as we are one of the few markets that mandate it) - most Australian suppliers either don't fit it or take it off prior to sale - I think Ducati are one of the few that actually leave them on - still required to have an extension to 45 deg from the rear axle with red reflector etc as I understand it
Neo My bike hasn't had anything resembling anything close to current or most likely future ADR's so I don't give two flying rat fucks. BUT the cops will still push it as far as they can , And you WILL have to take it to court if its not retrospective to stop them continuing to fine/harrass yourself and others. Or take it up the ass as they would prefer.
From the ADR
The Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development has approved an amendment to Australian Design Rule (ADR) 42/04 to remove the requirement for rear mudguard extensions for motorcycles, though front and rear mudguards are still required.
Media Release: Motorcycle deregulation to save millions
The amendment to ADR 42/04 became effective from 27 September 2014 for new vehicles and this latest version is available on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments: Australian Design Rule 42/04General Safety Requirements.
All new road vehicles, whether they are manufactured in Australia or are imported, must comply with the ADRs before they can be offered to the market for use in transport. The ADRs are performance based standards for vehicle safety, emissions and anti-theft.
Once a vehicle has been supplied to the market in Australia and first used on Australian roads, regulation passes to the relevant state or territory government who handle in-service requirements such as registration, road-worthiness and vehicle modifications.
If an owner wishes to further modify their existing motorcycle to remove or replace the mudguard extension then this becomes a matter for state and territory regulators as the vehicle is considered as being in-service. However, it is generally the case that state and territory legislation will allow for changes to ADRs to flow through to registration requirements.
Therefore, if an owner wants to fit a fender eliminator / tail tidy, they should still check with their local registration authority. Owners should note that these devices may also affect lighting and registration plate requirements.
Contact details for the state and territory registration authorities can be found on their websites:
"However, it is generally the case that state and territory legislation will allow for changes to ADRs to flow through to registration requirements"
This is because they cant have two sets of rules, its illegal.
Some states may require a mod permit, no big deal. ICV's are considered new vehicles, so less talk more custom frames..
says new bikes ? does this mean anything older than 2014 cant be changed ?bloody grey area
Try reading the whole thing
stop it tom I have enough bad ideas as it is
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Sa...emudguards.pdf
If you have a motorcycle that was built to meet the previous version ADR, Transport and Main Roads recommends that you do not modify the mudguards or remove the tail tidy fitted, as this was how the vehicle was built and tested by the manufacturer.
Last edited by Tony Nitrous; 11-10-2014 at 08:15 AM.
I keep my standard fender/tail plastic in the shed so I can turn my L3 thou into a café racer in 35 years from now.
Key word there, 'recommends'
Its not law
The 45deg rule has been removed, play on
You cannot have two laws pertaining to a vehicle type
It also says once the tail tidy has been removed (an added part to meet ADR)
any other parts must be left fitted to the vehicle.
Some vehicles did not quite meet the 45 degree rule and had added bits to be legal.
The fact is says "any other parts must be left fitted" means that it is not
legal to remove factory fitted guards the bike was made with.
Last edited by Tony Nitrous; 12-10-2014 at 04:44 PM.
Imagine that, someone modifying their bike so its not the way it came from the factory..
The fact is Tony, the ADR has been changed, the 45deg rule has been omitted and as much as you can argue semantics all day long about legalities, as I stated above, you can apply to get a modification permit for your fender eliminator because the law no longer requires your bike to meet the 45deg rule. Its not fucking hard people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote