driving around with full set of bonnet tools is it ok

[jet]

! have the complete perentie army bonnet tools inc wood cutting pick digging implement is this legal i was dropping the wife at the airport had a few strange looks.
Was thinking of putting a lock on them just encase.

Just never know these days .

[Chris078]

! have the complete perentie army bonnet tools inc wood cutting pick digging implement is this legal i was dropping the wife at the airport had a few strange looks.
Was thinking of putting a lock on them just encase.

Just never know these days .


Technically, No they are not legal. Tools on the bonnet break the ADR about pedestrian safety in event of an accident (couldn't be bothered looking up the rule right now)

That said, I have also not heard of anyone having to remove them to get a roadworthy. Which speaks volumes for what roadworthies are worth and what the people who do them actually know about what they are doing.

I've just taken all the fittings off the bonnet apart from the windscreen brackets. I'd rather have them off than have an unlucky pedestrian die by impaling their head on one of the mounts.

The holes are still there, so for long off road trips, I'll put them back on, but for around town they'll be staying off.

[MrLandy]

Obviously you should take them off your bonnet.

[Bush Animal]

Well the words Technically Legal really puzzle me its ok for the military to drive around for the last 50 odd years with tools on the bonnet skewering pedestrians,but civilians can,t have the tools on their Perenties.I have owned series 2a and 3 army landys my first in 1968 and have always had the tools on the bonnet .The tools are just about to go onto my new Perentie . Cheers Bushy.

[Barefoot Dave]

G'day Jet.
The bonnet mounted tools are one of a handful of issues that could cause grief to a Perentie owner if the powers that be decided to apply all adrs and guidelines to them.
Recently, a ahem 'Well meaning' individual sought 'clarification' of these discrepencies with everyone from the Army, AFM, Federal Road safety authorities and numerous state Road authorities. He didn't appear to get too far at the time, but throw enough crap around and someone will start checking.
IIRC; SA, ACT, NT and now some places in WA require the removal of the tools and mounts to 'comply'.
Now, LRA released the Tanami 110 with the same tool mounts. One would assume that a major manufacturer would be compliant??

I am working on a couple of solutions for Perentie owners that would mean retention of their tool mounts and recovery points without modification or removal.

[Chris078]

Well the words Technically Legal really puzzle me its ok for the military to drive around for the last 50 odd years with tools on the bonnet skewering pedestrians,but civilians can,t have the tools on their Perenties.I have owned series 2a and 3 army landys my first in 1968 and have always had the tools on the bonnet .The tools are just about to go onto my new Perentie . Cheers Bushy.


That is because the Military had an exemption from complying with the relevant ADR.
The same reason why they were not fitted with door locks and ignition keys even though the ADRs of the time required them.
Same reason why they were allowed to have the lengthways seats in the back without seatbelts.

So again, By the letter of the Law; No, it is not legal to have tools on the bonnet, and if a pedestrian gets injured by them, you better hope your insurance company covers you when they sue you.

Just have a look at the brackets on the front of the bonnet. Those posts are perfect for puncturing someone skull if they fall on the bonnet.

[isuzutoo-eh]

Mildly off topic;
I drove from Sydney, through Vic, caught the ferry and drove around Tas for three weeks last year, no wories except amusingly I was asked to remove the axe from the bonnet for the trip back to the mainland and hide it somewhere inside, as those of gentle demeanor might be concerned about such a weapon on display...
I was also questioned much more intensively about if I was carrying firearms than when I took my County for some reason. Heh.

[MrLandy]

Any bonnet, roof or bullbar mounted potential missile is a very bad idea IMO, including fuel and gas bottles on the roof. Common sense says apart from being exceedingly dangerous, no insurance would cover these items flying off and injuring someone. I would be very concerned about tools on the bonnet. Looking cool isn't worth the risk. ...My shovel, axe and hi lift jack all fit easily and are all stored safely under the back seat of the Defender.

I met a bloke once who thought having a full sized vice and anvil bolted to his bullbar...and a fuel canister and gas bottle mounted behind the bulbar was ok!

[Bundalene]

If the tools are a problem, then the tool holders would fall under the same category. I would leave them be, good enough for the army, good enough for the rest of us.




Erich

[weeds]

Any bonnet, roof or bullbar mounted potential missile is a very bad idea IMO, including fuel and gas bottles on the roof. Common sense says apart from being exceedingly dangerous, no insurance would cover these items flying off and injuring someone. I would be very concerned about tools on the bonnet. Looking cool isn't worth the risk. ...My shovel, axe and hi lift jack all fit easily and are all stored safely under the back seat of the Defender.

I met a bloke once who thought having a full sized vice and anvil bolted to his bullbar...and a fuel canister and gas bottle mounted behind the bulbar was ok!


What about everything else that is strapped to roof racks..........the roof rack itself??

In the 20 odd years I floated around the ADF, never heard or seen tools flying off the bonnet..........me, I personally would remove the tools and fit a bonnet mounted spare, long handle shovel (way more useful) on the roof rack and throw the axe in the back........the pick would go in the garden shed as I don't need to dig gun pits any more not sure what I would do with the shovel.

[Chris078]

If the tools are a problem, then the tool holders would fall under the same category. I would leave them be, good enough for the army, good enough for the rest of us.




Erich

Ah, but it is not! As I have mentioned, the Army had an exemption from having to comply with the relevant ADR in order to have the Perenties fitted without door locks, keyed ignition, or steering locks. The tools - and indeed the tool holders - on the bonnet also fall under that exemption.
When it involves the military, all things are not equal to civilian life.


Keeping them on is your choice. However, if you were to injure or heaven forbid kill someone as a result of leaving the tools and brackets on the bonnet, I wonder if you would think then that it was worth it?

[Homestar]

The pedestrian related ADR's didn't come into existence until after the Pereties were made, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that argument personally. All the talk is about Perenties but my 101 had a pick, shovel, crank handle and a dirty great big fair lead hanging out the front which would chop someone's leg off if they were unfortunate enough to get hit by it. I've had plenty of Police look over the vehicle - the talk is never about things like that, just that it is an unusual and cool vehicle.

Again, it's our nanny society that thinks everyone is about to get killed by a pick or anything else strapped to the bonnet of a vehicle. Give me a break....

If you like them there, leave them there - plenty do, and I've never heard of anyone getting booked for this, and no one is rotting in Gaol for doing so.

Interesting that this sort of thing causes people to carry on about the legalities, etc but does anyone bat an eyelid about all the 4x4's cruising around on 33" or 35" tyres - also illegal on most vehicles they are fitted to, fishing rod holders on bull bars, roof mounted lights, etc, etc, etc... but everyone seems fine with those sort of things. The tools issue is just the latest crusade by people that really need to be enjoying life more IMO.

Rant over. :)

[mudmouse]

i wouldn't get too wrapped up in this. The series vehicles carry the spare wheel mounts on the bonnet - a potential threat to errant pedestrians. Bear in mind the frontal protection (bulbar) rules only affect post 2003(?) vehicles, and as pointed out, Land Rover released the Tanamai with tool holders and look at the airlift hooks on the Perenties...

The ADF and emergency services all have vehicles and fittings, both internal and external, that appear to be non-ADR compliant but they do have vehicle standards and engineering dispensations allowing them to be used on the road - there isn't 'do what you want' exemption for the military in peacetime operations.

Stick to the rules and don't worry about urban stories/what ifs too much - otherwise there's probably not much point getting out of bed each morning.

[rar110]

I've been driving my Perentie for the last 10 years without any issue.

[Mick_Marsh]

Whenever an issue such as this pops up, people often say "in my opinion". This, although true, is not helpful.
Some others say "it's in the ADRs" or "they had an exemption" then offer no proof or have misinterpreted the appropriate document. More unhelpful opinion or misinformation.


I would encourage you all to read the ADRs and VSIs that apply at the time of manufacture. There are some interesting words that are hidden away in those documents.
Don't try to interpret them yourself. When the vehicles were manufactured, teams of qualified automotive engineers interpreted the rules, determined they complied and fixed compliance plates to the vehicles. What makes you think you are more qualified than a team of automotive engineers?


As one person has mentioned about the Tanami. It was considered to apply to the ADRs at the time. If it didn't, it wouldn't have been sold.


I'm not removing my tools.


Just a little note, if you are concerned about the pick and threads, slip a short piece of heater hose on them.

[Eevo]

better yet, ring up the vehicle standards number and ask them.

[wpalmo]

I licensed ARN51745 with the tools on the bonnet. The inspector didn't even comment on the tools. I left the double spare wheel carrier and jerry can holders in place as well as the RFSV baskets on the side. The tail lights were deemed ok as well as the recovery points both front and rear.

The only major concern at the time was to remove the rear facing dickie seat from the cargo area of the vehicle and to fit an approved vehicle immobiliser, which is a law unique to WA for vehicles younger than 30 years I believe.

From my reading of other peoples experiences there is so much variation on what you can have and what must be modified or removed that it is impossible to make any real call until you get pulled over by the boys in blue and asked to remove your garden tools or at worst you get a yellow sticker (defect notice). I have mine mounted as I do venture off the bitumen at least a couple of times a week chasing a few waves north of where I live. I have only used the shovel though so far and that was to help someone else out of a situation and also to make a pit toilet when I stayed over night.

I am leaving mine on until I'm told different.

Regards Warrick.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/10/188.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uyEA9J)Garden Tools After Linseed Oil and Wax (https://flic.kr/p/uyEA9J) by warrick palmateer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/warrickpalmateer/), on Flickr

[AndyG]

Back in the 70's was in the Engineers and we had 6*6 Tippers.
We also had seats so we could sit inside the tippers.

Was told Engineers, (ok lowly Sappers) could do this, not other Corp. I suppose we were the only Corp with tippers. So maybe a circular argument.

But does the ADF have different rules as to who can do what in/with a given vehicle.

Wont even ask about Civvies sitting inside tippers. :p

[Lotz-A-Landies]

That is because the Military had an exemption from complying with the relevant ADR.
The same reason why they were not fitted with door locks and ignition keys even though the ADRs of the time required them.
Same reason why they were allowed to have the lengthways seats in the back without seatbelts.

So again, By the letter of the Law; No, it is not legal to have tools on the bonnet, and if a pedestrian gets injured by them, you better hope your insurance company covers you when they sue you.

Just have a look at the brackets on the front of the bonnet. Those posts are perfect for puncturing someone skull if they fall on the bonnet.Do you have evidence of these exemptions? I'd be very interested to see them.

There are quite a few 48.??? ARN's that were built prior to the commencement of the Third Edition ADR's (July 1988) and ADR 25A in the Second Edition ADR doesn't apply to MC category.

The Perentie is only ADR certified for two front seat passengers for on road use. The rear sideways facing seats are installed only for use in military restricted areas, where state road rules don't apply. e.g. the 1/15 RNSW Lancers had several Perentie 6X6 troop carriers, when they went on exercises to Holsworthy, the Perenties were driven with only two troopers in the front and the rest of the unit travelled in buses. Once inside the Holsworthy training area, the troopers disembarked the bus and mounted the troop carriers.

[Bush Animal]

Without creating WW111 and a us and them situation.I agree with Weeds he has said he was in the Defence Force for 20 yrs and no probs .Lets leave it at that and those who think it is so dangerous take the tools and brackets off.Those who like to have them on just leave them on. Cheers to all Bushy

[weeds]

The Perentie is only ADR certified for two front seat passengers for on road use. The rear sideways facing seats are installed only for use in military restricted areas, where state road rules don't apply. e.g. the 1/15 RNSW Lancers had several Perentie 6X6 troop carriers, when they went on exercises to Holsworthy, the Perenties were driven with only two troopers in the front and the rest of the unit travelled in buses. Once inside the Holsworthy training area, the troopers disembarked the bus and mounted the troop carriers.


Yes and no, not sure when it was a blanket decision was made, but in the units I was posted to plenty of troops travelled in the backs of 4x4 and 6x6's between Brisbane and wide bay/shoal water bay.

I was part of the bushmaster trial, Darwin to Brisbane return leg when I was a chocko, the grunts preferred to travel in the back of the 6x6 over taking their turn in the taipan (driver and section commander has to endure the day)......this was after 1997 so troops were still riding I the back of 6x6's. It would have been earlier for 4x4 and unimogs that troops could ride I the back, maybe when the IIMV's arrived.

[Mick_Marsh]

Without creating WW111
I wouldn't worry about it. WW111 has already been raging for quite some time.
Unfortunately the most entertaining threads were deleted from various fora quite some time ago. There was a particularly good one on AULRO a few years ago but it got way too silly.

[Aaron IIA]

Back in the 70's was in the Engineers and we had 6*6 Tippers.
We also had seats so we could sit inside the tippers.


Wont even ask about Civvies sitting inside tippers. :p

This is possible in S.A., provided that the vehicle was manufactured before the need for seatbelts, and that the seats are an OEM fitting.

Aaron

[mudmouse]

Everyone, and that means everyone is covered by WHS legislation - hence no transport in the back of Perenties, Mogs, aircraft etc without the proper seating and harnesses.

It's a load of dung, but if the organisation leaves itself open to litigation, it's an easy target.

[Barefoot Dave]

As to compiance with the respective ADRs at date of manufacture;
What is more likely- The whole disposal process come to a screeching halt if someone reads 'Old mates' letters on a slow media day/ wants a bigger office OR someone whips out a study on pedestrian safety and retrospectively bans the bonnet protrusions in line with current Light vehicle Modification policy.
Most juristictions are being reasonable and apply a reasonable and equitable equitable risk assessment process (Probability/ consequences) but there are noted Individuals/ inspection locations that are being unreasonably Bureauocratic about things.
I'm not scaremongering or drumming up business. Just aware of how fickle policy can be.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yes and no, not sure when it was a blanket decision was made, but in the units I was posted to plenty of troops travelled in the backs of 4x4 and 6x6's between Brisbane and wide bay/shoal water bay.

I was part of the bushmaster trial, Darwin to Brisbane return leg when I was a chocko, the grunts preferred to travel in the back of the 6x6 over taking their turn in the taipan (driver and section commander has to endure the day)......this was after 1997 so troops were still riding I the back of 6x6's. It would have been earlier for 4x4 and unimogs that troops could ride I the back, maybe when the IIMV's arrived.Of course this could all be related to ComCare we both remember that the Mack NIL trucks had their original rear suspension modified to protect the spines of the troops riding in the back. About the same time as they were all converted to air suspension, the rules were changed and troops were prevented from riding in them.

It seems that one level of Defence weren't talking to the other. :(

[MrLandy]

Surely it also comes down to common sense? If you've got sharp protruding potentially lethal weapons bolted all over the outside of your Landy, it would be prudent to remove them, at least when you're driving around the burbs and you're highly unlikely to need them. It's not mad max dudes, there's not going to be an invasion where you need to axe and pick your way out of a 'situation' at a moments notice! :Rolling::Rolling: seriously? Just take the tools off til you need them. ...And the side facing seats with no seatbelts a thing? Or whatever it is. Hilarious. It's obviously a disaster waiting to happen. It's got nothing to do with regulations and getting around them, it's simply common sense.

[Mick_Marsh]

Surely it also comes down to common sense? If you've got sharp protruding potentially lethal weapons bolted all over the outside of your Landy, it would be prudent to remove them, at least when you're driving around the burbs and you're highly unlikely to need them. It's not mad max dudes, there's not going to be an invasion where you need to axe and pick your way out of a 'situation' at a moments notice! :Rolling::Rolling: seriously? Just take the tools off til you need them. ...And the side facing seats with no seatbelts a thing? Or whatever it is. Hilarious. It's obviously a disaster waiting to happen. It's got nothing to do with regulations and getting around them, it's simply common sense.
Using that logic, you shouldn't be driving that lethal 4WD around the burbs. Just a fatality waiting to happen. And why do you need a bull bar and winch in the burbs? They're not pedestrian friendly. And what of them sub standard old cars. The old clunkers should be put off the roads.

I've heard them all before. All absolute rubbish.

Maybe you should have a read of this:
Australia nanny state: Have we become a nation of idiots? (http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy'stb=fb)

[Homestar]

Surely it also comes down to common sense? If you've got sharp protruding potentially lethal weapons bolted all over the outside of your Landy, it would be prudent to remove them, at least when you're driving around the burbs and you're highly unlikely to need them. It's not mad max dudes, there's not going to be an invasion where you need to axe and pick your way out of a 'situation' at a moments notice! :Rolling::Rolling: seriously? Just take the tools off til you need them. ...And the side facing seats with no seatbelts a thing? Or whatever it is. Hilarious. It's obviously a disaster waiting to happen. It's got nothing to do with regulations and getting around them, it's simply common sense.

Why is a pick or shovel a lethal weapon when bolted to a vehicle? You trying to run people over? :confused: :D

If some dufus steps out in front of my 101 they are going to have a really bad day anyway, the pick and shovel will just add insult to injury.

Vehicles are inherently dangerous contraptions anyway - lets just ban them all together. Wait, we'd find some other way of killing ourselves....

Oh, and don't eat bacon or salami - they will kill you too apparently...

Said it with my last post - we are a nanny country trying to protect ourselves from ourselves. It's about time we took some responsibility for our own actions and went back to 'survival of the fittest'. That way, within a couple of generations we would have weeded out the 'stoopid' gene from our society and we won't need to have these conversations.

....then, we can take over the world...... (Insert evil laugh and cat here)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

All these regulations are about pedestrian safety.

With the height of a Perentie brush guard top rail, you would have to be travelling very fast or hit an extremely tall pedestrian for them to be thrown onto the bonnet where they could be injured by the gardening tools. Unfortunate as it sounds, with a Perentie Vs pedestrian crash at that speed, the tools would be the least of their worries.

[3lud13]

My tools stay on my bonnet all the time its too much work having to remove them to then have to take them upstairs to store them inside much easier leaving them on the bonnet.
Sure I don't drive around town to much a RFSV isn't exactly easy to be driving around the inner city area where I live but I do take it on adventures in its urban enviroment regularly and plus most the time I take it out you can almost be assured I am heading towards some bush track somewhere and I may just need those tools in fact the axe and winch was used the other day to remove a tree blocking the road to assist other people in lesser vehicles to get through.

[cummo]

Day-to-day I run with the holders in position but empty of tools. I am intending to remove the holders (at least temporarily) to give them a clean-up and a re-paint as they're looking a bit scrappy and leaching a little rust stains onto the bonnet. As my off-road forays are generally planned, following painting I will probably leave them off and install them when needed for a trip. Five minutes work with sockets and a spanner and they'll be back on ready to go.
The other advantage of them not being there all the time is it will make it far easier to wash and surface-treat the bonnet.




Cheers, Dave

[mudmouse]

I had a bloke at work hanging dung on me for fitting the awning, hi-lift, shovel etc with the comment of 'why are you carrying all that stuff around - trying to be a hero bush tucker man..' My response, 'No richard head, I don't need it now, but I do need it when I go away and if I take it off when I'm not away, I have to store it. And that means stuff in my garage taking up room I don't have'. (Now truck off out of my life you insect)

People are so intolerant of things they don't like/understand. Hmmm, that could be another thread.

If it's legal, do it. If it ain't, don't get caught!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The tools always remain on mine as it usually only goes out when attending military vehicle rallies and my armoured vehicle club events.

If I go bush I want to do it in comfort in the D4! :angel: (You don't need to do gardening when you're in the bush, the garden is already there!)

[jet]

I drove to drop off at Melbourne airport nothing happened so i will leave the stuff on except for the ax. the Vic roads guy did not say much about it when it went over the pit s he only said great to see a bit of our history driving around real Aussie good bloke .wow i really got a few good answers thanks guys.

[gusthedog]

Take them off. They look nearly as bad as chequerplate :wasntme:

Pricey

[MrLandy]

...Do you reckon even Les Hiddins drives around Sydney like a tool with half the garden shed on his bonnet?

[mudmouse]

Dunno, but I'd like to hear his response to being described as 'a tool'...:D

Live and let live mate.

[Mick_Marsh]

...Do you reckon even Les Hiddins drives around Sydney like a tool with half the garden shed on his bonnet?
Funny, that.

Last week he was on another forum wanting a set of tool bonnet mounting brackets. I nearly offered up my spare set.

[MrLandy]

Yeah? he dropped in for a beer the other day and said he was finished with the khaki, and that he was keen on a shiny new D5, first in line. ...so he'd be leaving his tools in the shed. 😳

[Mick_Marsh]

Funny, that.

Last week he was on another forum wanting a set of tool bonnet mounting brackets. I nearly offered up my spare set.
Pioneer Tool Fittings (http://remlr.com/forum/index.php'topic=3804.0)


Yeah? he dropped in for a beer the other day and said he was finished with the khaki, and that he was keen on a shiny new D5, first in line. ...so he'd be leaving his tools in the shed. 😳
So, where's the photo of you, Les, the D5 with beers in hand?

[MrLandy]

Ha! thanks Mick.

Here we are having a beer talking about how he doesn't need his garden tools on the bonnet while driving around the city, but that he loves having his shovel handy for planting tomato's at this time of year down at the shack. :p

He was surprised to hear that the spy pics purporting to be of the new D5 are actually interchangeable for either the new 2018 Defender, 2018 Disco Sport or 2018 Range Rover Sport, and that you can't get gold plated bonnet tool holders for any of them! :D

[Mick_Marsh]

Where are you?

Oh, here you are:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/10/41.jpg

Ran out of beer, hey?

Looks like he's got tool brackets on the bonnet there.

Oh, I think you need one of these:
http://www.cd.com.au/adobe-photoshop-courses.html?gclid=CPvK7eDn6MgCFQuavAodiNkDeA

[isuzurover]

All these regulations are about pedestrian safety.

With the height of a Perentie brush guard top rail, you would have to be travelling very fast or hit an extremely tall pedestrian for them to be thrown onto the bonnet where they could be injured by the gardening tools. Unfortunate as it sounds, with a Perentie Vs pedestrian crash at that speed, the tools would be the least of their worries.

Indeed.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the lifting eyes on the bullbar which would do a lot more damage.

[Mick_Marsh]

Indeed.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the lifting eyes on the bullbar which would do a lot more damage.
Might have something to do with the thread title.

Oh, look, the bull bar was mentioned earlier in this thread.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/coil-sprung-military-land-rovers/227055-driving-around-full-set-bonnet-tools-ok-4.html#post2441562

[gusthedog]

Indeed.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the lifting eyes on the bullbar which would do a lot more damage.

I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the 'tools' behind the wheel! The most dangerous tool there is ;)

[Eevo]

I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the 'tools' behind the wheel! The most dangerous tool there is ;)

i think its a loose nut behind the wheel.

[87County]

Fascinating read, always is when rulemakers get involved and then much more is revealed than is posted ....😀


Most issues aren't until someone wants to make it so 😀

[gusthedog]

Why do none of these pedestrian impaling reduction measures apply to motorcycles?

[Mick_Marsh]

Why do none of these pedestrian impaling reduction measures apply to motorcycles?
You'd have to look at the appropriate legislation. So far no one has offered it for perusal. Of course, any such legislation should be accompanied with the appropriate definitions and explanations.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

One sometimes gets the feeling that road rules are usually made by people who don't drive and Harold Scruby (pedestrian council).

[Mick_Marsh]

One sometimes gets the feeling that road rules are usually made by people who don't drive and Harold Scruby (pedestrian council).
I thought it was.

[DiscoMick]

I've got no idea if they're legal or not, but I'd hate to think I hit some pedestrian who got sliced open on my bonnet tools. Same reason you'll never see fishing rod holders on my bullbar. Just taking personal responsibility. Plus I think they're ugly, like permanently carrying a hi lift jack and shovel on your roofrack while driving around the city. Horses for courses.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If we're going to remove the tools on daily drives, then perhaps we should also be removing bull-bars, winches and roof racks in the city. 4 and six inch lifts have to go because they change the dynamics of 4WD V pedestrian crashes from run under (onto the tools and up on the roof rack) to run over where death is a significant result.

[Mick_Marsh]

Ban ambulances.
Statistics show more people die in ambulances than any other type of vehicle.

[BadCo.]

Ha!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AULRO mobile app

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Ban ambulances.
Statistics show more people die in ambulances than any other type of vehicle.Now that's just stupid. More people die in hospital than elsewhere, why not close them too.

[BadCo.]

While we are at it let's ban everything and do nothing for the rest of time because everything is too dangerous.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AULRO mobile app

[DiscoMick]

Homes are the most dangerous places. More people get hurt in homes than anywhere else, so let's ban homes and be homeless.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Eevo]

Ban ambulances.
Statistics show more people die in ambulances than any other type of vehicle.

ambulances are very dangerous.
i got run over by one.

[rathgar]

Six pages of discussion and the original topic appears to be well and truly lost, leaving information on the internet littered with refuse.

My understanding (no not opinion Mick) is that the only legislation relating to this (sort of), that is retrospective, is the legislation relating to forward facing projections on bull bars - fishing rod holders and the like.

Is there any other?

[AndyG]

ambulances are very dangerous.
i got run over by one.

Possibly well deserved :wasntme:

[DiscoMick]

ambulances are very dangerous.
i got run over by one.
I ran into a bus in Bangkok - is that similar?

[Eevo]

Possibly well deserved :wasntme:

im not sure what hurts more.

lying on the road after being hit by an ambulance or your words.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Six pages of discussion and the original topic appears to be well and truly lost, leaving information on the internet littered with refuse.

My understanding (no not opinion Mick) is that the only legislation relating to this (sort of), that is retrospective, is the legislation relating to forward facing projections on bull bars - fishing rod holders and the like.

Is there any other?Well there is the NSW VSI on protrusions and bullbars, Protrusions on vehicles - Vehicle standards - Safety & rules - Roads - Roads and Maritime Services (http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/vehicle-standards/protrusions.html) which talks about fishing rod holders and aerial brackets, and importantly suggests
Note that any aerials or winches which cannot meet this requirement should be removed after the operational need is completed. Emergency and rescue (State Rescue Board-accredited rescue vehicles, mines rescue) vehicles may have a constant operational need for this equipment and will not be rejected. (red high highlight mine) but no instructions about brackets or tools behind the bull bar.

So you have to remove your non conforming winch but you can keep the horticulture accessories. ;)

[rathgar]

..., and importantly suggests (red high highlight mine) but no instructions about brackets or tools behind the bull bar.

So you have to remove your non conforming winch but you can keep the horticulture accessories. ;)

Exactly my point so lets move on.

[rovernutter]

Why do these threads just move into nonsense because people want to confuse the issues.

The simple fact is that these have been the ADRS since 1988, they are not retrospective.

42.9. EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL PROTRUSIONS

42.9.1. No vehicle must be equipped with:

42.9.1.1. any object or fitting, not technically essential to such vehicle, which protrudes from any part of the vehicle so that it is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person;

42.9.1.2. any object or fitting technically essential to such vehicle unless its design, construction and conditions and the manner in which it is affixed to the vehicle are such as to reduce to a minimum the risk of bodily injury to any person;

42.9.1.3. any object or fitting which, because it is pointed or has a sharp edge, is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person; or

42.9.1.4. any bumper bar the end of which is not turned towards the body of the vehicle to a sufficient extent to avoid any risk of hooking or grazing.

Then we come to why have them if they were even legal. The axe is only good for a piece of timber on the ground. Pretty useless for clearing tracks, only good for camp fires. If you think you will need to clear tracks, take a chainsaw, or at least a bow saw.

Again, the short handle shovel is not much good for recovering a vehicle. You really need a long handled shovel. The short handle one is only really their for when you need to go to the toilet.

So for 4wding, the tools are pretty useless anyway and you don't need them.

Now lets get to the argument about it being a nanny state in having these laws. I will accept this argument from anyone that is prepared to move the tools and their mounts from the bonnet to inside on the dash. See if their view changes when it is only them that is likely to ever hit them.

Now back to the debate about whether ambulances are dangerous vehicles

[101 Ron]

Just to stir things up I have gun holders on the dashboard of the 101 landy and since the vehicle has all the gardening tools across the front of it, except for a axe holder, I use the gun racks to hold the axe on the dash board.(all standard fittings)
Chain saws are not allowed in most national parks.
Ps the fire extinguisher goes on a bracket in the very front of the vehicle just below the windscreen.
For rego on this vehicle a bull bar was fitted for no other reason than the front pintle hook protruded forward of the body work and the other option was to remove it.
101s have no real front bumper bar as used by the Aussie army.

[rathgar]

I cant be bothered searching through the legislation to investigate dates when I don't have bonnet mounted tools anyway. But given they were fitted in the factory I guess they were considered "essential" by the manufacture when they declared that the vehicles met the legislation relevant at the date of manufacture.

[BadCo.]

I use my gardening tools every time I go 4wding, ironically because they are easy to access and to put to use.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AULRO mobile app

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think that turbo air scoops are about as dangerous as a downwards pointed shove.

How about we remove turbo scoops too!

(You still need to discuss hospitals if you car going to discuss ambulances) Think of all the savings we could make if people didn't go to hospital and acquire golden staph!

Now lets talk about the bulldog on the bonnet of a Mack truck.

[Mick_Marsh]

Now lets talk about the bulldog on the bonnet of a Mack truck.
That will hurt as it carves a gouge through your hip as you travel across the bonnet of the truck.

[DiscoMick]

I think that turbo air scoops are about as dangerous as a downwards pointed shove.

How about we remove turbo scoops too!

(You still need to discuss hospitals if you car going to discuss ambulances) Think of all the savings we could make if people didn't go to hospital and acquire golden staph!

Now lets talk about the bulldog on the bonnet of a Mack truck.



I think Rovernutter summed up the legalities of it. If it makes injury more likely, it's probably not OK.


Incidentally, hospitals are concentrated full of diseases and their carriers, so they definitely should be banned.

[BadCo.]

...
If it makes injury more likely, it's probably not OK.
...


Huh? There will be injuries regardless...

[Homestar]

Now lets get to the argument about it being a nanny state in having these laws. I will accept this argument from anyone that is prepared to move the tools and their mounts from the bonnet to inside on the dash. See if their view changes when it is only them that is likely to ever hit them.


Would be happy to do so and my views wouldn't change. If I'm involved in a prang in my 101, it's gunna hurt regardless - then I'll end up in one of those dangerous Ambulances and Hospitals.

The only 2 reasons I won't is - (1) - there's no room on my dash for the tools, and (2) - they would be hard to get to there.

And, as you mentioned, the ADR's quoted only apply after 88 so my 101 - and some of the Perenties being talked about - are exempt from these ADR's anyway, so tool up my friends. :D

[Eevo]

its legal therefor safe isnt a great argument.

[Mick_Marsh]

It's interesting reading the ADRs.
You know, the ADRs cannot be applied retrospectively.
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/index.aspx

When a road vehicle is first used on Australian roads the relevant state or territory government's legislation generally requires that it continue to comply with the relevant ADRs as at the time of manufacture.https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx
ADR 42/00 was made 23/09/2006.
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L03251

So,

42.9. EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL PROTRUSIONS

42.9.1. No vehicle must be equipped with:

42.9.1.1. any object or fitting, not technically essential to such vehicle, which protrudes from any part of the vehicle so that it is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person;

42.9.1.2. any object or fitting technically essential to such vehicle unless its design, construction and conditions and the manner in which it is affixed to the vehicle are such as to reduce to a minimum the risk of bodily injury to any person;

42.9.1.3. any object or fitting which, because it is pointed or has a sharp edge, is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person; or

42.9.1.4. any bumper bar the end of which is not turned towards the body of the vehicle to a sufficient extent to avoid any risk of hooking or grazing.

may not even apply to the Perenties.

Of further thought, the pedestrian friendly barrow started being pushed about 1996, when the last of the Perenties were being built. It is an interesting read.
See attached.

With cars, the impact point is around the knee. Any pedestrian is likely to hit the bonnet of a passenger car and be run under. With Perenties, the impact point is around the upper torso. Any pedestrian is likely to bounce off the brush bar of the Perentie and hit the road in front of the Perentie and be run over.

So, we now come to some wording in rovernutters post. "is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person". The pedestrian is not likely hit the bonnet of the Perentie so the tools are not likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person.

[rovernutter]

the ADR's quoted only apply after 88 so my 101 - and some of the Perenties being talked about - are exempt from these ADR's anyway, so tool up my friends. :D
For vehicles built prior to 1989, it is up to each individual state to set the rules for registration in that state. Even though these rules will generally refer to the ADRs in place at the time of manufacture, the states can set whatever rules they like.

So in regard to the tools on the bonnet for pre-1989, you should look at the states rules. A number of states ban them, I am not sure how many, if any, allow them.

If anyone has a concern as to whether they are legal or not in their state, they could just send a photo to the registering authority and ask the question.

[Mick_Marsh]

If anyone has a concern as to whether they are legal or not in their state, they could just send a photo to the registering authority and ask the question.
Or not. Don't bother the registration authorities.
Get a roadworthy, register the Perentie and enjoy.

[MrLandy]

Or just take them off when you're not using them. Simple.

[Homestar]

My vehicle - with tool attached, and others I know personally - with tools attached - have had RWC done in Vic in the last few years, and had VicRoads run their eyes over them - If they weren't legal, I'm sure someone would have said something to someone....

I have no concerns about them being illegal, so case closed IMO, and as stated dozens of times here - if you're happy with them on, then leave them on, if not, then that's fine too.

[Disco Muppet]

I think if you get hit by a perentie hard enough to push you onto the bonnet, or by a 101 full stop, you're pretty much ****ed anyway :p

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

[DiscoMick]

As I said before, legal or not, why increase the likelihood of someone being injured more seriously than otherwise necessary?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Mick_Marsh]

As I said before, legal or not, why increase the likelihood of someone being injured more seriously than otherwise necessary?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
As I said before:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/coil-sprung-military-land-rovers/227055-driving-around-full-set-bonnet-tools-ok.html#post2445331

[rovernutter]

Mick, I am getting a little confused by your posts.

I actually thought your posts were pretty reasonable and tried to support the point I thought you were trying to get across.

You posted that generalised comments are not very helpful and that people should read the ADRs.


Whenever an issue such as this pops up, people often say "in my opinion". This, although true, is not helpful.
Some others say "it's in the ADRs" or "they had an exemption" then offer no proof or have misinterpreted the appropriate document. More unhelpful opinion or misinformation.


I would encourage you all to read the ADRs and VSIs that apply at the time of manufacture. There are some interesting words that are hidden away in those documents.
Don't try to interpret them yourself. When the vehicles were manufactured, teams of qualified automotive engineers interpreted the rules, determined they complied and fixed compliance plates to the vehicles. What makes you think you are more qualified than a team of automotive engineers?



You'd have to look at the appropriate legislation. So far no one has offered it for perusal. Of course, any such legislation should be accompanied with the appropriate definitions and explanations.

To help support what I thought you were trying to get the discussion around to, I posted up the relevant rules as per your request.

I thought you were right in saying that you should let the specialists determine it and not to try and interpret it yourself. But when I suggested sending a photo to the registering authorities (the experts) you post this:


Or not. Don't bother the registration authorities.
Get a roadworthy, register the Perentie and enjoy.

In regard to the rules I posted, you then post this:

It's interesting reading the ADRs.
You know, the ADRs cannot be applied retrospectively.
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/index.aspx
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx
ADR 42/00 was made 23/09/2006.
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L03251

So, we now come to some wording in rovernutters post. "is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person". The pedestrian is not likely hit the bonnet of the Perentie so the tools are not likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person.

It appears that you are indicating that ADR 42 did not come into place until 23/09/2006. I am not sure where you got that date from. It came into force 01/07/1988.

Also how have you come up with "any person" being only a pedestrian. Do you think that a motorcyclist or cyclist may hit the bonnet in a head on or T bone situation. Do you really think that a 6ft pedestrian would not go onto the bonnet. I think you will find that "any person" means just that. It does not matter whether that person is a driver passenger, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, or the occupant of another vehicle.

I go back to your original post:

Whenever an issue such as this pops up, people often say "in my opinion". This, although true, is not helpful.
Some others say "it's in the ADRs" or "they had an exemption" then offer no proof or have misinterpreted the appropriate document. More unhelpful opinion or misinformation.

I am just a little confused about what point you are trying to make. So may you can express your point in relation to the original question. Are the tool mounts on say a 1990 Perentie legal or not and offer what proof you have used in your answer.

[Mick_Marsh]

It appears that you are indicating that ADR 42 did not come into place until 23/09/2006. I am not sure where you got that date from. It came into force 01/07/1988.
Can you provide the version that was in place back in 1988?
Post it up.

That is "Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/00 ? General Safety Requirements) 1988".

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[rovernutter]

Can you provide the version that was in place back in 1988?
Post it up.

That is "Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/00 ? General Safety Requirements) 1988".

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/coil-sprung-military-land-rovers/101378d1446471385-driving-around-full-set-bonnet-tools-ok-adr42.jpg
The ADRs had to be reproduced in 2006 due to some legislative changes. None of the rules changed as explained in this note attached to the 2006 version:
"Australian Design Rule (ADR) 42/00 was originally determined in Determination of Motor Vehicle Standards Order No. 1 of 1989 and has been amended in one subsequent determinations. ADR 42/00 is being remade to comply with the requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (LIA) and to enable its registration in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. The remaking of ADR 42/00 has not altered the substance of the standard as last determined."

This explanation is also included on the website where the 3rd edition ADRs are listed. This might also help explain the 2006 date on the document.

"The Third Edition ADRs were re-made as national vehicle standards in September 2006 to comply with the requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (LIA) and registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) (www.comlaw.gov.au). The list of Third Edition ADRs below has each version (e.g. /00) linked to the FRLI web site, where the ADRs, as vehicle standards (including amendments and compilations) and explanatory statements, can be found.

The ADRs apply to vehicles in accordance with the "applicability dates" set out at the beginning (usually in an applicability table) of each standard. These dates (and not the year listed in the title of the standard?which in many cases only represents when the ADR was re-made for the FRLI) are the key to identifying which ADR applies for a particular year of manufacture of a new or used vehicle."

"ADR Numbering and Amendments
ADR X/00 indicates the original version of ADR X
ADR X/01 indicates the first revised version of a standard where the amendment increases in stringency, includes additional vehicle categories, or changes content significantly. ADR X/02 is the second revision, and so on."

So even though the date on the document is 2006, ADR 42/00 has the same rules in it as were applicable in 1988.

The applicability dates for all third edition ADRs applicable to NA (light commercial) vehicles are contained here: https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/files/ADR_Applicability_Summary-N-Group.pdf

[rathgar]

I cant be bothered searching through the legislation to investigate dates when I don't have bonnet mounted tools anyway. But given they were fitted in the factory I guess they were considered "essential" by the manufacture when they declared that the vehicles met the legislation relevant at the date of manufacture.

Might be different story if you wanted to fit them to a vehicle that was not fitted with them in the factory. But thats not the case.

[Barefoot Dave]

Rovernutter, are you still looking for a Perentie to get club rego?
I ask you to consider this before you take your righteous pursuit of the truth any further;
Conduct an AStd Risk assessment of bonnet tools vs any person.
You will see, as most jurisdictions have, that the likelihood is very low though the consequences may be catastrophic.
Applying the AStd calculation leaves the Risk as moderate.
Not worth enforcing a recall of all sold vehicles for emasculation, completely stopping all further disposals until the situation is rectified to your satisfaction, nor grinding the ADF to a halt to ensure the wheeled carriers of death meet current standards of pedestrian safety.

Mate, give it a rest.
If you are the MV enthusiast that you claim (elsewhere) to be, than live and let live.
If you consider that I have a vested interest in Perentie business, then you are right. Full disclosure, no secrets there.
What you have done with your letter writing and representations to civil servants across the country is have a handful of owners being required to remove their front recovery points.
You have also created a business opportunity for me that allows owners of these great vehicles to keep them intact AND comply with a rational level of pedestrian safety. I thank you ;)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

ADR 42/00 still doesn't apply to at least 250 Perenties built before July 1988.

Rovernutter. If you want to have the rules reinterpreted, get yourself elected to parliament or onto the Pedestrian Council where you can have your concerns heard.

Why come here and cause angst amongst genuine Perentie enthusiasts?

You are making friends of no one.

I am qualified in trauma and can tell you (again) that the tools on the bonnet of a Perentie are less of a problem than being hit by a Perentie (or defender or white van) in the first place.

[rovernutter]

ADR 42/00 still doesn't apply to at least 250 Perenties built before July 1988.

Rovernutter. If you want to have the rules reinterpreted, get yourself elected to parliament or onto the Pedestrian Council where you can have your concerns heard.

Why come here and cause angst amongst genuine Perentie enthusiasts?

You are making friends of no one.

I am qualified in trauma and can tell you (again) that the tools on the bonnet of a Perentie are less of a problem than being hit by a Perentie (or defender or white van) in the first place.
I am not sure what these comments are about. I just attempted to support Mick Marsh in his comments about how these discussions should take place.
I have posted the rules. I have not tried to interpret them, except for what "any person' might mean.
The question that started this thread was whether they are legal. I don't know and really don't care. I just posted the rules.
I have never heard of anyone being pulled over by the cops for having them. There appears to have been some issues when registering them.

So whether they are legal or not does not appear to be an issue at this stage. Cops, do however appear to bring things out of the woodwork from time to time to have a blitz on. Like in Victoria when they decided to start booking people for LED light bars.

So Mick asked twice for someone to post the rules. As no one else appeared willing to do the search to find them, I did. Now I appear to be in the **** for doing so. This is all very weird, I appear to being blamed for things that I have not done. I really do not know what I have done to upset you. This appears to be a really touchy subject for some reason. This is just weird. Obviously I was not aware that it is something that is not to be discussed. I apologise for any post that people have taken offence at.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

So you're not the REMLR member with the letter writing campaign then?

In NSW the issue of fittings on Perenties, particularly the lifting points on the brush bars was raised by AFM with the RTA technical branch prior to the commencement of the Perentie disposal program. RTA ruled that at the time of original build the fittings/protrusions complied with the rules. The sales program commenced on that basis.

It just seems to many of us that in spite of the approvals, some people here and on other forums keep coming back to the same arguments. Whether that is you or someone else it matters not. It remains that the instructions to inspectors issued by the NSW RMS, do not refer to protrusions on the bonnet behind the leading edge of the bull bar.

That this same conjecture keeps coming back time and again is frustrating to all of us.

[rovernutter]

So you're not the REMLR member with the letter writing campaign then?

It just seems to many of us that in spite of the approvals, some people here and on other forums keep coming back to the same arguments. Whether that is you or someone else it matters not. It remains that the instructions to inspectors issued by the NSW RMS, do not refer to protrusions on the bonnet behind the leading edge of the bull bar.

That this same conjecture keeps coming back time and again is frustrating to all of us.
I am not a member of REMLR.
I am not the one that started this thread about whether they are legal or not. I did not raise the issue.
I have not offered any opinion as to whether they are legal or not.
I only posted the rules as requested by Mick Marsh. Then Mick appeared to try and discredit the rules that I posted. Which confused me.
I have already apologised if any of my posts have offended anyone.
I am not sure what else I can do.
I am not going to get into a debate whether they are legal or not. All I have suggested is that they are pretty useless anyway, so if you have any concerns about them, why not remove them.

[isuzurover]

...

In NSW the issue of fittings on Perenties, particularly the lifting points on the brush bars was raised by AFM with the RTA technical branch prior to the commencement of the Perentie disposal program. RTA ruled that at the time of original build the fittings/protrusions complied with the rules. The sales program commenced on that basis.

...

This would be nice to have in writing if it is out there somewhere?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It may not help you in WA.

[isuzurover]

It may not help you in WA.

Every little bit counts. The rules are (reasonably) uniform nationally these days...

[DiscoMick]

I have no idea about the legalties and don't care much, but I do wonder if military vehicles are actually covered by ADRs or were they exempt at the time of manufacture. Also, if they were exempt then, but are now being registered for public usage, do they cease to be exempt and have to comply?
Just curious...

[rovernutter]

Every little bit counts. The rules are (reasonably) uniform nationally these days...
As the posts in this thread have shown, it is not about the rules, it is about the interpretation of these rules.
I do not think that a Government person in WA is really going to rely much on what interpretation a NSW government person has given, or even a Commonwealth person.
This is what causes all these debates, different people having different interpretations. As indicated earlier, it is only the interpretation of the State that you are registering the vehicle in that counts. That is why you need to check with them if you have any concerns.

[TerryO]

Gentlemen this thread has been closed while it is reviewed.