driving around with full set of bonnet tools is it ok

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

As I said before:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/coil-sprun...ml#post2445331

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rovernutter

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

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/attachment...s-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: [ame]https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/files/ADR_Applicability_Summary-N-Group.pdf[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ;)

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.