Question for the local law enforcers

[jclures]

One of my customers has a VERY nice Holden 1 tonner. Quiet a few modifications, all plated and legal, or so he thought. After almost an hour being screwed over on the side of the road for a "random licence check", nothing could be found wrong with his vehicle. So he was ordered to have it inspected at a local Qld Tpt inspection station for a db test. The car came into work, we went over EVERYTHING before it had to be presented to Qld Tpt. Couldn't find anything wrong with it.

What I didn't know at that time was, because it's a 1 Tonner, it's a commercial vehicle. It must have load rated wheels and light truck tyres fitted, not alloy wheels and passenger tyres. He was defected.

Shane.

Shane do you know if the Holden 1 tonner could have been blue plated to allow the use on alloy wheels and passenger tyres.

[GUEY]

Shane do you know if the Holden 1 tonner could have been blue plated to allow the use on alloy wheels and passenger tyres.

It should just mean a down rating in load capacity. Same as you can do with trucks to change licence class. So should be no reason why not.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

Shane do you know if the Holden 1 tonner could have been blue plated to allow the use on alloy wheels and passenger tyres.

Not sure.

It should just mean a down rating in load capacity. Same as you can do with trucks to change licence class. So should be no reason why not.

You can down grade the GVM to under 4.5T, but I'm not sure if you can go lower ?

Will find out though.

Shane.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

Apparantly not.

QT's Approved Persons Handbooks for heavy and light vehicle
modifications indicate that specific light vehicle categories can utilise a
number of the heavy vehicle codes for modification purposes. The "S"
codes are not listed in either handbook as permissible for light vehicle
modifications and as such, the modification of light commercial vehicles
utilising the "S" codes is not permitted.
As such, the lowering of the GVM rating of light vehicles with a GVM not
exceeding 4.5 tonnes should not be carried out utilising the "S" codes of
VSB 6.
Additionally, QT policy stipulates that:
"A GVM cannot be downgraded without a physical change to the
vehicle which does not compromise its safety. Replacement of the
standard tyres with lower rated tyres to achieve a lower cost
registration category is considered to compromise safety and is not
permitted."
As such, the lowering of a vehicle's GVM rating cannot occur without a
physical change to the vehicle. However, where a lowering of GVM
rating relates to a manufacturer's variant of a particular model of vehicle
and a physical change does not occur between different models, the
previous requirement does not apply.
Specifically, QT does not permit the lowering of GVM rating of light
vehicles unless a manufacturer's lower GVM variant exists and the
manufacturer's method of de-rating is used (see General Safety
Concerns).

[GUEY]

Good info.

[Nutto]

Regarding the mention about the 1 tonne commercial vehicle and LT tyres,  it is interesting that most, if not all, new dual cab "1 ton" utes roll out of showrooms with passenger rated tyres as opposed to LT rated tyres.   Mine did it 2011 and it has a payload just over 1t.  They were even A/t's, when most are road tyres.  Other brands may get around it by speccing payload just under 1t (say 950kg), thereby not 'technically' a commercial class vehicle?

[Mallory Black]

it's not whether or not a tyre is LT rated, it's the actual load rating of the tyre you got to look at
same for rims

[Nutto]

Agree Mallory, i.e,  a 1 tonner ute can have a passenger tyre as long as it has the correct load rating.   An earlier post referred to the passeneger tyre vs LT tyre, where a defect was issued beacuse LT tyres were not used?

[edz]

The way they would get you is that the 1 Tonner left the factory with full seam welded 14 x 6 JJ Steel rims and 195 R 14 LT  8ply tyres, As opposed to what the late model 1 Ton ute left with as factory fitment .
Edit : So yep  if you could get a tyre / rims that fitted inside all the rules reguarding bigger tyres and rim sizes with the load rating you should be fine 

[Footy Shorts Shane]

Agree Mallory, i.e,  a 1 tonner ute can have a passenger tyre as long as it has the correct load rating.   An earlier post referred to the passeneger tyre vs LT tyre, where a defect was issued beacuse LT tyres were not used?

Agreed, I should have said, incorrect load rated tyres, not passenger tyres.

Is there a tyre to suit the Holden with a high enough load rating that isn't a L/T tyre?
I don't have the specs here, but I would assume it would have to be a 98 ?

Shane.

[#jonesy]

Had a quick look at the legislation link posted by MicMack.  This is a "regulation", and not the "Act"

Vic Legislation is differently constructed. 
Our Road Safety Act applies anywhere, unless stated otherwise.  Vic roadworthy power to inspect appears in our Act and is specific in its location. It must be used (including parked) on a road or road related area (eg footpaths etc)  In Vic our Road Safety Regulations only apply to roads and road related areas, unless stated otherwise.

Reading the Qld regulation there is no mention in the section relating to defect notices does it mention being used on a road.  I'm niot sure where their regulations apply.  Reading it, it sounds as if it could be anywhere, or at least on the back of a trailer.  (It is very difficult to read legislation unless you know how they are all interlinked.  eg  part A might say something, part B will clarify it further and parts C, D E may even go further into it.)

Re the Tyre Rim scenarios
You may find that it is the tyre placard that they don't comply with.  The placard is the sticker that says the tyre pressures etc, also lists the rating required, and may specify LT tyres.  (That is how we do it in Vic)

Would I defect a car on a trailer in Vic?  No, I'm not allowed to. 
Would I, if I could? Most likely not, would depend entirely on the scenario.

I am always wary of the story of a "friend of a friend" said.  They sually only tell the bits they want you to hear.

[gronk]

Would I defect a car on a trailer in Vic?  No, I'm not allowed to. 
Would I, if I could? Most likely not, would depend entirely on the scenario.

I am always wary of the story of a "friend of a friend" said.  They sually only tell the bits they want you to hear.

Talking to a work mate yesterday and he tells of attending Summernats this year and finds out coppers were pulling over modified cars on trailers........then making the owner take the car off the trailer.......then as soon as the car touched the ground, they went to town defecting it..

Now, I don't know the legalities of making someone taking a car off a trailer, and it all sounds incredible that it could happen, but that's the story I got told !!

[KingBilly]

but that's the story I got told !!

Gotta love a good story 

KB

[Brij]

So if a registered vehicle on a trailer can be defected, even though it is not actually being used on a road or road related area, can an unregistered car on a trailer be pinged for being unregistered?

Peter

[mickmac42]

I only responded to the OP in relation to Qld legislation because his question specifically related to Qld. I've added some clarifying comments to  clear up any confusion. Hope they help.

Had a quick look at the legislation link posted by MicMack.  This is a "regulation", and not the "Act"

In Qld, police get almost all of their powers from the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. In this instance, sections 60 and 63. The fact that one is an Act and the other is a regulation is of no significance other than to identify what sort of information is contained. TO(RUM-VSS) is called a regulation because it deals with matters of a regulatory nature. I don't recall there being any powers or authority being delegated (but i am happy to stand corrected) because it's taken care of in the PPRA. The offence for driving or parking a defective vehicle comes from the regulation. The power to stop, search/inspect and move comes from the PPRA.

Reading the Qld regulation there is no mention in the section relating to defect notices does it mention being used on a road.

TO(RUM-VSS) Reg 2010
5 Compliance with vehicle standards
(1) A person must not drive or park, or permit someone else to
drive or park, a vehicle on a road

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units ($110 per penalty unit as of 2013)

Mike

[tourin n fishin]

Just goes to show how "pigheaded" some coppers can get....no wonder even their own mothers don't like them ( Highway Patrol )

They get even less respect from me when I see them speeding and also doing burnouts just for the fun of it......

Totally agree with that, I have seen several ( at least 4) h'way patrol cars do burnouts and was passed by 2 that were racing along the highway one night at waaaay over the limit.

[#jonesy]

In Qld, police get almost all of their powers from the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. In this instance, sections 60 and 63. The fact that one is an Act and the other is a regulation is of no significance other than to identify what sort of information is contained. TO(RUM-VSS) is called a regulation because it deals with matters of a regulatory nature. I don't recall there being any powers or authority being delegated (but i am happy to stand corrected) because it's taken care of in the PPRA. The offence for driving or parking a defective vehicle comes from the regulation. The power to stop, search/inspect and move comes from the PPRA.

TO(RUM-VSS) Reg 2010
5 Compliance with vehicle standards
(1) A person must not drive or park, or permit someone else to
drive or park, a vehicle on a road

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units ($110 per penalty unit as of 2013)

Mike

Regulation 5 shows that it an offence to use the vehicle on a road  that does not comply.
Regulation 8 has the power to issue a defect. 
(1) Subsection (2) applies if an authorised officer reasonably believes—
       (a) that a vehicle is defective; or
       (b) that a vehicle is not defective, but that driving or parking it on a road would, for another reason, be in contravention of section 5.
(2) The authorised officer may, by notice in the approved form (a defect notice), require ......

Although this mentions road, it doesn't say being used at the time.
You would have to read the Act to see if it restricts the applicaiton of the regualtion.
I have to admit i would never have looked at the PPRA for the power to stop a car, in Vic it is in our Road Safety Act.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

Regulation 5 shows that it an offence to use the vehicle on a road  that does not comply.
Regulation 8 has the power to issue a defect. 
(1) Subsection (2) applies if an authorised officer reasonably believes—
       (a) that a vehicle is defective; or
       (b) that a vehicle is not defective, but that driving or parking it on a road would, for another reason, be in contravention of section 5.
(2) The authorised officer may, by notice in the approved form (a defect notice), require ......

Although this mentions road, it doesn't say being used at the time.
You would have to read the Act to see if it restricts the applicaiton of the regualtion.
I have to admit i would never have looked at the PPRA for the power to stop a car, in Vic it is in our Road Safety Act.

Thanks for your input #jonesy. Is section 5, Regulation 5 ? Or is section 5 something else entirely different?

Shane.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

I only responded to the OP in relation to Qld legislation because his question specifically related to Qld. I've added some clarifying comments to  clear up any confusion. Hope they help.

In Qld, police get almost all of their powers from the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. In this instance, sections 60 and 63. The fact that one is an Act and the other is a regulation is of no significance other than to identify what sort of information is contained. TO(RUM-VSS) is called a regulation because it deals with matters of a regulatory nature. I don't recall there being any powers or authority being delegated (but i am happy to stand corrected) because it's taken care of in the PPRA. The offence for driving or parking a defective vehicle comes from the regulation. The power to stop, search/inspect and move comes from the PPRA.

TO(RUM-VSS) Reg 2010
5 Compliance with vehicle standards
(1) A person must not drive or park, or permit someone else to
drive or park, a vehicle on a road

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units ($110 per penalty unit as of 2013)

Mike

Thanks for your input Mike, trying to understand that, but........... that's fkn deep.

Shane.

[KingBilly]

Totally agree with that, I have seen several ( at least 4) h'way patrol cars do burnouts

Not acceptable.

and was passed by 2 that were racing along the highway one night at waaaay over the limit.

And you spoke to them afterwards and know the reason why they were speeding?  Maybe they just happened to be going to an urgent job.  Did you consider that?

KB

[#jonesy]

Thanks for your input #jonesy. Is section 5, Regulation 5 ? Or is section 5 something else entirely different?

Shane.

Sorry should have written section 5 (same thing)  In Victoria it would be referred to as "regulation 5"   We use "section" when referring to a part of an Act to differentiate between the two.

Good luck trying to read the legislation, it isn't the easiest thing to do unless you understand the structure.

[Bird]

And you spoke to them afterwards and know the reason why they were speeding?  Maybe they just happened to be going to an urgent job.  Did you consider that?

I have some swamp forsale if your interestred..

[jclures]

As this thread is already hijacked with what the boys in blue did, or did not do, I would like to ask another question on tires.

This is my maths.

WB one tonner 8 cylinder kerb weight 1360 + Load 1000 + fuel and oil 100 + driver and passenger 250 = 2710 divided by 4 tires =  677.5kg =1493.63 lbs

so the minimum load index would be 95 @ 1521 lbs
is that right? 

[Footy Shorts Shane]

This is my maths.

WB one tonner 8 cylinder kerb weight 1360 + Load 1000 + fuel and oil 100 + driver and passenger 250 = 2710 divided by 4 tires =  677.5kg =1493.63 lbs

so the minimum load index would be 95 @ 1521 lbs
is that right? 

I thought it was 60/40 with weight, bringing the load rating up to 97 or 98 or so.

I'm not sure though.

Shane.

[jclures]

Thanks Shane,

I also had been looking at running these wheels, in 8" front  maybe 8.5" on the rear,  they have a load rating of 1525 lbs per wheel.



http://centerlinewheels.com/wheels_detail.php?mw_id=34&sw_id=363