Robert L,
Re your comment "I have been aware of this for many years and have tried to comply with the law but this is difficult because of how hard it is to get GOOD information" in your post of 10-11-05 :
I could not agree more - we seem to have to live in a sea of rumours & innuendo. For the life of me, I just cannot understand why the various State bodies don't/can't simply agree on a sensible rolling set of rules in terms of their interpretations of the ADR's, and then publish them.
When I started my quest for rego, I rang the RTA (thinking, naturally, that they would be able to tell me what was required). No way - in what I think is an abysmal abbrogation of responsibility, they told me to contact a "certified engineer" for that info - breath-takingly stupid ! WE pay these bureaucrats' salaries to make & administer rules, & all they do is distance themselves from us by sending confusing "bulletins" about their interpretation of the ADR's out to the certified engineers (who then re-interpret them as best they can). All this on a State-by-State basis, they are not even setting the actual ADR's - mindless !
There is no excuse for not having a national standard set of rules for kit cars / low volume / hot-rods, etc. This national standard should recognise a few simple home-truths about our industry :
- We do not have the resources of Holden/Ford, etc to do crash tests.
- We constitute such a microscopic proportion of the cars on the road, so should be given special consideration regarding emmissions standards. This is not simply pleading for an "easy ride", but a recognition that ICV builders often take up to 5-7 years to complete their cars, so planning for what "might be required" that far in advance is an impossibility. A sensibly defined uniform national "rolling window of opportunity" (min 5 years) for engines is required. I am ok with stock engine / stock ECU, but beyond that is silly and impractical (other than maybe "similar CAT's").
- The vast majority of us are "mature" people who have put our hearts & souls (not to mention our wallets) into our cars. We are not reckless drivers on the road like the 22 year-old brigade with their $5000 hopped-up Japanese buzz-boxes. The Insurance industry clearly recognises this distinction, so why can't the bureaucrats ?
- None of us would have any problem with sensible "safety requirements" - chassis torsion/beaming tests, seat belts, brakes, lights, wipers - as long as they were "sensible" (ie, maybe some concessions for replica cars whose essential design did not allow for headlights which are 4ft off the ground) !
End of rant & rave for the moment .... !!
BUT - "divide & conquer" - this is what the bureacrats are doing (though I doubt they have the wit to realise it - they just think that if they make it all harder & harder, we'll all just go away - more administration (=higher pay for supervising more staff, etc) & less actual work).
In numbers, there is strength - any ideas on what we can ALL do to stop the rot ? I would hate to think that our kids will not have the same opportunities as we had to "follow our passion".
Kind Regards,
Peter D.