Fog Lights/ Driving Lights

[aniken]

Gee, we are going to get ourselves into a real mess here, with people in different states talking about different laws etc...

For Victoria, I found the following:

ROAD SAFETY (VEHICLES) REGULATIONS 1999 - SECT 817

Fog lamps

817. Fog lamps

(1) A person must not use on a highway a vehicle which has a fog lamp lit unless there are abnormal atmospheric conditions.

Penalty: 2 penalty units.

(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to a fog lamp which shows only a white light.

I guess this means that those south of the border may use fog lights???

Couldn't find any definition of fog light.

In SA, fog lights may show either white or amber light. They must be lower than the headlamps.

[olcoolone]

I think the ethical thing to do is contact Ford and tell them there is a problem with there XR's like the Fairmont’s about there fog lights.

We maybe able to suggest to then:-

a) Supply different lights to each state for the life of the vehicle. (They might be able to do a change over thing! Or have conversion stations at each boarder crossing.)

B) Place a multitude of lights on ever vehicle for every states regulation. (Like the night rider car "KIT")

c) Remove then altogether and replace the other lights with sealed beam unit.

d) Remove all lights altogether and put a sticker on the dash saying. "WARNING DO NOT USE THIS SELF PROPELLED CART AT NIGHT TIME do not remove this label as it will avoid your warranty"

e) Set up state parameter boarders enabling the fog lights to deactivate when driven over state lines and into other states that have different laws, or disable the car totally until the lights are removed and the system is reset by a Ford dealer.

f) Call then just lights.

g) Change the badges on the car to Holden (Holden’s are exempt from any stupid laws)

I think we should follow up with Ford and campaign our politicians over the matter as it is in the best interests of all Australians that this problem is sorted out promptly.

[Redhawk]

Sameo, sameo in WA, fog lights can only be used in inclement weather.

[plonky]

What you all must understand is that firstly there are the Australian Road Rules. In 2000 these became the uniform framework for traffic law in Australia. Each individual State has then relied upon the ARR's or drafted legislation relevant to that State that takes precedence over the ARR.

Therefore if the ARR declares that a foglight can only be used in inclement weather,or, not in a built up area, then that law is the BASIS for each State. In NSW therefore the ARR cannot be removed or overidden UNLESS the State legislation improves upon the intent of the ARR.

Therefore if in NSW it is an offence to use a foglight unless it is inclement weather etc, the NSW Legislation improves upon that what is written in the ARR.

What makes each State differenent is that in NSW, the Road Transport (Vehicle Standards) Regulation defines what is appropriate for that State in conjunction with the ARR and Australian Design Rule. In NSW a fog light is deemed to be that light which (not indicator or parking) is below the centre of the headlight and can be manually switched off/on. The colour of the lense is of no importance. There are rules in fitment to additional lights/fog lights, and they include they must be in pairs, be of a certain width apart and a certain height off the ground but no higher than the centre of the headlight.

An example would be a Hiboy ute with a light bar on the roof such as those driven by Ag college wankers. The lights are too high off the ground.

Each State may have slight differences in relevant legiislation but that is only an adapatation of the original Australian Road Rules.

Now if we want to get in to Environmental Protection Agency (Motor Vehicle Accessories) stuff............you'll then see that there are two ways to cost yourself more money than the modifications are worth!

Chuck laps or drive around like a galoot and you'll find that 'an authorised officer' (read POLICE) under the EPA Act may deem that the slight exhaust modification, fitment of Blow off Valve that vents out into the atmosphere, removal or modification of your standard airbox etc etc, affects your back pocket to a significant tune of thousands of dollars as well as paying for a mandatory drive by noise test at the EPA at Lidcombe, as well as the manufacturer voiding your warranty as well as fitting all the standard stuff back onto the car.

Either that or drive sensibly around town, don;t be dumb enough to get caught in a 40 School Zone, 60 or an 80 zone and if you do give it a boot, makes sure it's on a good road (100k plus limit) and if you are stopped be really nice and humble and you may be pleasantly surprised.

You don;t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to realise that there are a number of multi Agency operations in Sydney specifically designed to focus on young hoodlums, lappers and anti social galoots who are right into the Turbo scene. Some coppers are a bit slow on the infringements for Turbo cars/modifications but they will always ask the EPA/RTA blokes and there are some HWP guys that love pounding the hoodlums in the their "fulsik" modified grey imports, because they will run out of money before the HWP run out of pens.

[cdm]

Plonky: you appear to be very knowledgable on the technicalities of the laws, could you please clarify something for me? Does ADR state a tollerance to which a vehicles speedometer must be accurate to? Thanks.

[plonky]

Absoloutely!

The reasons as to why I am so fundamentally opposed to stationary speed cameras and vehicle mounted speed cameras are numerous, however, it boils down to there being NO attempt to cease the offence from occurring at that time and the deterrent or educational effect isn't felt until which time you receive the infringement in the mail.

There is nothing more effective than stopping a speeding motorist and, if required, issuing a TIN at that time. The effect is immediate, other drivers see it happening and no adult likes to be publically dispciplined by another adult.

A stationary camera doesn't do that. Once the driver has past the point where his speed can be detected he can speed up again. There can be no illusion that the camera can be doing constant laps of the same are of road, so he feels safe that he may not be caught.

State Labor Govts, have realised the indiscriminate cash cow they have lucked upon. The tolerance level on NSW cameras is down to 6% and down to 3% in Victoria. This means 66 in a 60 and you get a TIN for $123 and 2 points.

The Australian Standard for speedometer accuracy is 10%. This is why a vehicle mounted radar as used by the HWP has to allow for 10% plus the tolerance given for the type of instrument being used (Silver Eagle, KR10, ProLaser etc)

Now I do not encourage speeding. Speeding offences are a 'strict liability' offence (61 in a 60 is technicaly an offence) however stationary cameras are being used for a political purpose rather than an enforcement purpose. The revenue they raise goes straight to consolidated revenue (Govt. coffers) and is used to pay for electorate promises and to buy off marginal voters/swinging seats etc.

The limits that are in place (60, 80, 100,110) are sensible as well as 40k school zones. Most people on the road couldn't drive a stick up a dogs bum let alone their own, so I don;t advocate the increase in the limits.

In NSW you have no defence to a speed detected on a camera as the instruments are 100% accurate and it is a strict liability offence. However you could plead guilty and offer an explanation IF you did get a TIN for the lowest possible speed such as 66 in a 60.

In Victoria, if you don't do what I suggested then you need to have your head read. If you think 106 in a 100 or 63 in a 60 is OK, or if you think a Magistrate won;t give you a Section 10 (it used to be called a 556A - Proved and dismissed). for being 3k's over the speed limit even though your speedo only has to be 10% +/- then you are doing exactly what the State Govts rely upon. The inactivity of the majority.

They are not doing anything illegal, just immoral. However like any legal argument one side will always get their own experts to push their opinion and the other side will attempt a rebuttal.

The current RTA ad in NSW (two AU Falcons one at 60/one at 65) misrepresents facts which are accurate. It is true that if one car passes a given point at a rate 5kmh faster than the other, then it will take the faster car longer to stop. However, both cars have ABS which is activated. ABS increases the braking distance BUT allows the driver control over his steering. The faster car is still taking longer to stop but he can STEER AND AVOID the oncoming collision with the truck. To do that requires TRAINING.

Whilst ever there are no votes in it, mandatory retrospective defensive driver training will NEVER occur in this country.

[plonky]

What I forgot to mention was, that if you had a camera detected fine for as low as 63 in a 60 (Victoria) or 66 in a 60 (NSW) before you elect to have the matter heard at Court make sure that there has been no change in diff ratio, original brand of tyre and wheel or the cruise was set at the time.

The car would have to be "as dealer delivered" or completely standard. Therefore there can be no suggestion that a change in tyre sidewall, tread depth. wheel size etc has corrupted the accuracy of the speedo.

However the reality is that modern cars (since electronic speedometers) have an accuracy of +1 -1 or within 1%. The Aust Standard is 10% but that covers every vehicle sold or produced in Australia.

The Standard may very well be tightened up but the responsibility still lies with the driver.

[cdm]

Thanks plonky. That was a very interesting read. I apologise to taking this thread off topic but I appreciate plonky's detailed response to this question.

Cheers.

[OwnaXR6T]

Its Great having Plonky here! Here to help us car enthusiests Know what we can and cant do on the road.

Well anyway im awaiting a fine for my driving lights so mine are now switched off all the time. I believe the govenment should advitise these sort of laws so that we know what is right and wrong im sure there are alot of rules on the road that people are unsure on For instance what about 4 way stop signs, alot of people get confused with giving way to the right or first one to stop goes first, maybe plonky can elaberate on that one for us aswell. as for me last week was a shock to find out I wasnt able to use these lights on the highway. I was told by a car salemen and a cop on a horse that I wasnt alloud to use them where the road is lit up. so I thought highway driving was ok. well to my supprise I get pinched for them being on. I didnt even know they were on at the time. turned them on oneday and just forgot about it. oh well. wont happen again.

Good idea ex rexer putting up this post cause im sure I wasnt the only one not knowing about this law

[plonky]

It's a pity that such a wonderful past time like driving, and such magnificent inventions like cars, can be ruined for ideological reasons by Governments who have their own motivations. The United States is a classic example that encourages vehicle ownership due to the freedom it gives the individual and traffic classes are held in some schools as part of the curriculum. Fuel is cheap, cars can be modified extensively (except Democratic California) and speed limits are highre. Australia, on the otherhand, has had a significant influence by socialist style Govts that encourage 'collectivist style' of transport such as trains, buses etc. There are significant penalties to the motorist that owns a car and they are financial and emotional. The motorist is being punched in the face by State and Federal taxes, fuel excise, infringements etc and the emotional guilt relates to environmental damage, use of scarce resources (free markets prevent this) and vicarious liability to other (more ignorant and selfish) road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

So remember, DON'T USE YOUR FOG LIGHTS UNLESS IT IS IN FOG!!!!