LoginPoor Visibility Crash, Nsw Hume Highway, Late 2008 - Advocates in part necessity for mandatory rear fog lamp!
Upload Entry
-
Keepleft
-
- Keepleft
- Prosecutor
- Member No.: 32,171
- Joined: 19-September 05
- Posts: 296
-
From: Lake Macquarie, NSW AUS
Post #1
18th August 2009 - 10:44 AM
18th August 2009 - 10:44 AM
With ref to Kedderz @ Toymods for most of these. Note the dark clouds.
Okay, we blame 'speed', but it helps to be able to see the lead cars . . . .
I've not downsized the pics, so viewers can zoom closer for greater detail with minimum distortion. (Could respondents kindly watch language in this thread:-)
Australia is continuing its efforts at harmonising is vehicle design rules with the UNECE Global Technical Regulations for land transport, one of those international rules, "UNECE Transport Regulation 38" effectively mandates for at least a single rear fog lamp; typically right of the vehicles centerline.
In Australia to date, we have opted out of this rule by 'optionalising' it. This is achieved in relation to light vehicles (cars, vans & 4WD's) by ADR 13, Part 8.5.1.
This to my mind is serious negligence; road users have a fundamental right to the very best global technical rules existing, therefore - sidelining certain rules is *not* conducive to a safer road network.
To that end the NSW Government has asked RTA's "Centre For Road Safety", to raise the compulsory fitting of rear fog lamps at national level. (Meaning to new market vehicles, not those currently registered. The effort will have support of both sides of politics in this jurisdiction I'd signal).
The move is long overdue and there is more to 'it' than counting 'death', for example, to help reduce the cost of insurance payouts etc arising from rear-end crashes involving wet and poor visibility weather phenomena, that also typically involve 'excessive speed' as one of the contributing criteria.
The NSW Fire Brigade fire fighting vehicles have had a rear fog lamp fitted as a *mandatory requirement* for some years, for use in bushfire smoke conditions, dust etc and so on. (The NSW Rural Fire Service choose to *not* to fit the lamp function, preferring instead to rely on the vehicles standard hazard-warning lights)
Another example why the NSW government seeks to adopt rear fog lamps:- (Ref to WIKI)
The rear fog lamp is cheap insurance under such low-visibility examples. Naturally, an enforcement program by road authorities and police would likely be undertaken, and text regarding the correct use of rear fog lamps has been in all state and territory driver handbooks a number of years.
In Australia, Australian Road Rule 221(e), permits use of a vehicles "hazard-warning lamps" under hazardous weather conditions on moving vehicles. This allowance was carried into national legislation by NSW back in the 1990's, and in turn was adopted here in NSW back 1988 (Brad Hazzard, LIB) as State law, it followed a 53 car pileup in heavy fog on the NSW F6. NSW has often seen similar events on other key roads. SE QLD ditto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4
However, the use of hazard-warning lamps by Australia,- effectively as a defacto rear fog lamp system, runs contrary to the UN Convention on Road Traffic of 1968 and amendments to date. Australia contracted the 49' Convention (Gazz 53') and in doing so undertook to maintain ongoing uniformity, unless we formally withdraw from the process.
* A cars flashing hazard-warning lamps ARE NOT brighter or stronger - than a single rear fog lamp, often by a matter of seconds.
5 September 2009, picture below RTA F3 camera shot: Toyota PRADO, the owner has modified the two 'dummy' rear fog lamp compartments "as extra brake-lights", effectively a defect under ADR 49/00 in regards photometrics; basically when applying the brakes, those behind get to see two varying levels of brake-light brightness. Angle-of-view performance comes into play. Another reason why ADR 13 Part 8.5.1 needs to be rescinded, to prevent 'dumb' modifications like this. (Poor quality mobile phone pic taken from Prado point forum).
An historic crash event example (of many similar where we blame speed), Tuesday, September 24, 2002
I'll add more detail including pics as needed to this post as I get time.
Link - Darwin fog event.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/07/30/4883_ntnews.html
Link - Calls for greater roadside safety.
http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2009/07/...oadside-safety/
Link - Page 2 references poor visibility crash (rain F3) and each page - the need for safety vests & warning triangles in cars.
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=63394
Link - Singapore penalty for mis-using front and or rear fog lamps:-) See Question 5!
http://ask.lta.gov.sg/home/lta/listings.as...y=45052#2289838
This post has been edited by Keepleft: Nov 12 2009, 11:51 PM
--------------------
QUOTE
Just got back from a parts run to Sydney and back from Canberra, on the way back it poured with rain, lots of standing water and people not slowing down. I was thinking to myself, there WILL be an accident and sure enough just on the top of a crest!
Okay, we blame 'speed', but it helps to be able to see the lead cars . . . .
I've not downsized the pics, so viewers can zoom closer for greater detail with minimum distortion. (Could respondents kindly watch language in this thread:-)
Australia is continuing its efforts at harmonising is vehicle design rules with the UNECE Global Technical Regulations for land transport, one of those international rules, "UNECE Transport Regulation 38" effectively mandates for at least a single rear fog lamp; typically right of the vehicles centerline.
In Australia to date, we have opted out of this rule by 'optionalising' it. This is achieved in relation to light vehicles (cars, vans & 4WD's) by ADR 13, Part 8.5.1.
This to my mind is serious negligence; road users have a fundamental right to the very best global technical rules existing, therefore - sidelining certain rules is *not* conducive to a safer road network.
To that end the NSW Government has asked RTA's "Centre For Road Safety", to raise the compulsory fitting of rear fog lamps at national level. (Meaning to new market vehicles, not those currently registered. The effort will have support of both sides of politics in this jurisdiction I'd signal).
The move is long overdue and there is more to 'it' than counting 'death', for example, to help reduce the cost of insurance payouts etc arising from rear-end crashes involving wet and poor visibility weather phenomena, that also typically involve 'excessive speed' as one of the contributing criteria.
The NSW Fire Brigade fire fighting vehicles have had a rear fog lamp fitted as a *mandatory requirement* for some years, for use in bushfire smoke conditions, dust etc and so on. (The NSW Rural Fire Service choose to *not* to fit the lamp function, preferring instead to rely on the vehicles standard hazard-warning lights)
Another example why the NSW government seeks to adopt rear fog lamps:- (Ref to WIKI)
QUOTE
NSW Rural Fire Service involved in freeway pile-up.
On Monday 14 April 1997 at 1:59am Bargo Bush Fire Brigade (now known as Bargo Rural Fire Brigade) received a call to attend a Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) northbound on the Hume Highway, just south of the Bargo exit. The crew pulled out of the station in Bargo 4 (Cat 9) & Bargo 1 (Cat 1).The crew arrived onto the highway heading south, responding to assist Mittagong brigade hazmat for an oil spill that was located on the north bound side at the Tennessee Orchiad. The crew were travelling along the freeway at the southern Bargo exit ramp and approached a Police car sitting on the side of the road in the southbound lanes trying to slow traffic down from the MVA on the northbound side. Bargo 4 received a call from Bargo 1 to say that the visibility was poor due to heavy fog. As the crew travelled further down the freeway, they reached extremely poor conditions and hit the fog really bad. All emergency lights were turned on, but the crew could still see nothing. The crew pulled over on the left side near the side guard railing to see if they could see anything. Nothing was visible, so one crew member went to get out of the truck to help direct Bargo 1 to the north-bound MVA. As the member opened the door and started to climb down, next minute, a large bang occurred - Bargo 1 got hit from the rear by a paper truck that was travelling along at 110 km/h. Bargo 1 was hit so hard that the truck spun around and left the crew member lying in the middle of the road. As Bargo 1 sat on the side of the road, with the left side facing towards to the south bound traffic. The driver was stuck inside the truck with the door jammed. While the rest of the crew were assisting the member injured climbing out that was lying on the road. As the driver was stuck inside, the truck was hit by a blue circle cement tanker that was travelling at a speed of 83 km/h. Bargo 1 almost rolled but was stopped by the side guard rail. A crew member jumped up and dragged the trapped driver out of the right hand window. As they jumped out of the truck, another bang was heard, then another and then another. The crew tried to get further away from the road, as they heard more trucks coming in, another bang was heard, then another, then another.
It was amazing that there were no fatalities that night and 2 crew members injured. 1 was released that day, and the other was released from hospital days later.
On Monday 14 April 1997 at 1:59am Bargo Bush Fire Brigade (now known as Bargo Rural Fire Brigade) received a call to attend a Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) northbound on the Hume Highway, just south of the Bargo exit. The crew pulled out of the station in Bargo 4 (Cat 9) & Bargo 1 (Cat 1).The crew arrived onto the highway heading south, responding to assist Mittagong brigade hazmat for an oil spill that was located on the north bound side at the Tennessee Orchiad. The crew were travelling along the freeway at the southern Bargo exit ramp and approached a Police car sitting on the side of the road in the southbound lanes trying to slow traffic down from the MVA on the northbound side. Bargo 4 received a call from Bargo 1 to say that the visibility was poor due to heavy fog. As the crew travelled further down the freeway, they reached extremely poor conditions and hit the fog really bad. All emergency lights were turned on, but the crew could still see nothing. The crew pulled over on the left side near the side guard railing to see if they could see anything. Nothing was visible, so one crew member went to get out of the truck to help direct Bargo 1 to the north-bound MVA. As the member opened the door and started to climb down, next minute, a large bang occurred - Bargo 1 got hit from the rear by a paper truck that was travelling along at 110 km/h. Bargo 1 was hit so hard that the truck spun around and left the crew member lying in the middle of the road. As Bargo 1 sat on the side of the road, with the left side facing towards to the south bound traffic. The driver was stuck inside the truck with the door jammed. While the rest of the crew were assisting the member injured climbing out that was lying on the road. As the driver was stuck inside, the truck was hit by a blue circle cement tanker that was travelling at a speed of 83 km/h. Bargo 1 almost rolled but was stopped by the side guard rail. A crew member jumped up and dragged the trapped driver out of the right hand window. As they jumped out of the truck, another bang was heard, then another and then another. The crew tried to get further away from the road, as they heard more trucks coming in, another bang was heard, then another, then another.
It was amazing that there were no fatalities that night and 2 crew members injured. 1 was released that day, and the other was released from hospital days later.
The rear fog lamp is cheap insurance under such low-visibility examples. Naturally, an enforcement program by road authorities and police would likely be undertaken, and text regarding the correct use of rear fog lamps has been in all state and territory driver handbooks a number of years.
In Australia, Australian Road Rule 221(e), permits use of a vehicles "hazard-warning lamps" under hazardous weather conditions on moving vehicles. This allowance was carried into national legislation by NSW back in the 1990's, and in turn was adopted here in NSW back 1988 (Brad Hazzard, LIB) as State law, it followed a 53 car pileup in heavy fog on the NSW F6. NSW has often seen similar events on other key roads. SE QLD ditto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4
However, the use of hazard-warning lamps by Australia,- effectively as a defacto rear fog lamp system, runs contrary to the UN Convention on Road Traffic of 1968 and amendments to date. Australia contracted the 49' Convention (Gazz 53') and in doing so undertook to maintain ongoing uniformity, unless we formally withdraw from the process.
* A cars flashing hazard-warning lamps ARE NOT brighter or stronger - than a single rear fog lamp, often by a matter of seconds.
QUOTE
ARTICLE 32:- 1968 UN Convention on Road Traffic
Rules of the use of lamps
13. Hazard warning signal may be used only to warn other road-users of a
particular danger:
(a) When a vehicle which has broken down or has been involved in an
accident cannot be moved immediately, so that it constitutes an obstacle to other
road-users;
(b) When indicating to other road-users the risk of an imminent danger.
Rules of the use of lamps
13. Hazard warning signal may be used only to warn other road-users of a
particular danger:
(a) When a vehicle which has broken down or has been involved in an
accident cannot be moved immediately, so that it constitutes an obstacle to other
road-users;
(b) When indicating to other road-users the risk of an imminent danger.
QUOTE
To quote Athol Mullen, NSW Certifying Engineer on the subject
The 12-pin trailer connector is documented in ADR 42/... along with the 7-pin. The 12-pin is an extension of the "Britax" inline 7-pin type. One of the extra pins is for the rear fog light circuit. A move to mandatory rear fogs would also require a move to make the 12-pin trailer connector compulsory, including wiring of the rear fog light into that connector.
One of the other pins on the 12-pin is a larger diameter earth pin, which is in addition to the small one in the original 7-pin section. This addresses the most common trailer wiring problem, a poor earth connection, so rear fogs are not the only reason to implement this.
As I said in my blog, we also need to address misuse of front and rear fog lights. Misuse will impair acceptance.
The 12-pin trailer connector is documented in ADR 42/... along with the 7-pin. The 12-pin is an extension of the "Britax" inline 7-pin type. One of the extra pins is for the rear fog light circuit. A move to mandatory rear fogs would also require a move to make the 12-pin trailer connector compulsory, including wiring of the rear fog light into that connector.
One of the other pins on the 12-pin is a larger diameter earth pin, which is in addition to the small one in the original 7-pin section. This addresses the most common trailer wiring problem, a poor earth connection, so rear fogs are not the only reason to implement this.
As I said in my blog, we also need to address misuse of front and rear fog lights. Misuse will impair acceptance.
5 September 2009, picture below RTA F3 camera shot: Toyota PRADO, the owner has modified the two 'dummy' rear fog lamp compartments "as extra brake-lights", effectively a defect under ADR 49/00 in regards photometrics; basically when applying the brakes, those behind get to see two varying levels of brake-light brightness. Angle-of-view performance comes into play. Another reason why ADR 13 Part 8.5.1 needs to be rescinded, to prevent 'dumb' modifications like this. (Poor quality mobile phone pic taken from Prado point forum).
An historic crash event example (of many similar where we blame speed), Tuesday, September 24, 2002
QUOTE
Police yet to release victims' names.
Police say it could be some time before the names of three people killed in an horrific road crash on the Pacific Highway, north of Taree, can be released.
The crash happened in thick fog on Sunday night in the south-bound lane where it appears a sedan run into the back of a semi - the crashed vehicles were then hit by another semi and a four-wheel drive.
Three people, two of whom are believed to be from the Taree area, were killed instantly, while two other adults and a child remain in a stable condition in Manning Base Hospital.
Police say dental records will have to be used to identify two of the victims, which could take some time.
Police say it could be some time before the names of three people killed in an horrific road crash on the Pacific Highway, north of Taree, can be released.
The crash happened in thick fog on Sunday night in the south-bound lane where it appears a sedan run into the back of a semi - the crashed vehicles were then hit by another semi and a four-wheel drive.
Three people, two of whom are believed to be from the Taree area, were killed instantly, while two other adults and a child remain in a stable condition in Manning Base Hospital.
Police say dental records will have to be used to identify two of the victims, which could take some time.
QUOTE
Three survive highway inferno as van slams into wine truck, by John Kidman
December 9, 2007
THREE people were lucky to escape with their lives when a van slammed into the back of a semitrailer laden with wine bottles in heavy fog yesterday.
The van, carrying a man and woman, burst into flames upon impact as the vehicles headed south along the Hume Highway near Pheasants Nest, just south of Sydney, shortly before 1am.
A car travelling behind then collided with the van, with the pile-up closing the highway for two hours.
December 9, 2007
THREE people were lucky to escape with their lives when a van slammed into the back of a semitrailer laden with wine bottles in heavy fog yesterday.
The van, carrying a man and woman, burst into flames upon impact as the vehicles headed south along the Hume Highway near Pheasants Nest, just south of Sydney, shortly before 1am.
A car travelling behind then collided with the van, with the pile-up closing the highway for two hours.
I'll add more detail including pics as needed to this post as I get time.
Link - Darwin fog event.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/07/30/4883_ntnews.html
Link - Calls for greater roadside safety.
http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2009/07/...oadside-safety/
Link - Page 2 references poor visibility crash (rain F3) and each page - the need for safety vests & warning triangles in cars.
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=63394
Link - Singapore penalty for mis-using front and or rear fog lamps:-) See Question 5!
http://ask.lta.gov.sg/home/lta/listings.as...y=45052#2289838
This post has been edited by Keepleft: Nov 12 2009, 11:51 PM
--------------------
Buy a UNECE R27 Spec hazard-warning triangle for your vehicle for use at crash scenes (to prevent secondary) and breakdowns. SUPPLIERS - via "auto-parts retailers"; I suggest HELLA Part No 2901 or; PRO-KIT Item No. RG9212, $21. From; BUNNINGS stores nationwide - Code 14 580, $9.90. AS3790 accepted. http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/...veSafePart4.pdf
Report Comments
-
Boost Network 15
-
aljetPost #8Holy crap.. That's messed up. Especially the story about the fire truck.
Ya see why fog lights should be MANDATORY on all vehicles. People laugh when I tell them I insist on having car with at least 1 rear but it's instances like this that call for them. 29th October 2009 - 12:30 AM
Reply
KeepleftPost #9QUOTE (aljet @ Oct 29 2009, 12:30 AM)
Holy crap.. That's messed up. Especially the story about the fire truck.
Ya see why fog lights should be MANDATORY on all vehicles. People laugh when I tell them I insist on having car with at least 1 rear but it's instances like this that call for them.
Absolutely, the matter is on the AMVCB agenda for 24 November 09. Will advise outcome - next step.
*= Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board. 2nd November 2009 - 02:20 PM
Reply
KeepleftPost #10The subject is to be studied further, latest Government correspondence, 10 December 2009:-
QUOTEThe matter of compulsory rear fog lamps on MA, MC and MB/NA category vehicles, and the discrepancy between Australian Design Rule 13/00 Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles (ADR 13/00) and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe R48/03, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles With Regard to the Installation of Lighting and Light-Signalling Devices (UNECE R48/03) was discussed in depth at the recent meeting of the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board, comprising the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), who convene the forum, and representatives from the road authority form each jurisdiction across Australia and New Zealand.
DITRDLG advises that at the time ADR 13/00 was prepared and introduced in 1985, it is unsure of the requirements for rear fog lamps in Europe, but they did not attract much discussion during the ADR’s public comment consultation period. Accordingly, they were not included as a mandatory item in the ADR.
Once a global technical regulation (GTR) is approved, it does not automatically receive endorsement in Australia. Instead, if the GTR results in changes to standards that could impact on local industry or members of the public, DITRDLG are obliged to submit it to extensive public consultation, including a regulatory impact statement (RIS) that assesses the cost-benefit relationship associated with introducing the changes. When UNECE R48/03 was introduced, items such as mandatory rear fog lamps were considered an imposition on local industry and the community and could not be introduced without the necessary consultation and RIS, which would have delayed its implementation. Instead, the decision was made to make rear fog lamps optional.
DITRDLG further advises that it is currently comparing all the ADRs against the equivalent referenced UNECEs to identify discrepancies between them, with the view to rationalising them. Mandatory rear fog lamps will be assessed as part of this process and it is anticipated that they will be subjected to extensive consultation.
I hope this explains the reasons for the difference between ADR 13/00 and UNECE R48/03 and the intention of DITRDLG to investigate the matter further.
Protecting local industry?
NB; rear fog lamp function was mandated in GB back in 1980, on the Continent - earlier than that. 10th December 2009 - 05:03 PM
Reply
trev0006Post #11Wow very scary pictures.
QUOTE (Keepleft @ Aug 17 2009, 04:44 PM)With ref to Kedderz @ Toymods for most of these. Note the dark clouds.
Okay, we blame 'speed', but it helps to be able to see the lead cars . . . .
I've not downsized the pics, so viewers can zoom closer for greater detail with minimum distortion. (Could respondents kindly watch language in this thread:-)
Australia is continuing its efforts at harmonising is vehicle design rules with the UNECE Global Technical Regulations for land transport, one of those international rules, "UNECE Transport Regulation 38" effectively mandates for at least a single rear fog lamp; typically right of the vehicles centerline.
In Australia to date, we have opted out of this rule by 'optionalising' it. This is achieved in relation to light vehicles (cars, vans & 4WD's) by ADR 13, Part 8.5.1.
This to my mind is serious negligence; road users have a fundamental right to the very best global technical rules existing, therefore - sidelining certain rules is *not* conducive to a safer road network.
To that end the NSW Government has asked RTA's "Centre For Road Safety", to raise the compulsory fitting of rear fog lamps at national level. (Meaning to new market vehicles, not those currently registered. The effort will have support of both sides of politics in this jurisdiction I'd signal).
The move is long overdue and there is more to 'it' than counting 'death', for example, to help reduce the cost of insurance payouts etc arising from rear-end crashes involving wet and poor visibility weather phenomena, that also typically involve 'excessive speed' as one of the contributing criteria.
The NSW Fire Brigade fire fighting vehicles have had a rear fog lamp fitted as a *mandatory requirement* for some years, for use in bushfire smoke conditions, dust etc and so on. (The NSW Rural Fire Service choose to *not* to fit the lamp function, preferring instead to rely on the vehicles standard hazard-warning lights)
Another example why the NSW government seeks to adopt rear fog lamps:- (Ref to WIKI)
The rear fog lamp is cheap insurance under such low-visibility examples. Naturally, an enforcement program by road authorities and police would likely be undertaken, and text regarding the correct use of rear fog lamps has been in all state and territory driver handbooks a number of years.
In Australia, Australian Road Rule 221(e), permits use of a vehicles "hazard-warning lamps" under hazardous weather conditions on moving vehicles. This allowance was carried into national legislation by NSW back in the 1990's, and in turn was adopted here in NSW back 1988 (Brad Hazzard, LIB) as State law, it followed a 53 car pileup in heavy fog on the NSW F6. NSW has often seen similar events on other key roads. SE QLD ditto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4tirescars
However, the use of hazard-warning lamps by Australia,- effectively as a defacto rear fog lamp system, runs contrary to the UN Convention on Road Traffic of 1968 and amendments to date. Australia contracted the 49' Convention (Gazz 53') and in doing so undertook to maintain ongoing uniformity, unless we formally withdraw from the process.
* A cars flashing hazard-warning lamps ARE NOT brighter or stronger - than a single rear fog lamp, often by a matter of seconds.
5 September 2009, picture below RTA F3 camera shot: Toyota PRADO, the owner has modified the two 'dummy' rear fog lamp compartments "as extra brake-lights", effectively a defect under ADR 49/00 in regards photometrics; basically when applying the brakes, those behind get to see two varying levels of brake-light brightness. Angle-of-view performance comes into play. Another reason why ADR 13 Part 8.5.1 needs to be rescinded, to prevent 'dumb' modifications like this. (Poor quality mobile phone pic taken from Prado point forum).
An historic crash event example (of many similar where we blame speed), Tuesday, September 24, 2002
I'll add more detail including pics as needed to this post as I get time.
Link - Darwin fog event.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/07/30/4883_ntnews.html
Link - Calls for greater roadside safety.
http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2009/07/...oadside-safety/
Link - Page 2 references poor visibility crash (rain F3) and each page - the need for safety vests & warning triangles in cars.
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=63394
Link - Singapore penalty for mis-using front and or rear fog lamps:-) See Question 5!
http://ask.lta.gov.sg/home/lta/listings.as...y=45052#2289838
2nd February 2010 - 11:28 AM
Reply
KeepleftPost #13QUOTE (Kory @ Feb 2 2010, 12:37 PM)if you have ur lights on, arent the rear red lights enough? sure iv seen some dark ones, but the majority of tail lights are bright enough even in the heavyest of rain.
maybe a downwards pointing, very bright red light would be an idea?
a) Under normal "nightime" rain circumstances, yes. The crash pics and other examples however are evidence that more is needed when things 'get bad'.
b) For daytime/daylight hours in particular, AND when in heavy rain with 3ml of roadwater, and even when under torrential rain on a high-speed road at night, the rear fog light IS needed.
c) A 'downward pointing light' is not an ADR item, what is however - is the rear fog lamp. Per discussion above,- this lamp is designed for such conditions.
* Rem, rear fog lamp is not just for heay rainfall, but of course heavy fog, dustorms, when in bushfire smoke and on gravel roads in daylight etc. I advocate installing one, and if buying a new car - insist on it.
Regards.
Buy a UNECE R27 Spec hazard-warning triangle for your vehicle for use at crash scenes (to prevent secondary) and breakdowns. SUPPLIERS - via "auto-parts retailers"; I suggest HELLA Part No 2901 or; PRO-KIT Item No. RG9212, $21. From; BUNNINGS stores nationwide - Code 14 580, $9.90. AS3790 accepted. http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/lic_drivesafe4.pdf 16th February 2010 - 07:03 AM
Reply
KeepleftPost #15History of a particularly large crash (series of them) on the NSW F6, from the Sydney Morning Herald of September 29, 1986.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301...pg=5489,9770315
Buy a UNECE R27 Spec hazard-warning triangle for your vehicle for use at crash scenes (to prevent secondary) and breakdowns. SUPPLIERS - via "auto-parts retailers"; I suggest HELLA Part No 2901 or; PRO-KIT Item No. RG9212, $21. From; BUNNINGS stores nationwide - Code 14 580, $9.90. AS3790 accepted. http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/lic_drivesafe4.pdf 22nd June 2010 - 01:08 PM
Reply
KeepleftPost #16Recent TASMANIAN event:- July 19, 2010
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/...mania-news.html
3rd August 2010 - 07:06 PM
Reply
-
Member Login
If you have a BoostCruising account enter your user name and password into the yellow box.
Alternatively, you can quickly login with Facebook.
If you don't have an account create one below.
Create Account -
Login using your Facebook account!
-
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Loading...
x