Undercar Neons Are Legal - Well certain colours are  

lotusmk1

no im sorry as it has been said further up in this thread but the neon glow cant by any means blind anyone so i dont see how the proof could be described as a little loose. i really wish people would read the whole topic before posting.

vh-holden

i really wish people would post the full definition, rather than an edited one to support their argument

from dictionary.com

Stuit

as someone quoted the definition of dazzle as 'brightness enough to blind partially and temporarily', neons can and most certainly will be defected. see the words 'partially and temporarily'? you know when you look at something bright and then look away, and for that split second after you can still see the image of the light on your eyes, if only for a split second? well that would constitute patially or temporarily being blinded. as such, they are illegal.

COR33

so really its up for the cop to decide whether or not the neons dazzled other drivers ?

carchick

well that was interesting to know but i dont think id risk it if i ever had neons on my car couldent be bothered fighting the cops in court but they do look good on cars dunno why the cops have a problem with them

ShanO`

Even if they dont exactly blind or dazzle people, they still distract other people and stop them from looking at where they are going. Hence the reason they are targetted.

They are also a crime against good taste...

COR33

^^ have to disagree with u a bit man, allthough neons look tacky and shit most of the time:P. there are the few occasional cars where the neons look good and enhance the effect of either a custom boot install, paint job or the interior of a car. but hey thats just my opinion, each to there own,

and i have seen the driftzone car around and the neons do look good on that, but the neons also do distract the driver from watching the road. but hey how can i cop prove that the neons did distract me? DZ maybe u should take it up with them ?

Thanks corey

TwinCam16

"they" ?

There is only one.

COR33

^^ thats better... i think :S

DZ

Fortunately, they are no brighter or more "dazzling" than tail lights. I'd love to see a court say that the lights concealed underneath your vehicle are more dazzling than those mounted in clear sight and of the same output.

Also, courts have this wonderful "person" called the reasonable man. In a court of law, a reasonable man could not be dazzled by lights that are concealed and directed towards the ground. A reasonable man would not be unduly distracted by a large green reflective sign on the side of the road so would not be unduly distracted by a green glow underneath a vehicle. Anyway, the legislation does not refer to distraction from the lights, it refers to lights that may dazzle or blind another driver. We've already covered the dazzling definition, so thats no longer part of the equation.

Undercar lighting has been accepted by the Queensland Transport Department as NOT illegal as long as it meets colour and brightness restraints. I dont really care who accepts this as fact or who would rather let the police make up the laws as they go (note: the police are only meant to enforce the laws, not make them). I made this post in an attempt to educate people to the law and to the fact that you dont always have to accept what the police tell you.

Short answer: If you want undercar lighting and can do it within the regulations set down by the government, you can have them. If you dont like them, or dont have enough faith in the police to uphold the laws as they are written, then dont have them. Myself, I plan on having them on as often as possible as I have done since I installed them. I also plan on keeping a copy of the legislation and AIS guidelines in the car so as to avoid having to argue blindly with ignorant police officers.

vh-holden

it's been discussed in relation to the half definition posted early on. there is more to dazzle than bright light

look at http://www.answers.com/topic/dazzle taking note of

" To amaze, overwhelm, or bewilder with spectacular display: a figure skater who dazzled the audience with virtuosic jumps."

green signs aren't a distraction because people expect to see them. green lights under a car cause confusion and bewilderment because people don't expect to see them.

as for police only enforcing the law. they are enforcing it by defecting someone with neons as they can dazzle.

Stuit

a bright green light coming from under a car is certainly different to a red tailight on the back of a car at eye level or a white headlight.

we did cover the 'dazzling' definition, but what most of us came to was that it could be defined as dazzling. when you look at a light in the dark the image of the light will stay for a few seconds when you look away. when the light coming from under the car is unexpected - most people wouldnt expect to see lights coming from UNDER a car - then it can distract other motorists. sure headlights and taillights can do the same, but im pretty sure the roads would be pretty dangerous if we didnt have them.

by the definition of 'dazzling', neons can 'dazzle' you. by the legislations, youre not allowed lighting if it can 'dazzle' other people. that right there should be enough to see off any attempts to tell a police officer he cant book you for it.

DZ

ARGH!
From the Oxford compact dictionary (ie: the dictionary that all other dictionaries are compared to).

dazzle
• verb 1 (of a bright light) blind temporarily. 2 overwhelm with an impressive quality.
• noun blinding brightness.

Now, to be blinded temporarily would mean that looking at the undercar lights as they would be seen (ie: the glow, not the source, as I have them installed) would stop you from seeing anything else whilst looking at the undercar lights.

blind
• adjective 1 lacking the power of sight; unable to see. 2 done without being able to see or without necessary information. 3 lacking perception, judgement, or reason. 4 concealed, closed, or blocked off. 5 (of flying) using instruments only. 6 informal the slightest: it didn’t do a blind bit of good.
• verb 1 make blind. 2 deprive of understanding or judgement. 3 (blind with) confuse or overawe (someone) with (something they do not understand).
• noun 1 a screen for a window. 2 something designed to conceal one’s real intentions.
• adverb without being able to see clearly.

I (and anyone else with sufficient vision to hold a drivers licence) can look at these undercar lights yet still be able to clearly discern the car, the graphics on the car, the roadway. In fact there is NO blindness at all, even when looking directly at the glow that you can see emanating from the undercar lights.

So, using full and complete definitions (dont want to upset anyone by editing them to a more concise definition) you can see that the undercar lighting complies quite comfortably with the laws as written. And it is these laws that the police are paid to uphold.

Tell you what guys. I'll accept your opinions on this one (meh, i dont really care if you have undercar lighting or not) but when I win the court case, hows about you accept that someone else might be smarter than you sometimes?

Stuit

ive highlighted the bits that are open to interpretation. what overwhelms you might not overwhelm me. what overwhelms me might not overwhelm the next person. 'temporarily' also means that if you are blinded (the neon overwhelms your vision) for a split second, a thousandth of a second, a millionth of a second even - and that is temporary - that it is still by definition blinding you.

i know there are people smarter than me, i just dont see that many on here by the quality of some peoples posts. best of luck to you in winning the case. if you do, make sure you do let us know. i genuinely would be interested to hear the outcome it works both ways though - dont be afraid to tell us if you LOSE the case too.

*b*

Same as to how Porsche/Ferrari etc can get away with releasing stock vehicles that sit lower then the legislated limit...

DR1F7

Thats because that is stock, its different to lowing B

silvia-sideways

its not the police who decide anything my man, its the magistrate.


also, the dictionary defintion of dazzle will be of no relevance in court if the word dazzle is either defined in the TORUM Act or its associated regualtions because then the court must accept the statutory definition of the term

Mis*Fortune

Indeed this is quite correct. However, even if the word is not defined in the statute itself then the courts still may disregard the dictionary meaning of the word. There is a whole lovely plethora of latin maxims that the courts use to decide the interpretation of statutes. They may take the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, but they also must take into consideration the context in which the word was written. Furthermore, the courts have, in recent times, adopted a rather purposive approach to interpreting statutes. This basically means that when determining the meaning of an unclear provision, they will look to the purpose that parliament indended to enact in that particular statute.

The long and short of that spiel is that whilst the dictionary meaning of the word 'dazzle' is quite specific, in a court of law it may be overturned by a different interpretative approach.

silvia-sideways

like ejusdem generis? or noscitur a sociis? i see you are a law student mis*fortune


ps. you are quite correct, essentially the court will seek to remedy the mischeif that the statute has, as its central purpose, the intention to eliminate. So, to put it to bed, the dictionary definition of dazzle may be of no assistance when you take this before the magistrate especially if he/she seeks to give effect to what he/she believes the statute seeks to punish or prevent

but at the end of the day, i think if you had a clever enough solicitor, you could convince the court that the neons do not "dazzle" other drivers, but you will need to lead evidence about the strength of your neons in lumens and compare that to other visible light sources on your car

35NIK

i have never had a problem with the police with my green neons. & i never turn them off.

DZ

I spoke to the officer yesterday afternoon and he has requested that I submit my grievance in writing with all relevant evidence referenced.
If they are convinced, the ticket will be withdrawn as he doesnt wish the matter to go to court.

We'll see what the outcome of this is. If the ticket is withdrawn, I'll be seeking a written statement as to why it was withdrawn and I'll be carrying that with me in the car in future.

Klayemore

It would be suffice to state (if it did go to court) that your headlights would be more 'dazzling' to other drivers than some pissy-ass green neons shining from underneath your car as they are brighter and more noticeable to others.

On another note...why even have neons F&F YO!

silvia-sideways

well done! and the reason they dont want it to go to court is that they would be wasting state revenue challanging a ticket they know they should not have issued

beastwars

seem as how no one knows.

dazzle would be anything that catches a drivers eye and takes their eyes off the road to look at your car which neons do and it dont matter what colour they are.

if you are dumb enough to drive around with neons turned on you deserve the fine.

neons are gay and anyone who uses them except for at a car show.

COR33

hmm yes thanks for ur stupid and pointless comment.

DZ can u let us know how u go with this. thanks Corey

Rookie ROX

You obviously didn't read any of the thread?

I'm pretty sure that the knowledge of three law students would be enough to qualify that there was some intellect in this thread. Then there's the posts from DF who has traweled the legislation, that alone making himself worthy of some intellect You though, haven't added to it.

And for the record, I don't think you finished your last sentence, makes no sense

*b* I guess you have a point - I discovered today (much to my eyes discomfort) that the foglights in an SS are even wired into the bloody high beams! Argh!

ROCK ON
R~R

vh-holden

maybe i should be more clear. the police are the ones that initially enforce the rules. i've never seen a magistrate out patrolling our roads. the police issue the defect, then it is your job to either prove that it isn't a defect, or fix it.

i couldn't find a specific definition of dazzle in the documents that DZ posted. where would one find it?

DZ

Dazzle (in this context) has been defined by the dictionary (and posted in this thread a couple of times) as to temporarily blind. As has been stated over and again, the reasonable man would not be dazzled by these under car lights and as such it is not valid.

As has also been stated in this thread, the DriftZone Forester is primarily a promotional vehicle. Thats why it has aftermarket wheels, lowered suspension, DriftZone graphics down both sides and our sponsors logo's all over it. The under car lighting helps attract attention to it, and thats what its for.

"Gay is an adjective meaning "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; however in modern usage, gay is a word usually used, as either a noun or adjective, to refer to homosexuals; persons sexually oriented toward members of their own gender."

OK, so my under car lighting is gay in that it is quite bright and showy. However, I have never come across under car lighting that is sexually oriented toward a member of its own gender. I wonder what gender under car lighting is anyway.



I think it would be better, and less of a burden on our court system, if the police were more educated. If a non-educated git like myself can find the appropriate legislation and supporting documentation, with nothing more than a web browser and some time, maybe the police could do the same.

DJC

lol look at all the people who are giving DZ shit... fucken losers...

Nice work DZ stick it to them !

Rookie ROX

Do not even go there.

You've just read the appropriate legislation to find out about undercar neons. You should know just how big that document was, 165 pages to be exact. Can you tell me everything else that was listed in that document? Do you know all the legal parameters relating to the specifications of wheels, exhausts, emissions, brakes, engine conversions? No?

Now keep in mind your information only came from a Regulation. That's just an addition to the actual Act itself, the Transport Operations Act 1993, which itself is 189 pages long, and dictates rules for licencing, operations of vehicles, trains, trucks, taxis etc. THEN there's all the other Transport Operations Regulations that go with them all. These start addressing all your other rules and regulations.

Now your expecting a police officer to be able to memorise all of that, and recall accurately and correctly in relation to one specific piece. Well sure, a truly dedicated officer who a sponge for a brain and an excellent memory could just do that. But wait, there's more. On top of your road rules and vehicle modification standards, and everything to do with transport, they've then got to know the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 off by heart (499 pages in that one), dictating absolutely everything they can do, have to do, are required to do first before they do this.

And of course, being a police officer, enforcing the law, preventing crime, they obviously need to know what crimes there are. So lets bring out the Criminal Code Act 1899 (489 pages there). Whilst they don't necessarily need to know this one off by heart, they need to know what's a crime, what they can charge someone with, difference between crimes (ie. murder vs manslaughter, stealing vs robbery) and so on.

So your expecting every police officer to be able to memorise, and accurately recall everything in the above mentioned three pieces of legislation? And those are just the basic pieces, by no means is it limited to just those pieces. You've got things that are crimes in the Criminal Code, but others that are simple misdemeanours. And the list goes on.

Whilst I understand your point, it's just naive to believe that it'd even be possible for them to memorise it all.

ROCK ON
R~R

TwinCam16

OWNED!

Rookie ROX

Seriously - that wasn't a pwned type thing, but more a 'step back and consider everything else a cop has to know' type thing.



ROCK ON
R~R

Stuit

thats where youre wrong - just because you say that the reasonable man would not be dazzled it doesnt mean that they wont be. i can say that a person with good taste wouldnt drive with neons on on their car, but that doesnt mean they wont. as long as there is a CHANCE that someone could be dazzled by them - which there is - they are illegal. you can say 'but who gets dazzled by neons????' all you want, but the fact is that some people will, hence why they are illegal to have on while driving.

VUGGS

youll be suprised, i had my seats pulled out while pulled over in the waiting lane at springwood maccas drivethrough for a good 45mins when i had my civic, and i wasnt even with the super choice hoons that were parked there picking up underage tarts. all i wanted was a quarter pounder meal FFS

beastwars

look at the pic underneath mate and that will finish the sentence and suit you.

law students give me a break what the hell would they know as they are still students not lawyers.
are any of them majoring in traffic law, i seriously doubt it and in the end it is up to the way the judge determins the law not what some first year law studen thinks who would know bugger all about any law anyway.
also it wont change the fact that the police will fine you for them as they will dazzel other drivers and that is all they have to say they do and 50 law students aint going to do shit for you so pull your head out youre arse.

no i didn't read the whole thread as i couldn't be bothered reading pages of bull shit comming out of people who dont know for sure.

i just gave my opinion which i am entitled to do.

i have no time for tools who put shit on their cars they know they will get defected for then come online and bitch about it.
why dont you use your brains if you have one and dont do shit that will get you in trouble and then you will have nothing to whinge about.

As has also been stated in this thread, the DriftZone Forester is primarily a promotional vehicle. Thats why it has aftermarket wheels, lowered suspension, DriftZone graphics down both sides and our sponsors logo's all over it. The under car lighting helps attract attention to it, and thats what its for.

this is exactly why you were fined as you were taking peoples attention off what they are supposed to be doing which is driving, so in other words you dazzeled them and the dictionary isn't what interprates the law now is it.