Police Targetting Powercruise @ Qr - Warning to entrants / spectators to be aware.  

rus_s13

iirc s13's without spoilers came with one of these.



I removed my rear spoiler on my old s13 but knew about the 3rd brake light law (all cars produced after 19**?)

you can remove the light from the factory spoiler and sit/velcro it on your parcel shelf

alpharx7

he needs it because it came out with it from factory /end of story. once the cop was able to figure out that it was meant to be there and that it had been removed, that's when the defect was given.

personally i'd say he could repair the boot lid properly, take the led light out, and he'd be right. probably never get picked up on it again.

edit: on account of rus_13's info. well there you go, apparently they're meant to have one there regardless.

mark1414

See now that actually explains it. The cars I have are older than 1990, but I know it makes no logical sense to fine someone with the same car for having no 3rd brake light just because they removed a spoiler if another of the same car came without the brake light and spoiler. Pretty poor argument alpha /end of story.

vk134

"Years ago they were checking cars on trailers but getting the owners to take the car off the trailer to checkout the trailer then defected the car along with unreg uninsured."
I saw that and though about it, HP plod could clear it up; can a police officer or a dept of transport officer in the course of his duty, instruct you to perform an act, that in itself in not illegal, but creates a situation than become an offence in itself? It just seems like a fktard way to go about it, my bush lawyer brain would think of that as entrapment. Surely these are the type of responsible guys who do the right thing and should be encouraged.

As for the 3rd brake light quandry, here is the guff on it http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L02300 , but depend on import plate as well i'm guess the post 89 LO1 rules, but NFI with s13, I only had a 93 surf that had a high mount brake light.

LO3 is:
10.0 Rear Lights

10.1 Vehicles must have at least two red rear lamps.

[b]11.0 Stop Lights[b]

11.1 Vehicles must have two red rear stop lamps.

11.2 These lamps may be incorporated in the rear lights.

or:
(b) Alternatively, if the above pre-conditions cannot be met, then it will be necessary for an Authorised

person to carry out a full ADR inspection and certification. That is, the vehicle must satisfy all the ADR's applicable at the build date of the vehicle.

This procedure is called LO1.

But the officer, what a fn stain to ping him for that, he would of choked on his fn coffee if it was contested in court and the holes were demonstrated to be from a "ski" rack common in use in europe and some parts of Japan.

mark1414

No such thing as entrapment in Australia but AFAIK if a person in authority (ie police) instruct you to do something that breaks the law you cant be done for it. Either way the court would throw that out.

alpharx7

not really, light wasn't there, cop picked him for it.

all the rest of it was blahblahblahefthepigsfordoingtheirjobs/

now go figure out what year the law came in, the year of release for s13's and what years they covered, and if the law coming in meant the later models were required to have the 3rd brake light. but that's the sort of shite you have to take into account.

mark1414

But the light wasnt not there because his car came with a spoiler and some others didnt have a spoiler or 3rd brake light. They all require a 3rd brake light (as pointed out). I was simply saying its not logical to have two identical cars next to each other and one needs a 3rd light ONLY because it had a spoiler a few years back.

that_rodeo_guy

I don't get why it matters at all, my F6 ute doesn't have a third brake light and neither does my navara, so why does it matter if these other cars have it?

vy57ss

Heard of people getting done on trailers on the way to summernats, but you never hear of real cases in Queensland, not my second cousins sisters neighbours mate got done by taking his car off the trailer. But if anyone has some real personal experience it'd be good to hear

Familka GTR

But is beyond the legal point.
You car is impounded by idiot in QPS uniform ,because he decided to ... doesnt matter if its legally or illegally modified ,but was dome because offices say so.
You lost your car for 90 days ,paid for tow and holding yard ( where very often cars are drifted and raced around and stolen items from your car ) and then you got to court to battle and if you even win ( very unlikely ) nobody give you back your money and all that troubles you went through 3 months without car etc etc.
So here is the law wrong ,
In case your car is defected but you not agreed on defects stated by officer and want to take case to court ,car should be asses immediately by some independent automotive engineering on the spot,then should be encumbered ( so cant be sold /de-registered etc ) and then you got chance to use vehicle if its modified legal way until court decision ,in case car is modified illegally ,car should be towed toy your place by your choice of tow truck company etc and banned from driving until court decision ,
unnecessary noise or smoke and similar rules are just bulshit giving cops power in their hands doing what they want .

DOT control station in Yamanto is for trucks mainly ,but for curiosity very often sat up when is some events on QR ,what coincident ??
So I want be surprised how money cars will finish in their fishing net

ELECTION IS COMING AND HERE IS ANOTHER Q WHO TO VOTE ,MAYBE WILL HELP SOME UNDECIDED YET VOTERS

Familka GTR

I agree ,but what kind of defects ? Most of them very little minor and even them most of them because QPS officer understand law written in book his way or he didnt read whole paragraph and most of them can be fix by warning ,no fine.
But they are mental retards and they are very happy if they can write tickets to you for anything .

Familka GTR

You right ,but here is what I am talking,in his case its a minor defect ,doesnt affect safety( most of older cars doesn't have 3 brake light )and officer could issue him a warning and give him a chance to repair defect in shot time.

My son was defected because he lost front indicators ( electric fault we couldnt fix on spot anyway ) and I was with him in car as a older person and witness as well ( did you guys realized if you are on your own ,cops give you more hard time and they are much smarter ??) ,so officer gave him ticket 70$ for driving defective vehicle and 1 point AND HE LET US DRIVE AWAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WITHOUT FRONT INDICATORS OPERATING ,how danger was that ?but cop was happy as he wrote ticket to somebody ...

wolfman101

TRIVIA: I had to install a high level brake light on my (lol) Sera.

wolfman101

Also, Familka, please never stop writing, ever.

vk134

The Internet, where spelling, punctuation and grammar are more of a random idea than a rule...............

evilstuie

Didn't see a single police car on the way there on Saturday and nothing leaving today at 1pm.
The only cop i saw was inside the QR compound driving around the outer roads.

Master_Scythe

Someone pulled up a skyline at about 6pm as I left on Saturday. Bonnet open etc.

Though it was a LOUD r33 skyline; it was very obvious SOMETHING wasnt within legal bounds.