Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Here are the road safety regulation requirements for licence plates...

Must not obscure the number plate in any way, ii. Must be clear, untinted and uncoloured, iii. Must have surfaces which are flat both on the side which faces the number plate and on the side which faces away from the vehicle, iv. Must have non-reflective characteristics and, v. Must have no unusual refractive characteristics. These requirements effectively prohibit number plate covers which have curved, domed, tinted or reflective surfaces from being fitted to a vehicle. Number plate covers which have lines or other markings on the surface which go over the number plate are also effectively prohibited. Regulation 222(2)(b) of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 also requires that a number plate fitted to a vehicle must be clearly distinguishable and not be wholly or partially obscured.

Pretty sure they are uniform across all states.

pfft I've got one of those license plate covers with the black lines across it.

Driven past plenty of patrol cars and even had a patrol car tail me out of curiosity, and haven't had any problems

one of many rules in place that aren't really enforced I guess, there's all these p platers around my street with sh$tbox cars and cannon mufflers and they seem to get away with them even though they can't do modifications

Here are the road safety regulation requirements for licence plates...

Must not obscure the number plate in any way, ii. Must be clear, untinted and uncoloured, iii. Must have surfaces which are flat both on the side which faces the number plate and on the side which faces away from the vehicle, iv. Must have non-reflective characteristics and, v. Must have no unusual refractive characteristics. These requirements effectively prohibit number plate covers which have curved, domed, tinted or reflective surfaces from being fitted to a vehicle. Number plate covers which have lines or other markings on the surface which go over the number plate are also effectively prohibited. Regulation 222(2)(b) of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 also requires that a number plate fitted to a vehicle must be clearly distinguishable and not be wholly or partially obscured.

Pretty sure they are uniform across all states.

So this confirms i'm correct by saying this car is now deemed as a possible defect????

whoop de doo

there are people starving in this world and your worried about a numberplate cover?

you really wasted our time replying to this with that reply???? There are people starving and your making random smart ass comments???

lol jkz

You also dobbed yourself in for using your phone/camera while driving.

I was parked and the keys weren't in the ignition :blush:

pfft I've got one of those license plate covers with the black lines across it.

Driven past plenty of patrol cars and even had a patrol car tail me out of curiosity, and haven't had any problems

one of many rules in place that aren't really enforced I guess, there's all these p platers around my street with sh$tbox cars and cannon mufflers and they seem to get away with them even though they can't do modifications

That doesn't mean they wont get defected, just that they are running the risk of being defected, and their are people who get done for number plate covers.... even on these forums ive found them.... but i'm 100% sure that this rta car will never get defected for it where as if you get a smart ass highway patrol car you still have the possibility of getting done.

Ok firstly:

How do you know its an actual RTA company car? Maybe its just someone that really likes the RTA? Or has the initials RTA?

And secondly are you sure its not just a number plate frame? not a cover?

Ok firstly:

How do you know its an actual RTA company car? Maybe its just someone that really likes the RTA? Or has the initials RTA?

And secondly are you sure its not just a number plate frame? not a cover?

its even got the lines going across the numberplate in the dodgey photo....

and RTA will not let anyone choose a numberplate starting as RTA, especially RTA.002

there are RTA cars from RTA.000 - RTA.999

also its a WHITE toyota Aurion = company car lol

So this confirms i'm correct by saying this car is now deemed as a possible defect????

Well no if you'll take the time to absorb what was written, it appears the licence plate cover you have pointed out falls within the legal guidelines ie: NOT illegal.

Must be clear, untinted and uncoloured, iii. Must have surfaces which are flat both on the side which faces the number plate and on the side which faces away from the vehicle, iv. Must have non-reflective characteristics and, v. Must have no unusual refractive characteristics. These requirements effectively prohibit number plate covers which have curved, domed, tinted or reflective surfaces from being fitted to a vehicle. Number plate covers which have lines or other markings on the surface which go over the number plate are also effectively prohibited. Regulation 222(2)(b) of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 also requires that a number plate fitted to a vehicle must be clearly distinguishable and not be wholly or partially obscured

Looks flat and clear, no distortion and I can't see any lines on it.

You were able to take a clear picture of it weren't you? So...

Well no if you'll take the time to absorb what was written, it appears the licence plate cover you have pointed out falls within the legal guidelines ie: NOT illegal.

Must be clear, untinted and uncoloured, iii. Must have surfaces which are flat both on the side which faces the number plate and on the side which faces away from the vehicle, iv. Must have non-reflective characteristics and, v. Must have no unusual refractive characteristics. These requirements effectively prohibit number plate covers which have curved, domed, tinted or reflective surfaces from being fitted to a vehicle. Number plate covers which have lines or other markings on the surface which go over the number plate are also effectively prohibited. Regulation 222(2)(b) of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 also requires that a number plate fitted to a vehicle must be clearly distinguishable and not be wholly or partially obscured

Looks flat and clear, no distortion and I can't see any lines on it.

You were able to take a clear picture of it weren't you? So...

Doesn't matter if I could take a clear photograph of the number plate or not, it is against their own regulations. I did read what was posted and it clearly says its "...effectively Prohibited." Open the photo again, use the zoom function and you can see lines across the cover. The RTA doesn't state that lines are acceptable if under a certain width. All in all there's 8 black painted lines across the numberplate that I can still make out even though the quality of the camera phone picture isn't very good. Imagine how much more obvious the lines are in person to grab my attention like that?

I still can't see why everyone jumps to defend the RTA when they make up allot of pointless (also allot of good) rules that ultimately cost us money in fines, even unintentional non dangerous defects.

A regulation is a regulation and I don't care who breaches it, no matter how small the infringement is. They say rules are there for a reason, are they not? Not all the rules are there for safety. A friend of mine got fined for having her Registration sticker on the tinted section of her front windshield, is this dangerous? Is she a hoon? No! but the regulation for sticking the sticker says it cannot be behind any tint, it has to be on naked glass on the windscreen or the left hand side of a fixed glass window. If she can get done for that, this Car should not have black lines across the numberplate.

19" mon @ 1280x1024 zoomed, unzoomed and over zoomed.

Could be your shit camera resolution but I still see NO lines.

But hey if you say they're there thats good enough.

Lol

Edited by madbung

It's def RTA. they have reserved all RTA and RTB plates.

I can read the plate... you could ready the plate... whats the problem? Sure if one of the letters was obscured it might be an issue.

I think you're touch the tip of a much larger ice berd. QUICK call ACA with your hot scoop!

It's def RTA. they have reserved all RTA and RTB plates.

I can read the plate... you could ready the plate... whats the problem? Sure if one of the letters was obscured it might be an issue.

I think you're touch the tip of a much larger ice berd. QUICK call ACA with your hot scoop!

Yet if the police officer didn't like the RTA driver, he would defect the car for an obscured license plate...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...