Jump to content
SAU Community

Police Correspondence

Nene260RS

By Nene260RS,
in South Australia

 Share

Recommended Posts

DSTROY Grand Master

DSTROY

Posted
Posted
Keep in mind that import defects dont account for a majority percentage of defect notices issued. I've had plenty of mates with shitbombs get a nice yellow sticker over the years. Not a valid complaint.

So you have the numbers to prove that????

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

RubyRS4 Grand Master

RubyRS4

Posted
Posted (edited)

Are there numbers to prove imports are being picked on?

In the end its all hearsay and stats.

sau cruise anyone haha... JOKES!

Didn't you know SAU cruises are not on! :D

Edited by RubyRS4
RubyRS4 Grand Master

RubyRS4

Posted
Posted (edited)

Found this during my search. Its a report from 2000, but still interesting:

DefectTest.jpg

So 0.6% of fatal crashes were the result of a defectable vehicle. :D

Edited by RubyRS4
RB PWR Apprentice

RB PWR

Posted
Posted
Keep in mind that import defects dont account for a majority percentage of defect notices issued. I've had plenty of mates with shitbombs get a nice yellow sticker over the years. Not a valid complaint.

BAHAHAHA you cant be serious?? :cool::D no stats are needed, just look at the amount of 'quality' cars on the road. i usually think i am at u pull it but then i realise i am driving on the road. hence the reason i don't 'believe' in defects anymore.

RubyRS4 Grand Master

RubyRS4

Posted
Posted (edited)
theres your evidence for the NSW boys. 240 inspected, 501 not inspected

Running with the trend ... 501 x 1.4% = 7 defectable vehicles that were never identified.

Adelaide has (142 + 25) x 0.6% = 1.002

So only 1 possible vehicle that was defectable in a fatal crash (and that includes motorcycles also). So compared to NSW (and other states) its saying defectable vehicles contribute less to fatal accidents.

Look at it another way (using SA and NSW only, all fatalities):

NSW (240 + 501) x 1.4% = 10.4

SA (142 + 25) x 0.6% = 1.0

Thats prob grounds for SAPOL to argue that mod plates don't make a difference. But this report was back in 2000 anyway.

Thats what's provided in the report anyway. I'm looking for the raw data, so I can crunch my own numbers! Also looking for data on "modified" vehicles contributing to crashes.

Edited by RubyRS4
J - Rad Veteran

J - Rad

Posted
Posted
Running with the trend ... 501 x 1.4% = 7 defectable vehicles that were never identified.

Adelaide has (142 + 25) x 0.6% = 1.002

So only 1 possible vehicle that was defectable in a fatal crash (and that includes motorcycles also).

Thats what's provided in the report anyway. I'm looking for the raw data, so I can crunch my own numbers! Also looking for data on "modified" vehicles contributing to crashes.

NSW win again!

RubyRS4 Grand Master

RubyRS4

Posted
Posted (edited)

From the ABS website.

At 31 March 2008, the average age of all vehicles registered in Australia was 9.9 years. This is younger than the 10.4 years recorded in the 2003 MVC. Over this five year period, a drop in the average age was observed in all vehicle types except buses. Vehicles manufactured before 1993 (those more than 15 years old) comprised 21.2% of the total Australian fleet. This is slightly lower than the 21.9% of registrations recorded 12 months earlier.

So there are less shitboxes on the road. Average age of cars is getting lower. So by 2010 I should upgrade my Stagea to an R35 :D

From 2006 ABS report: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/bb...F4?opendocument

... if you can be bothered filtering thru all that :cool:

In both 2001 and 2006 the majority of fatal crashes occurred on roads where the posted speed limit was 100 kilometres/hour (km/h) and above (44% in 2006), followed by roads with a speed limit of up to 60 km/h (33%). A further 23% of fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed zones of between 65 km/h and 95 km/h.

In both 2001 and 2006 the highest proportion of fatal crashes was single vehicle crashes (41% and 47% respectively). Pedestrian crashes accounted for 18% of crash types in 2001 and 15% in 2006.

So 1/3 of fatal crashes occur in 60kph and under zones. 44% in zones 100kph (country and freeways). But the safest speed zones were 65-95kph areas.

Single vehicle crashes account for nearly half of fatalities! Wonder why the cops are cracking down on hoons in 60kph areas :cool:

But wait! There's more ...

Total registered vehicles in SA in 2006 were 919,000 and 3,404,000 for NSW.

SA fatalities 148 / Total registered vehicles 919,000 = 0.0161% chance of being killed

NSW fatalities 508 / Total registered vehicles 3,404,000 = 0.01492% chance of being killed

So per capita of road registered vehicles, SA is at a higher risk of fatal crashes than NSW.

Edited by RubyRS4
sneaky1 Mentor

sneaky1

Posted
Posted

i had officer neil pick me out of a crowd of cars and came out with a warning about a boost contoller. he was actually a nice person to me and my other half and rather reasonable. he was fairly strick by the book but yet that is his job. ok im not keen as i was picked out but then look at my car, it dont look stock. i was told of officer neil that as soon as he sees me on the rd again he will be pulling me over and that would be to check what we have discussed. i have done what he has asked so im more than willing for him to check it again.

i even seen a SS BOMBadore ute pulled over the other day with the measuring tape out and the guy screaming at the cop. the car was way to low as the rims (not just the tires) were under the guards. but yes its moreso skyline drivers as they are easy targets.

nisskid Grand Master

nisskid

Posted
Posted
Found this during my search. Its a report from 2000, but still interesting:

DefectTest.jpg

So 0.6% of fatal crashes were the result of a defectable vehicle. :(

i have found similar studies, basically saying the same thing.

if u put up the amount of defects from RBT's, compared to the amount of people done for being over the limit at RBT's, then look at the crashes they cause, it's just rediculous.

SkyHi_33 Mentor

SkyHi_33

Posted
Posted (edited)

not meaning to add to controversy but tonight driving around with mates we spotted in total:

7 cars pulled over

4 were r33

1 was r32

1 was aristo

1 was 91 rolla with p plate chicks (they were decent..... 'sok im young :( )

fair? think not :P

sucks to be us :D

edit: to be fair they were in and around city/hindley st. area mostly so pretty much asking for it but still

Edited by tx3_90
  • 4 weeks later...

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kinkstaah
      RB25DE NEO with Haltech ECU

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      @Haggerty this is your red flag. In MAP based ECU's the Manifold pressure X RPM calculation is how the engine knows it is actually...running/going through ANY load. You are confusing the term 'base map' with your base VE/Fuel table. When most people say 'base map' they mean the stock entire tune shipped with the ECU, hopefully aimed at a specific car/setup to use as a base for beginning to tune your specific car. Haltech has a lot of documentation (or at least they used to, I expect it to be better now). Read it voraciously.
    • GTSBoy
      RB25DE NEO with Haltech ECU

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • Murray_Calavera
      RB25DE NEO with Haltech ECU

      By Murray_Calavera · Posted

      @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • MBS206
      R32 GTS (RB20DE) Injectors Replacement

      By MBS206 · Posted

      If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • Haggerty
      RB25DE NEO with Haltech ECU

      By Haggerty · Posted

      I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
×
×
  • Create New...