bad lucky tonight

Postby **NitroDann** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:27 pm

Right so why can the officers not google this within their system? it would be extremely easy to achieve this. Extremely.

Dann

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:39 pm

I suggest someone should call or email the department in WA, instead of just doing some simple research and keep guessing. Also I believed all the limo are under the same law, and I am sure they have contacted the department before they install the lights.

A lawyer will need evidence, previous case, research to support his theory, no matter how good is his debate skill.

I did my research, just like you guys.
I bought out a previous case/example which is the limo.
And I have hard evidence which is the reply from the department in WA.
Everything I have said or info that I provided wasn't make up by me or just my theory, so shouldn't you act like me and get some evidence to support your point and theory?

By the way, no offence, officer does know law, but its just some or part. They are not professional. Otherwise they would be lawyer already.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:44 pm

NitroDann wrote:Right so why can the officers not google this within their system? it would be extremely easy to achieve this. Extremely.

Dann

Dann, The OP's first post suggests that an attending Police Officer, who I might add would be aware of the definition of "lighting" in regard to the carrying out of his duties, told Tesco that his 'neons' were in breach of the law and he was kind enough to let him go on his way with an opportunity to sort it out. If Tesco still feels agrieved might I suggest that he contact said Police Officer and ask for a clarification or and at the risk of repeating myself,
"If you are confident in your interpretation of the law, re-install them, drive around with them on and let us know how you get on".
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:49 pm

taminga16 wrote:Tesco,
I have seen the images of your car, underbody lights on and trust me the lighting is visible, sh*t if it wasn't you would not have bothered installing them.
Greg.
P.S. If you are confident in your interpretation of the law, re-install them, drive around with them on and let us know how you get on. We could have a whip around and help pay the fines.

I wouldn't say that is the actual lights you see in the picture. That is glow from the lights, not the lights itself. And just to let you know that I have these lights installed for at least 1.5 years, many many cops around me and they never pull over me because of the lights. This is the first and ONLY time that I have been told by the officer and I was so surprise.

Postby **NitroDann** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:51 pm

taminga16 wrote:Dann, The OP's first post suggests that an attending Police Officer, who I might add would be aware of the definition of "lighting" in regard to the carrying out of his duties

Greg.

Unfortunately the vast majority of HWY are either liars or would be extremely unlikely to be familiar with the above.

I have had a LOT of experience with HWY and they claim to be familiar with a lot of different ADR's. Basically my experience says that they consistently either lie about their familiarity, or lie about the legislation itself.

Dann

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:56 pm

tescoking wrote:
taminga16 wrote:Tesco,
I have seen the images of your car, underbody lights on and trust me the lighting is visible, sh*t if it wasn't you would not have bothered installing them.
Greg.
P.S. If you are confident in your interpretation of the law, re-install them, drive around with them on and let us know how you get on. We could have a whip around and help pay the fines.

I wouldn't say that is the actual lights you see in the picture. That is glow from the lights, not the lights itself. And just to let you know that I have these lights installed for at least 1.5 years, many many cops around me and they never pull over me because of the lights. This is the first and ONLY time that I have been told by the officer and I was so surprise.

Tesco,
Get a copy of the rules and READ the pre-amble, in particular the definition of lighting.
Dann, I can hear the squeaking wheel of a very old barrow.
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:04 pm

taminga16 wrote:
tescoking wrote:
taminga16 wrote:Tesco,
I have seen the images of your car, underbody lights on and trust me the lighting is visible, sh*t if it wasn't you would not have bothered installing them.
Greg.
P.S. If you are confident in your interpretation of the law, re-install them, drive around with them on and let us know how you get on. We could have a whip around and help pay the fines.

I wouldn't say that is the actual lights you see in the picture. That is glow from the lights, not the lights itself. And just to let you know that I have these lights installed for at least 1.5 years, many many cops around me and they never pull over me because of the lights. This is the first and ONLY time that I have been told by the officer and I was so surprise.

Tesco,
Get a copy of the rules and READ the pre-amble, in particular the definition of lighting.
Dann, I can hear the squeaking wheel of a very old barrow.
Greg.

When you mean the copy of the rule. Do you mean your state or my state ?

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:14 pm

Why would you even think that the rules applied in my state would be of any relevance to you? Do some research, talk with the Police Officer, who's argument must have been fairly sound else the lights would still be under your car and then get back to us.
Greg.

hks_kansei · Postby **hks_kansei** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:15 pm

It would be the WA rules.

This website should have the current legislation.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/

It should also include the full ADR listings which will likely be referenced in the WA law.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:21 pm

taminga16 wrote:Why would you even think that the rules applied in my state would be of any relevance to you? Do some research, talk with the Police Officer, who's argument must have been fairly sound else the lights would still be under your car and then get back to us.
Greg.

I think you misunderstood. Police do not make the law. They follow the law and run it. The copy of the rule is from department of transport in WA. And I have contacted them for a clear reply already. Why would I bring someone's book and ask other reader is that truth or not.

hks_kansei · Postby **hks_kansei** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:29 pm

Tesco, I would still be reading the legislation.

It's all well and good that Sharon has confirmed it, however I think it's still best to get information straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

In this case, the horse is the written legislation.

The legislation will also likely include definitions of terms used, such as "visible"
The term "visible" isn't particularly black and white, you seem to think of it as seeing the actual light tube (the hard part the light comes out of)
Where myself (and I assume Greg/Taminga) would think of it as being able to see any part of the light (ie: the globes, LEDs, and even the reflection of it on the road)

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:30 pm

Please refer to my earlier post regarding 'Today's Lesson'.
I am tired now.
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:37 pm

taminga16 wrote:Please refer to my earlier post regarding 'Today's Lesson'.
I am tired now.
Greg.

Don't get tired, wake up old man, I just contacted them again and this time I asked them to define what do they mean by "visible" and is it allow to use blue colour. So mean while take a rest and I will get back to you.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:47 pm

tescoking wrote:
taminga16 wrote:Please refer to my earlier post regarding 'Today's Lesson'.
I am tired now.
Greg.

Don't get tired, wake up old man, I just contacted them again and this time I asked them to define what do they mean by "visible" and is it allow to use blue colour. So mean while take a rest and I will get back to you.

Thank you Tesco,
I will take your advice and look forward to your response, as for the 'old man' comment, experience will always beat youthful exuberance.
Good Luck and please, do study the pre-amble.
Greg.

project.r.racing · Postby **project.r.racing** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:53 pm

tescoking wrote:Don't get tired, wake up old man, I just contacted them again and this time I asked them to define what do they mean by "visible" and is it allow to use blue colour. So mean while take a rest and I will get back to you.

WTF? visability has nothing to do with colour allowances.

did you email them back to get carification on the 'lighting' being visable issue? or you just guessing the rules now? i'm not say either of us is right. but that be unclear the 'visable lighting' issue. when they say lighting, do the mean the light device? or do the mean the light produced from the light device?