bad lucky tonight

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:40 pm

I have received a reply from the department already. Believe it or not, check it yourself.

This is the email after I have contacted the department, and they asked me to get a confirmation from the professional.

"To the Contact Centre of the Department of Transport:

Following my telephone conversation with (Person) in the contact centre on 28/11/2013, I was advised by (Person) whom has double checked with the technical guy in the Department of Transport at the time that no colour restrictions applies on the underbody lights of vehicles as long as I comply with the Vehicle Safety and Standard IB-108B.

Can you please confirm this in writing.

Many thanks for your help."

Here is what they have replied to me. No paraphrasing, it is strictly copy from the email.

"Dear (ME),

Thank you for your enquiry.

Please be advised there are no restrictions to the colour of underbody lighting for your vehicle. You will need to ensure the lighting does not flash and is not visible to other motorists when the vehicle is dríven or stationary.

For more information you can refer to our Website.

If you require further information please do not hesitate to reply to this email. Alternatively, you can visit our website, http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensingor call our Customer Contact Centre on 13 11 56 or +61 8 9427 6404 if you are calling from outside Australia.

Kind regards,

Sharon
Communications Team
Driver and Vehicle Services
Department of Transport"

Anyone got something to say?

To other members in different state, this is the confirmation for Perth, WA only. Please check with your state department if you have any questions.

Red Dragon · Postby **Red Dragon** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:08 pm

The bad part....They must not flash and must not be visible when stationary or moving.

WHY have them.

M1474 · Postby **M1474** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:17 pm

I think they mean the neon itself must not be visible, so you just see the undercar glow.

Anyhoo, I'm off to supercheap auto...

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:17 pm

Red Dragon wrote:The bad part....They must not flash and must not be visible when stationary or moving.

WHY have them.

They mean the neon lights has to face to the road and not facing outside/ pointing to other drivers like the headlamps.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:18 pm

M1474 wrote:I think they mean the neon itself must not be visible, so you just see the undercar glow.

Anyhoo, I'm off to supercheap auto...

I hate you...I just took mine off

project.r.racing · Postby **project.r.racing** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:30 pm

tescoking wrote:
Red Dragon wrote:The bad part....They must not flash and must not be visible when stationary or moving.

WHY have them.

They mean the neon lights has to face to the road and not facing outside/ pointing to other drivers like the headlamps.

i would get calification on that. reply to the email asking the further question.

Postby **NitroDann** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:34 pm

You need a copy of the actual legislation.

But alas it wont stop you from being booked again.

Dann

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:45 pm

Not being visible mean you should not make your neon lights being able to see directly. Installing the neon under the car body is not visible. Unless you jack up the car and stand underneath. Installing the neon on the SIDE of the car is visible. It is directly pointing to other drivers like side indicators.

Honestly those under body lights saved me a few times on freeway. I had a few times driving on freeway and the 4WD couldn't see me on their left side. They turned on the indicator and tried to turn. Luckily they saw my neon reflected on the road. So they know I was next to them.

rossburns · Postby **rossburns** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:33 pm

I agree mods like that are very tacky, I know we all have different tastes, but weren't we first attract to mx5's because of the way they look and handle, I can understand improving performance, braking and handling, but for me body exterior and interior only need subtle enhancements

AntHarmer · Postby **AntHarmer** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:50 pm

In fairness, they don't get called a "hairdresser's" car because of the way they handle. I definitely didn't buy mine because I thought they are a great looking car. Plus, with almost a million now having been built, I feel that it doesn't hurt to personalise them and make them your own. The "favourite picture of your car" thread would be pretty boring otherwise

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AntHarmer · Postby **AntHarmer** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:58 pm

That's not to say I don't like the way they look. And of all the cars I have owned my 5 is my favourite. I just don't think aesthetic mods are unwarranted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

meanmx · Postby **meanmx** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:07 pm

AntHarmer wrote:That's not to say I don't like the way they look. And of all the cars I have owned my 5 is my favourite. I just don't think aesthetic mods are unwarranted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's ok to have an opinion as long as you are aware that people can have a different opinion that you may never understand

AntHarmer · Postby **AntHarmer** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:20 am

I am fully aware that other people have a different opinion but thanks for your concern

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

meanmx · Postby **meanmx** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:25 am

AntHarmer wrote:I am fully aware that other people have a different opinion but thanks for your concern

Sorry Antharmer, yes you do. I quoted the wrong person and I apologise.

This is the quote I meant :oops:

rossburns wrote:I agree mods like that are very tacky, I know we all have different tastes, but weren't we first attract to mx5's because of the way they look and handle, I can understand improving performance, braking and handling, but for me body exterior and interior only need subtle enhancements