bad lucky tonight

AntHarmer · Postby **AntHarmer** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:26 am

* what you meant

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

meanmx · Postby **meanmx** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:28 am

Lol too quick for me

rossburns · Postby **rossburns** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:15 am

Don't get me wrong I'm not against mods, there are lots of things on mx5's that can be improved or changed to suit what you use the car for, I have made quite a few such as maz speed carbon fibre gear knob and handbrake, old NA seats recovered in Connolly leather with mazda logo, garage vary front lip, and have new dials being made by rev limiter.net in the USA as we speak, the speedo, fuel ect are being done in a barcode finish with retro mazda logo and tacho is being done in sunset orange for some contrast. I'm just not a fan of over the top body kits with massive aero, huge cannon mufflers ect, there is one getting around Toowoomba in a crap purple colour with a huge rear wing and these stupid looking chrome wheels that must be about 18's, looks like something off pimp my ride

project.r.racing · Postby **project.r.racing** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:23 am

and everyones tastes mix and match. but not everyone like my tastes. i dont like everyone elses tastes. sure a community is supposed to be a fun place. but people will always post their opinions. so if you dont like those possible opinion being thrown your way, then dont post at all.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:39 am

I cannot beleive that this is still going, the OP was never about mod's as such, it was a contest of the law and as said throughout Tesco was fortunate that the attending officer didn't kick his arse and defect his car.
There is a certain irony in the title too!
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:06 pm

taminga16 wrote:I cannot beleive that this is still going, the OP was never about mod's as such, it was a contest of the law and as said throughout Tesco was fortunate that the attending officer didn't kick his arse and defect his car.
There is a certain irony in the title too!
Greg.

I think you didn't read through all the post. Thats right, it is not about the taste of mod. It is about the mod that I have done is NOT illegal. If you don't understand then please go back to the previous pages and have a look.

Once again this post is not for getting comment of my mod, this post is to express my feeling/sadness from that officer doesn't understand how much research I did before I was putting these lights on. And also you don't just knock on your neighbour's door and said to them that "Oh god, your garden looks like 5h!t". I respect that you have the right to comment but please respect my "garden", specially that I am having a LEGAL mod here.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:15 pm

Tesco,
The lighting mod is your thing and that is fine with me, but as I said in my earlier post it was illegal, even Sharon from the Roads Deparment says,"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".
You are correct, as long as you do not turn your underbody lights on they are legal.
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:26 pm

taminga16 wrote:Tesco,
The lighting mod is your thing and that is fine with me, but as I said in my earlier post it was illegal, even Sharon from the Roads Deparment says,"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".
You are correct, as long as you do not turn your underbody lights on they are legal.
Greg.

Mine one doesn't flash at ALL, and not being visible mean the way to install these lights have to be not able to see directly by other drivers. For example, headlamps, brake lamps, these are visible. UNDER the car body is not visible. You ONLY see the glow from the lights reflected on the ground. The visible in here mean the neon itselt should not be able to see directly. By the way you could simply send them an email and play words game with them. Email address in just at the end of the message.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:54 pm

And today's lesson is,
'Never argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience'.
Greg.

tescoking · Postby **tescoking** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:02 pm

taminga16 wrote:And today's lesson is,
'Never argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience'.
Greg.

Honestly I don't think you are a fool, I respect everyone in here. If you don't understand then I will explain to you. I was trying to be reasonable, it was not something illegal or not allow to do, so why not just bring it out and tell everyone what happend. I don't consider that was argument. In return I hope others can do the same, just simply explain what the problem is or tell what people need to know, instead of telling them off to do some research for a couple days and find nothing at the end or something not right. Or even ask them to post something on other forum so people could laugh at them.

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:14 pm

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.

Postby **NitroDann** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:16 pm

He is saying that the rule interpretation is that the lights cannot be visible however the photons that they produce can be. No restriction on that so long as they do not flash.

Dann

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:22 pm

Dann,
I realise what Tesco has in mind but I do not believe that it was the law makers intention and I find it very difficult to think that they were considering the look of lighting hardware when they wrote this one.
Greg.

Postby **NitroDann** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:34 pm

But that is what is says so too bad??

This is the problem with the legal system, THIS.

Along with the general issue of local courts not partaking in proper procedure, but this. The law says this, if you dont like it change it.

But no, we just go and make up whatever we want.

Dann

taminga16 · Postby **taminga16** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:05 pm

That being the case, Tesco needs to lobby someone (not Sharon) who really knows what is expected of the law regarding auxilary lighting and ask for their absolute and definitive interpretation, because on the street and at the DRM office the same file would be being used to answer his enquiries.
The preamble to the rules regarding auxilary lighting will define 'lighting' and I would not think that there would be any reference to hardware nor to the display of same.
Greg.