Ask The Copper

[VicCop]

I have to make it clear to everyone that I never started this thread. I practically inherited it and it's really taken a dive.

Don't get me wrong, there are some really good points people raise and it's good to see someone taking the initiative in finding out something particularly to do with road safety. It's been beneficial both ways believe it or not. When someone asks a real head scratcher it gets me thinking and even doing some homework to make sense of it so then I come up with an answer not just for the next time I get asked, but if I ever come across the same scenario in the real world.

From the forum point of view, I guess this thread is a good way to stem the flow of legal and police related questions into one point. Rather than having threads pop up all over the place for specific issues.

The problem I keep seeing is the same types of people posting questions where they know the answer themselves, but when I read it translates to "I'm trying to find a way to get out of being penalised for doing the wrong thing". In other cases it reads as a blatant attempt to try and test and discredit those who know what they're on about (i.e. me).

I would advise those people that you have two options.

1. Join the job (or try to) and see what it's like on the other side if you reckon you're up to the task of making it better.

2. Become a lawyer if you think you're so good at interpreting legislation and evidence and arguing a persons innocence in court.

Don't forget that I have dealt with all sorts of 'customers' in a variety of ways. Victims of crime, witnesses, offenders (both crime and traffic), solicitors, barristers, prosecutors, magistrates, right down to the local little old lady who's lived in the area for 50 years and wants to tell me how concerned she is about the kids who walked past her house the other night smashing bottles.

I've had not just offenders but also victims lie to me to extort money from either a partner of some kind or the government or get something else they want through me taking some sort of action on their part. Something that usually gets figured out before anyone puts pen to paper. I've pulled over the less desireable of road users only to hear them tell me how it's my fault that they did the wrong thing.

I've stood up in court, in the witness box, in front of a magistrate in a court room full of a public gallery of 30 people to have a barrister try and discredit my evidence by asking me out of the blue questions to throw me off like "How much time had passed between this and blah blah blah... was it 30 seconds, was it 20 seconds, was it 10? Come on Senior, how long???!!!" all as just a ploy to take their fee from someone to get them out of, again, doing the wrong thing. Then to stand there and maintain my ground to fight through their testing of my evidence to finally have a case found proven (guilty).

I don't know how admin here runs this or what their threshold is, but if I were in that position I would have acted on a few recent posters rather swiftly and imposed some sort of appropriate sanction. I would encourage something like this for any future pointless posts or attempts to bait some sort of ugly response.

 

[VicCop]

Who gets busted in this case? The learner driver, who is under the limit, the supervisor who is over the limit or both?

The passenger as they're in charge. It's not the learners job to know how much the accompanying driver has had to drink.

 

[yZoH]

Very interesting thread, Never really stepped foot in here. But quite a good read.

Good job VicCop!

My question to you is, What is the go with factory cars that have height clearences lower than 100mm underneath the car? As I know this is a very common thing with sports cars an some luxury cars now days.

Throwing it out there, My front lower control arms, At factory height were only 95mm ground clearance from the way they angle down an then the balljoint goes into the bottom of my front suspension.

Just like the underbody aero swoops down just below the 100mm mark.

How would this fact be proven to an officer if it was ever picked on? As There is no information about ground clearence in the owners manual.

Cheers
Mat

 

[VicCop]

My question to you is, What is the go with factory cars that have height clearences lower than 100mm underneath the car? As I know this is a very common thing with sports cars an some luxury cars now days.

Throwing it out there, My front lower control arms, At factory height were only 95mm ground clearance from the way they angle down an then the balljoint goes into the bottom of my front suspension.

Just like the underbody aero swoops down just below the 100mm mark.

How would this fact be proven to an officer if it was ever picked on? As There is no information about ground clearence in the owners manual.
Mat

In a perfect world I guess that if it's lower than minimum ground clearance then it shouldn't have been granted registration. But I suppose some do get through. I honestly can't say for sure as one would think there's a minimum clearance so all have to be that. Thinking black and white though (the law is never black and white, full of gray) that if it's under the minimum then it's a defect. Even though there's nothing in your cars specs to tell you, the car is your responsibility.

In a practical sense, I don't think there's too many times I've ever measured a cars height. It's been more of a case of looking and noticing that clearly it's way too low. Through that method I'm not really going to notice a difference of 5mm. It's only in the real obvious ones that are either old and the mechanics have worn causing it to drop or the ones that have been ridiculously modified.

Remember that a defect notice is just that, a notice. Something to tell you that something's not right and to go seek some professional advice or attention then have VicRoads (noticed you're in Victoria) clear it to say that it's approved for road use.

 

[yZoH]

In a perfect world I guess that if it's lower than minimum ground clearance then it shouldn't have been granted registration. But I suppose some do get through. I honestly can't say for sure as one would think there's a minimum clearance so all have to be that. Thinking black and white though (the law is never black and white, full of gray) that if it's under the minimum then it's a defect. Even though there's nothing in your cars specs to tell you, the car is your responsibility.

In a practical sense, I don't think there's too many times I've ever measured a cars height. It's been more of a case of looking and noticing that clearly it's way too low. Through that method I'm not really going to notice a difference of 5mm. It's only in the real obvious ones that are either old and the mechanics have worn causing it to drop or the ones that have been ridiculously modified.

Remember that a defect notice is just that, a notice. Something to tell you that something's not right and to go seek some professional advice or attention then have VicRoads (noticed you're in Victoria) clear it to say that it's approved for road use.

Thanks heaps for the reply bud, It's just gotten me curious. An I guess that shed some light on it

Cheers
Mat

 

[INNAWE]

Ok one I am sure anyone can answer.
I got a defect notice the other day on the VP (man that little yellow thing is like a target on my back lol), only the rear brake lights, the centre one is operational still. Oh and my handbrake needs adjusting.... Anyways I have to take it in by tomorrow to Vic Roads to get checked out. If I cannot fix it by tomorrow are Vic Roads able to extend the time? I just have a bad feeling it’s not just the globes. That being said I know it’s my responsibility to get fixed; I was just interested in finding out if the time can be extended.

Cheers
Scott

And VicCop (and anyone else with accurate advice) ... cheers for helping us all out, I am sure I speak for all readers of this thread when I say we appreciate your advice

 

[aaronevolution]

VicCop, following Hozy's question, I have also heard that the 100mm ground clearance isn't used in the A.C.T.?

 

[Darren_L]

Very interesting thread, Never really stepped foot in here. But quite a good read.

Good job VicCop!

My question to you is, What is the go with factory cars that have height clearences lower than 100mm underneath the car? As I know this is a very common thing with sports cars an some luxury cars now days.

Throwing it out there, My front lower control arms, At factory height were only 95mm ground clearance from the way they angle down an then the balljoint goes into the bottom of my front suspension.

Just like the underbody aero swoops down just below the 100mm mark.

How would this fact be proven to an officer if it was ever picked on? As There is no information about ground clearence in the owners manual.

Cheers
Mat

not sure how it is in the other states - although usually these things are national as most are derived from the national vehicle standards
but read the extract from Qld legislation regarding factory ride heights less than 100mm

The road clearance of a fully laden vehicle must not be
less than 100mm measured at any part of the vehicle
other than the wheel rim or brake backing plates.
(This does not apply where a lesser clearance has been
specified by the manufacturer.)


If you were defected in this case, you could request a letter from the manufacturer specifying the factory minimum clearance which usually should be sufficient evidence to clear the defect notice.

 

[VR38]

I think you might find the 100mm clearance thing is used by the pits and is with all 4 wheels deflated.

AFAIK police hand books (at least in NSW) make reference to ADR compliance for head light and tail light height.
ADR's state that headlights for cars manufactured to MM/YYYY years must be min 600mm off the ground and 500mm from the ground after MM/YYYY etc etc. and yes I have been measured in the past for a pink slip in the Torana, which was freaking low.

 

[Darren_L]

I think you might find the 100mm clearance thing is used by the pits and is with all 4 wheels deflated.

where did you read/hear that ?
definitely not the case