Dangerous "mods" piss me off...

[RunningRich]

Followed a blue IS200 (CGP538) through Otahuhu today, saw something that pissed me off.

The tints were so dark I couldn't see inside, but that's not it.

The car was so low there was no way it was legal, but that's not it.

It was the way that the front arches had had the inner lip cut away and the remaining edge bent outwards to clear the tyre. The paint was all cracked and rusted, it was a feking pisspoor job. What pissed me off was the way the roughly cut edge was sticking out from the fenders at about knee level. What an arsehole, there is no way that is safe for any other road user.

Wankers like this give good enthusiasts a bad name. That car should be taken off the guy and crushed, anyone that $&#$% up a good car like that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

But what can you do? Our 'optional' warrant situation is a farce. Wanker!

[Dell'Orto]

Therein lies the other downfall of easy finance...sure, you can tick up a $20k car, but you cant afford to do modifications the proper way.
It sucks, but without selective culling of idiots like that, there isnt much we can do.

[WeNdY^cLeAr]

Its a company vehicle so the tints are legal and surprisingly it has a current warrant and reg!

[Silent Knight]

Its a company vehicle so the tints are legal and surprisingly it has a current warrant and reg!

I know something else that's illegal...

[WeNdY^cLeAr]

I know something else that's illegal...

Meh, no harm done!

[RunningRich]

Its a company vehicle so the tints are legal and surprisingly it has a current warrant and reg!

Huh?! How can those dark tints be legal? Being a company vehicle makes no difference to the tint requirement (35% VLT for front door windows). There is no way those guards can be considered legal as they compromise the external projections requirements of the LTSA WOF manual. Only a dickhead would modify their car to be dangerous like that.

Frankly they only way those tints and guards could be "legal" is if the WOF station was unethical or plain incompetent.

As another road user, I say it should be banned from the road. All we can hope is that the tyres contact the guard and get sliced up, as good as road spikes!

[WeNdY^cLeAr]

I'm not sure on the exact percetage but I was led to believe that if it is registered as a commercial vehicle it could have darker tints, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also did not say the guards were legal. I can only assume they were done after the warrant was issued.

[Silent Knight]

Yes correct.
If a vehicle is registered as a Commercial Vehicle then the normal tinting laws do not apply anymore.

Reason being commercial vehicles can carry goods worth thousands of dollars which they need to hide from the view of the general public's eyes.

[Jazza]

I believe the darkest you can get is only another 2% on front and back if it is registered as a courier.

[wde_bdy]

Yes correct.
If a vehicle is registered as a Commercial Vehicle then the normal tinting laws do not apply anymore.

Reason being commercial vehicles can carry goods worth thousands of dollars which they need to hide from the view of the general public's eyes.

Totally incorrect. A class MA passenger vehicle cannot legally tint darker than 35% (unless imported with factory glass that is darker, but thats a different story and not allowed on front side windows). To change a class MA vehicle to NA class such as utes etc there are set load carrying rules that mean the rear seats must be permanently removed. If this car is actually registered as class NA but has the seats still in place then someone has a done a dodgy class change on it (most likely same place that issued the dodgy warrant, assuming the guards were like that when it got a WoF). You cant just say "Oh, its a commercial vehicle I can tint as dark as I want". Even if it was NA class front side windows are still only allowed at 35%.

Callum

[Silent Knight]

Info might be incorrect but I got it from someone who has just done this to their work vehicle. The info was supplied by the company that put the tints on and was also double checked through the LTSA to make sure otherwise they would have tinted the vehicle.

[wde_bdy]

what sort of vehicle? There are no exceptions within the WoF guidelines for it and given tints are limited for safety reasons it just doesn't sound right to me. If its a van or a stationwagon with rear seats removed then the rear windows can go as dark as you want as long as class is changed, but front sides are still only 35%. Any details you can get would be good to clarify this.

Callum

[Silent Knight]

It's a station wagon.
Rear seats are still intact but not used other than for carrying goods.
The front Windscreen can't go as dark as the rest so it's allot lighter.
I can't remember 100% whether the driver and front passenger windows are lighter aswell or the same tint as the rest sorry.

[RedMist]

Followed a blue IS200 (CGP538) through Otahuhu today, saw something that pissed me off.

The tints were so dark I couldn't see inside, but that's not it.

The car was so low there was no way it was legal, but that's not it.

It was the way that the front arches had had the inner lip cut away and the remaining edge bent outwards to clear the tyre. The paint was all cracked and rusted, it was a feking pisspoor job. What pissed me off was the way the roughly cut edge was sticking out from the fenders at about knee level. What an arsehole, there is no way that is safe for any other road user.

Wankers like this give good enthusiasts a bad name. That car should be taken off the guy and crushed, anyone that $&#$% up a good car like that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

But what can you do? Our 'optional' warrant situation is a farce. Wanker!

Totally and utterly with you on this one, on all counts.

[B1NZ]

Agreed 100% - I've had the misfortune of some dork with no suspension coming towards me around a country road corner to fast and literally bounce into my lane and i just narrowly managed to avoid the little tosser by driving on the grass!!

but apparently as long as the springs are captive and theres 100mm clearance its legal? wheres the sense in that?

[UTERUS]

Haha i know the guy who owns that car

[Grrrrrrr!]

Uterus

On behalf of all users of this forum i would like to extend a token of our appreciation for that truely useful contribution to the discussion at hand.

It was well thought out, clearly communicated, and provoked some serious debate as to the current level of compliance of NZs vehicular fleet and the effiency of the policing thereof.

We wait you next missive eagerly.

Sincerely

Grrrrrrr!

</pisstake>

Oh and by the way, when you next see this "guy" whether it is "Mr Lets hack up a piece of fine toyota engineering in a butcherous way leaving it in unsafe, illegal and downright skanky state" or "Mr lets slam it so it looks cool but handles like a pile of dog poo auu" (your message wasn't exactly clear....) please feel free to deliver a size 9 (or whatever size you wear) at high speed directly to his rectal area on my behalf.

addenum:
Having read Uterus' other recent post in this forum i think he may in fact be well on his way to joining the club of people that are deserving of a size 9... "chur bro, i dont wanna go to a tint place cos they wont put illegal tints on my car.."

I for one will smile the day he writes his car off by pulling out in front of someone and the police ping him for the illegal tints that impaired his vision leading to the accident, resulting in his insurance company laughing when he asks for his payout...

[Lloyd]

but apparently as long as the springs are captive and theres 100mm clearance its legal?

Little bit more too it than that though

[Bazda]

haha that guy used to me my mates mate, yep a bit of of idiot.
He dont give a shit about anything! also mag and turbo wanted to put it in the PC mag before they huckered the guards.

[Akane]

The wider your guard, the more hardcore you are!