Not Ranked
OK guys,
To support Dave (Suthol) I'm going to give you a clear example of where the NCOP contradicts the ADR's. I've even contacted the Department of Infrastructure, and had a response in writing which clearly contradicts the NCOP (either version). In summary:
ADR 4/04 (seatbelts) has a specific allowance for multiple point harnesses (i.e. a 4 point harness). These have been approved as legal by the Department of Infrastructure. If you want a copy of the email, PM me and I'll forward it to you. Both NCOP's have clauses to prevent you from legally using harnesses in them.
The issue with NSW is: they typically work from VSI 7, which states 10/01 as the relevant standard for steering columns. However, as they are the guys who approve what goes on the road, they are working from 'the most recent addition'. This means we have to meet 10/02 - a standard that just about all car manufacturers in australia have managed to get an exemption from on the basis that their cars are continuations of earlier models. Frankly, they are a law unto themselves, and do what they wish. File this under 'arrogant RTA', for mr Gay. The operate under the guise of something being a 'safety driven' decision, hence no-one in the world can argue with it because it is in the name of safety.
I've been warned by some to watch what I write on the forum; so far I've made sure I've been factual. All I can say is that I have been repeatedly let down by a public service; they are unelected, so we have no opportunity to get rid of them, and I'm sick of it. On the basis that petrol flows through my veins, I am already looking for my next job to be interstate so that I can leave NSW - what a shame that another person who pays significant amount of taxes as a professional engineer will be taking his skills elsewhere based on the RTA decision making process.
Treeve
|