Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

QLD Rear mudguard/fender eliminator

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by screwball, Jan 21, 2012.

  1. Afternoon ladies and gents.

    About 3 months ago I got pulled over by HWP and some lady stood there and inspected my bike for about 5 minutes (completely bone stock 2008 Triumph Daytona 675) and then proceeded to tell me that I've removed the mudguard and I need to put it back on.

    I advise that the rear assembly is as it was when I purchased the bike from the dealership and I have not modified it in any way. She advises that since I genuinely seem to have no idea about it, she's going to let me off but I have to fit the stock one back on or another of equivalent legality.

    I get home and spend about 2 hours googling images of my bike, factory released bikes, test bikes for MCN and stuff like that. Bottom line is that in all pictures of stock bikes, the rear assembly was identical to mine.

    To cut a long story short, the same goddamn cop pulled me up again today and then told me that because I'd not fixed the problem I was being issued a TIN for it. I proceeded to tell her that I followed it up (I went to Team Moto Triumph on Moss St, Brisbane and asked them whilst I was there) and it was stock. I told her that I did not want to modify the bike from stock as I wanted to remain basically as legal as possible with it so I chose not to "fix it" as it was not broken.

    So here I sit with a ticket in hand for driving a defective vehicle. Do I have recourse to take this to court and have it thrown out on the grounds that the bike is as it was when:

    A> Released from factory
    B> It passed roadworthy to be sold to me by a dealer

    The fact of the matter is that I refuse to go out and buy some dodgy ass peice of plastic to bolt onto the back of my bike just to satisfy some local asshole cop who seems to have it in for motorcycles (twice she's picked me out of a bunch of cars to pull over).

    So uh, what does everyone think?

  2. Take it to court. Pay for a roadworthy certificate. Take in pictures of the bike (preferabbly a Triumph brochure or something.) If the bike passed ADR's as it is (which it would have) you are not riding a defective vehicle. The police officer will have to go to court to tell their side of the story.

    If you have nothing wrong and you can prove it, you have nothing to worry about.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Go to Legal Aid Queensland as well (free legal aid) they will tell you how to go about it in more detail.
  4. Take it to court with all your evidence... it should get thrown out if you are telling the truth and have proof.
  5. like this one? It shows a rear mudguard.

    Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Daytona_675
    Some other photos don't show a rear guard.

    Edit: With some of the others that don't have the rear guard you can see the bolt holes where the bracket that goes down to the guard is attached. I'm only going by the pics at the Wikipedia site.
  6. Challenge it.
  7. contact triumph? they might write you a letter saying its ADR compliant?
  8. It is my understanding that the red rear reflector that is located on the rear fender is part of the ADRs, that from what I believe is what "they" are going on about.

    I maybe wrong...........
  9. Possible, although the Red Rear reflector is not required to be part of the mudguard there is only a requirement to its size and height above ground.

    Hi [MENTION=21283]screwball[/MENTION]

    The relevant ADR is: Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/04 - General Safety Requirements)

    14.3. Wheel Guards for L-Group Vehicles

    14.3.1. Wheel guards may consist of either permanent body structure or part structure and other components, including mudflaps, provided the specified protection is retained during vehicle operation.

    14.3.2. General Requirements

    The wheels of a vehicle and the wheel of a side-car must be fitted with wheel guards of width not less than the ‘Section Width’ of the tyre. The wheel guards must be so designed as to protect other road users, as far as practicable, against thrown-up stones, mud, ice, snow and water and to reduce for those users the dangers due to contact with the moving wheels.

    14.3.3. Special Requirements Rear ‘Axle’ and Side-car

    The wheel guard provided for the rear wheel and for the wheel of any side-car must extend not less than from a point vertically above the foremost part of the wheel rearward to a point not higher than the intersection of the arc of the wheel guard with a line through the centre of the wheel at 45 degrees to a horizontal plane through the centre of the wheel when a mass of 45 kg is distributed in the saddle of the vehicle at its ‘Unladen Mass’.

    Unfortunately Queensland being a strange place out of step with the rest of Australia :) has a special interpretation of this.

    From QLD Vehicle Standards Information No 28 Guidelines for Modifications to Motorcycles

    The mudguard provided for the rear wheel and for the
    wheel of any sidecar must extend not less than from a
    point vertically above the foremost part of the wheel
    rearward to a point not higher than the intersection of
    the arc of the wheel guard with a line through the centre
    of the wheel at 45 degrees to a horizontal plane through
    the centre of the wheel.

    So you can see they have excluded the bit from ADR about parts of the body being part of the mudguard i.e. Section 14.3.1

    You need to enlist the help of Triumph because you need their political clout I am afraid. This is a particularly stupid interpretation of the ADRS by a QLD department and should be put to rights.

    Let us know how you get on.
  10. This is how my rear fender looks, and how it looked as I was pulled over.

    The only difference is since this picture last week, my number plate and the TeamMoto surround was stolen so now it's just got a plate, no black plate surround.


    Also, I do believe that part of my legal argument is going to relate to this section of the legislation:


    At the time that I was pulled over and fined, the bike had not been tested whilst being laden with 45kg of weight.
  11. Attached Files:

  12. Then that copper is a fuckwit to believe you'd actually fit something so ugly to the back of your bike in place of any "stock" guard.
    Take it to court...
  13. It's the angle that's important. There doesn't need to be a guard sitting close to the wheel (although NSW is different and says "as close as practicable"). If it's part of the bike that is higher or the guard is higher then it needs to protrude further to get that angle or have a bit similar to a car mudflap (could be part of a license plate mount) that drops down and gives that angle with complete wheel width coverage (although this may be questionable in the Qld regs).

    As far as "stock" goes it took me a minute to find a photo of what seems to be a stock guard fitted (posted previously).
    Whether these were originally fitted and have mostly been removed by many owners I have no idea.

    I'd look into if the ADR or any interpretation of it has changed. Triumph are definitely the ones to contact.
  14. Mate, your Daytona's rear looks no different to mine (although my carbon fibre hugger might be a tad shorter & lower) and I've had the once-over in NSW by cops manning RBT's a few times without any dramas. That said, I don't have a rear facing red reflector ATM and am in the process of getting one fitted somehow. Apparently the cops on the Ol' Pac have been issuing TINs for this and other so-called "defects" recently. Like you, I have poured over images off the Net and have yet to have seen a Daytona sporting a mudguard.
  15. That fender (I used to call it the harbor bridge with all that bracing) is the stock one. The cop is just incompetent and arrogant. I'd have ripped my iPhone out and got some pics going. Sounds like she's out to get you so you'd still leave with a fine.
  16. Erm thanks, Captain Obvious...
    Fuck me but didn't you pick the most appropriate name?!
  17. The "fender eliminator" is a very popular modification. You can buy kits to modify a bike in this manner. It's the token mod that cops look for. It's like pulling over a modified sports car.. They know they can probably nab the driver for having the car lowered as thats a hugely common illegal mod. Same thing for bikes and FE's.. They check it first to find the easiest way to issue a TIN.
  18. The only rear guard I could find for these is a "hugger" made by Triumph and a few similar.
    I reckon you have a case to at least get the fine negated as along as you provide the info to back it up.
  19. This is just woman penis envy syndrome on part of this particular officer

    One of these types also a woman tried to tell me it was illegal to have all the lights flashing and strobing on my bike while I was parked in Mcdonalds

    CJVFR made mention of a Queensland State interpretation of the ADR

    this works in your favour - ADR are AUSTRALIAN design rules NOT Queensland design rules

    where there is ambiguity between state and federal laws the federal laws over rule the state ones - in this case the Federal ADR is the one you must be compliant with as the manufacturer has to certify that they meet ADR - a nation wide satandard.

    Take all evidence as suggested by other people here to the court

    instruct the police officer that she should bend over a table

    ask her if she thinks she deserves the courtesy of lube or not

    proceed to ass ream her good an proper

    ensure that the magistrate is made well aware of the fact she is not a automotive engineer

    ask her in questioning ( first question )

    Officer this TIN - exactly what section of the ADR does my motorcycle not comply with

    make her prove she is right about the ticket - make her show her knowledge ( lack of it actually )

    fight the man ( woman in this instance)

    make sure they compensate you for any loss of income ( pay etc to go to court )and all expenses - even costs of phone calls etc while you gather evidence

    I will say this again - ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use your smart phone to take pictures or video or even just a sound recording any time you are dealing with the police - be sure to inform them you are recording them and get them to state name rank station etc - do not take NO for an answer in recording them always ask them to state the date and time as well as weather conditions - make them say it or if you say it ask them to confirm it
  20. Y'know, for the life of me I can't work out why you're not married...