Lift Law Changes -Where are things at now?

[smurf182]

Try this

Page 1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle-roe/12065938723/sizes/o/

Page 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle-roe/12066535176/sizes/o/

Page 3/4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyle-roe/12066045554/sizes/o/

[jonossiksilvia]

[Heath]

Cheers.

Interesting points raised. I agree with most points too and surprisingly the authority card (did before too), but not with one 4wd assn lording it over everyone else in NZ. Never mind its a moot point now.

Interesting one of the last points made in the article was about the failure of associations and clubs to work together for the "greater good". Perhaps too many egos and agendas, or perhaps just an unwillingness to talk to each other. Either way we have to address those issues now and create a united front or we will be doomed to the same fate as last time and become bystanders in this discussion. Fractured and voiceless again.

Until we put aside the egos and agendas and just get on with doing what we can for "all 4wders" we will be dismissed as a bunch of fools.

[shortylux]

NZFWDA has permission to distribute the articles to their members, which we have done. We don't have permission to post to a public forum.

So as an NZFWDA member, how would the article have been distributed to me? I havent seen it. As I am not a huge fan of that particular mag, never saw it there either. Thanks for the cheeky photos.

Is this a big drama? Without some kind of context its hard to know. What is considered a "large" lift? If they are talking 12" then fair enough. If a Safari on 35's with a 5" lift is considered "medium lift", and can just be cert'd as per normal, sweet as.

Also, why is LTSA so keen to fix a problem that it seems (statistically)
doesn't exist?

With regard to the safety issue of the lifted vehicles chassis being at windscreen height, give me a break. Can any body say Kenworth? Mack? Scania? There are more of these "extra risk vehicles" on the road than there ever will be of our lifted recreational vehicles. It's hard to believe that LTSA is approaching this with a common sense attitude if they are concerned about that.

I do appreciate the work that NZFWDA are putting in to conserve our freedoms. There are people who give up massive amounts of personal time for land access and other rights. You guys are awesome.

[Pico42]

Shortylux, from the PM's I have received, it seems the articles were reproduced in Trail Torque, which is supplied to every NZFWDA member, as long as their details are up to date.

It was the June/July copies I found and read over the weekend. Have now searched out the November & December copies and doing some further reading at the moment...

These articles are pretty scathing of the canterbury group of clubs. Is this warrented?

[Pico42]

Where things are now is if you raise your truck , you take it in to be certed , the certifier will test the vehicle & if he deems it to be safe on the road he will pass it & then your sweet , if its not safe he will fail it and you will then have to adjust it until he deems it safe.
This will of course not stop anyone using a lifted or modified vehicle on the road illegally.( but then no system will)

Seems like a very fair & simple system to me.

And are things going to stay that way? I understood this entire debate was kicked off by the NZTA wanting to severely curtail lifts and wanted to know where things had got to with regards to the proposed changes.

[klompy]

If the NZTA can push something like this thru,look out for the rest of the modified car scene as what will they pick on next,or is some one else pulling strings in the back ground.

[Pico42]

So I had a closer read of the two parts of the Tony Johnson article and it seems to spell things out quite clearly - NZTA were signalling severe restrictions to lifts and the NZFWDA proposal was to permit the lifts, but with a few additional hurdles of authority cards and NZFWDA membership that would satisfy the NZTA and LVVTA concerns.

But I am not sure why the group (or loose group, or collection of individuals perhaps) from Canterbury (and this is not necessarily the Combined Clubs organisation) objected so hard to this proposal. What did they think was the alternative? And why do they choose to remain separate to the NZFWDA? Having read all 38 pages of the "Lift laws to be Inforced" thread (and there is a thread full of wild statement, conjecture, browbeating and general ignorance) did not greatly help, although it seemed to me that many of those objecting did not realise the NZTA position was the cause of the NZFWDA proposal, instead incorrectly seeing it as a way of forcing membership to NZFWDA on all affected vehicle owners.

Another question I have is what likelihood would there have been for the status quo to remain. How determined were the NZTA on imposing the restrictions on lifts? Was there a realistic chance of defeating the NZTA proposal in its entirely (such as it was)?

The final question that came to mind was why don't the Combined Clubs group simply join the NZFWDA and become a Canterbury or Northern SI Zone. They would remain responsible for their location, but also be able to have input into other with the backing of being from the national organisation. And the NZFDWA would greatly benefit from their membership as the Combined Clubs seem well organised and motivated to advocate for and on behalf of 4WDers. A separate matter, but one that this lift law issue highlights.

Whats the answer to all this? And with the 4WD community response to the NZTA proposal having stalled, will the lift restrictions come in anyway?

A bit more than my 0.02 worth...

[Pedro]

The final question that came to mind was why don't the Combined Clubs group simply join the NZFWDA and become a Canterbury or Northern SI Zone. They would remain responsible for their location, but also be able to have input into other with the backing of being from the national organisation. And the NZFDWA would greatly benefit from their membership as the Combined Clubs seem well organised and motivated to advocate for and on behalf of 4WDers. A separate matter, but one that this lift law issue highlights.


A bit more than my 0.02 worth...

Popcorn time

pedro

[xj]

Ahhh loving having a dedicated bush truck and a 80 series for my Camping/Towing wagon. All the beauracracy and politics and dick swinging and positioning and money grabbing and b******t just don't matter!! Woohooooo....................... Go fer it you fullas, get stuck in.

[kbjj]

Ahhh loving having a dedicated bush truck and a 80 series for my Camping/Towing wagon. All the beauracracy and politics and dick swinging and positioning and money grabbing and b******t just don't matter!! Woohooooo....................... Go fer it you fullas, get stuck in.

The way things are going thou, you'll need wof and rego 'offroad' soon as technically most of the tracks we use are 'public access'

[xj]

Ahhh loving having a dedicated bush truck and a 80 series for my Camping/Towing wagon. All the beauracracy and politics and dick swinging and positioning and money grabbing and b******t just don't matter!! Woohooooo....................... Go fer it you fullas, get stuck in.

The way things are going thou, you'll need wof and rego 'offroad' soon as technically most of the tracks we use are 'public access'

Not the places i go!! But yeah, there was talk a while back about DOC land requiring WOFs. Lucky Im on Private land eh??

[Nigel Bannan]

There has been a fair few conversions and opinions through out this thread so I thought I would put me 2 cents in aswell from a builders point of view ( as I am ). Keep in mind that all Combined reps are keen 4wders but have full time jobs to attend to at the end of the day.
Combined 4WD Clubs Inc has always tried to think of the Jo public, not just club members, when thinking of anything regarding 4wding weather it is a submission on the access road into one of the glaciers on the west coast were the local council wanted to extend the access road but charge the uses to working with Ecan on local issues in and around the Waimak area ( Christchurch ) with future developments of a dedicated 4wd area.
Combined never was against the Authority card in general but was against the fact that a general ( Jo public ) 4wder had to join a association to do a few mods to his/her truck to make it a bit more capable off road but at the same time still be able to drive down the tar mac safely.
There is a workshop coming up to discuss the future lift laws and Combined has been asked to attend to put forward our input on the matter.
Regarding Combined Clubs joining the NZ4wd Ass and having their own" Zone" . It has been tabled and is at the discussion ONLY stage at the present time and will be tabled at the next meeting for further discussion.

Regards
Nigel Bannan
Chairman
Combined 4WD Clubs Inc.

[De-Ranged]

Is this a big drama? Without some kind of context its hard to know. What is considered a "large" lift? If they are talking 12" then fair enough. If a Safari on 35's with a 5" lift is considered "medium lift", and can just be cert'd as per normal, sweet as.

Also, why is LTSA so keen to fix a problem that it seems (statistically)
doesn't exist?

With regard to the safety issue of the lifted vehicles chassis being at windscreen height, give me a break. Can any body say Kenworth? Mack? Scania? There are more of these "extra risk vehicles" on the road than there ever will be of our lifted recreational vehicles. It's hard to believe that LTSA is approaching this with a common sense attitude if they are concerned about that.

lol don't go down that path.... yes you are right the chassis is that high but thats about where it ends, engine drive train are down low, axle assembly is a huge weight CoG is as low as they can get it.... and the biggest difference wheel travel with all the resulting handling changes you get from suspension compression and body roll in corners

But hey if you think a seperate driving licence and regular medicals etc Oh and don't forget a seperate police sqauds just to police this group.... if this sounds like a fair trade for your lifted ride then keep pushing this argument lol my personal opinion is this is a good idea the licence part that is lol I feel that the driver should of a modified vehicle should be endorsed, or have a special licence

As for whats next for people who want modified vehicles..... I think its going to be a huge ramp in the cost of getting cert, the certifiers are underwritten by insurance.... all it is going to take is one pissed off parent, or a commercial interest that has gone wrong to get on a band wagon and push a case in court that the mods weren't safe and the insurance is going to double, triple lol or they will refuse to insure certain mods, wonder if insurers would consider lifted trucks safe... this is just a case of when!

[tallsam66]

You have to remember NZ4WD Ass only gives a stuff about its members.
Id doesn't give a toss about anyone else as its members subs pay there wages.
Combined Clubs acts for its Member Clubs members (approx. 600) & also for the rights & access of everyone who 4wds.
http://www.4wd.org.nz/

The vast majority of people who 4wd in NZ are neither a member of NZ4WD Ass or Combined Clubs.

[klompy]

I see it that way to tallsam.

[Pico42]

You have to remember NZ4WD Ass only gives a stuff about its members.
Id doesn't give a toss about anyone else as its members subs pay there wages.
Combined Clubs acts for its Member Clubs members (approx. 600) & also for the rights & access of everyone who 4wds.
http://www.4wd.org.nz/

The vast majority of people who 4wd in NZ are neither a member of NZ4WD Ass or Combined Clubs.

The first dealings I had with the NZFWDA was when they sent representatives to a DoC (Otago Conservancy) organised off-road users forum in Dunedin. The NZFWDA reps took the time to contact several local clubs (I was there with several others from the Central Otago Club) and meet with many of us on the day outside of the forum. That same day was when I heard of Combined Clubs - they also had reps who attended that same forum.

Not long after that CO4WDC joined the NZFWDA.

I gained a strong impression that both organisations sought to improve the lot of all 4WDers. But one was a national organisation with national recognition whilst the other had a strong Canterbury focus.

BTW, how many of the NZFWDA get paid wages for their work? I understood they were all volunteers, the same as any club officer? But I could very well be wrong - it not something I have ever looked up. I know there is expenditure for flights/accom whilst on NZFWDA business, but that's not wages.

I appreciate that there are many 4WDers who are not affiliated with any organisation. But they still receive the benefits of what each achieve. E.g. the court injunction against arbitrary road closures - NZFWDA. 4WD areas around the Waimak - Combined Clubs.

[Mudde1]

BTW, how many of the NZFWDA get paid wages for their work? I understood they were all volunteers, the same as any club officer? But I could very well be wrong - it not something I have ever looked up. I know there is expenditure for flights/accom whilst on NZFWDA business, but that's not wages.

No one at NZFWDA receives any wages or payment for their time. We are all volunteers. Elected officials are sometimes reimbursed for their costs. They are entitled to, but generally don't claim for all costs.
That information is very clear on our accounts which are a matter of public record. tallsam66 should be well aware of this.
Tony Burgess

President NZFWDA

[PeterVahry]

"Id doesn't give a toss about anyone else as its members subs pay there wages." (sic)

Oh that that could happen, actually the reverse is the fact. As a past president etc with the NZFWDA, it probably cost me several thousand dollars of my income. A little research by tallsam66 would be wiser than blurting such rubbish.

Both NZFWDA and Combined do the same, advocating for our recreation. The NZFWDA is bigger with more political influence. It has also helped fund legal efforts to stop closure of roads and is invited to DoC meetings in Wellington etc.

Hopefully Combined will take up the option of linking to NZFWDA to show that 4WD recreation is unified in its approach to access and our public image.

[tallsam66]

Peter
You say you advocate for all the 4wd community yet when Canterbury was having massive problems with 4wd thefts & I asked in this forum why NZ4WD Ass wasn't doing anything about it you told me via pm " we only have a small number of members in Canterbury and No members have asked us to be involved"
that's hardly helping out ALL the community is it !!

[Mudde1]

Peter
You say you advocate for all the 4wd community yet when Canterbury was having massive problems with 4wd thefts & I asked in this forum why NZ4WD Ass wasn't doing anything about it you told me via pm " we only have a small number of members in Canterbury and No members have asked us to be involved"
that's hardly helping out ALL the community is it !!

We are all volunteers and have limited time and a large number of projects on the go. We have to pick our battles and use our time where we feel it is best used. This was one of many things we would like to be involved in, but it simply didn't make it to the top of the list.
Tony.

[Coljag]

Oh come on you guys! Isn't it well overdue time all this bitchyness stopped and everyone with a 4WD interest started working together? Build a bridge and get over past issues and focus on how each organisation can build a better future - together. Otherwise we all stand to lose.
This sort of in fighting only helps the greenies (and others) achieve their goals of preventing 4WD access to many of the areas we now enjoy and in some way take for granted will always be able to enjoy.
United we stand, divided we fall!
Where are all the positive ideas for working towards a favourable conclusion with truck modifications? Focus on this.

[shortylux]

With regard to the safety issue of the lifted vehicles chassis being at windscreen height, give me a break. Can any body say Kenworth? Mack? Scania? There are more of these "extra risk vehicles" on the road than there ever will be of our lifted recreational vehicles. It's hard to believe that LTSA is approaching this with a common sense attitude if they are concerned about that.

lol don't go down that path.... yes you are right the chassis is that high but thats about where it ends, engine drive train are down low, axle assembly is a huge weight CoG is as low as they can get it.... and the biggest difference wheel travel with all the resulting handling changes you get from suspension compression and body roll in corners

But hey if you think a seperate driving licence and regular medicals etc Oh and don't forget a seperate police sqauds just to police this group.... if this sounds like a fair trade for your lifted ride then keep pushing this argument lol my personal opinion is this is a good idea the licence part that is lol I feel that the driver should of a modified vehicle should be endorsed, or have a special licence

Yeah De-Ranged, I realize the roll over issue is hard to compare (if that's what you are getting at with the axle mass comments). I was simply pointing out that the chassis height vs windscreen height of a car argument from LTSA carries little weight when you consider the number of trucks on the road with this exact physical property.

Maybe the engines are lowish compared to the rest of the truck. But 90% of the engine mass still sits above avg car bonnet height.
Yes, the drivers and vehicles them selves are subject to much more regulation than our lifted certified recreational vehicles are. None of that changes the fact that I see a crashed truck every week though.
Not to mention the number of trucks I am seeing around with no under-ride protection, and some that have it may as well not, it's so flimsy.

Any way, this is a small part of a large discussion. I don't think Trucks (kenworth etc) should be taken off the road. Just saying that the rule makers need to keep their eyes open and consider the whole picture.

Be interesting to see if we lose yet another freedom under the assumption that we are all idiots.

[Pico42]

Oh come on you guys! Isn't it well overdue time all this bitchyness stopped and everyone with a 4WD interest started working together? Build a bridge and get over past issues and focus on how each organisation can build a better future - together. Otherwise we all stand to lose.
This sort of in fighting only helps the greenies (and others) achieve their goals of preventing 4WD access to many of the areas we now enjoy and in some way take for granted will always be able to enjoy.
United we stand, divided we fall!
Where are all the positive ideas for working towards a favourable conclusion with truck modifications? Focus on this.

I have to agree with this.

[Pico42]

Peter
You say you advocate for all the 4wd community yet when Canterbury was having massive problems with 4wd thefts & I asked in this forum why NZ4WD Ass wasn't doing anything about it you told me via pm " we only have a small number of members in Canterbury and No members have asked us to be involved"
that's hardly helping out ALL the community is it !!

What would you have expected the NZFWDA to do about that problem? What did you expect Combined Clubs to do about that problem? And what was done about that problem?

Individual owners are responsible for securing their vehicles. If there is a spate of thefts targeting 4WD's and owners should take extra care, I would think one of the best ways to inform 4WD owners would be this forum.
The collective responsibility would still fall to the Police.

In a choice of who deals with my vehicle security and who lobbies a Govt organisation on 4WD regulatory issues, I will look after the vehicle and let the 4WD representative body lobby Govt.

[doddzee]

With regard to the safety issue of the lifted vehicles chassis being at windscreen height, give me a break. Can any body say Kenworth? Mack? Scania? There are more of these "extra risk vehicles" on the road than there ever will be of our lifted recreational vehicles. It's hard to believe that LTSA is approaching this with a common sense attitude if they are concerned about that.

lol don't go down that path.... yes you are right the chassis is that high but thats about where it ends, engine drive train are down low, axle assembly is a huge weight CoG is as low as they can get it.... and the biggest difference wheel travel with all the resulting handling changes you get from suspension compression and body roll in corners

But hey if you think a seperate driving licence and regular medicals etc Oh and don't forget a seperate police sqauds just to police this group.... if this sounds like a fair trade for your lifted ride then keep pushing this argument lol my personal opinion is this is a good idea the licence part that is lol I feel that the driver should of a modified vehicle should be endorsed, or have a special licence

Yeah De-Ranged, I realize the roll over issue is hard to compare (if that's what you are getting at with the axle mass comments). I was simply pointing out that the chassis height vs windscreen height of a car argument from LTSA carries little weight when you consider the number of trucks on the road with this exact physical property.

Maybe the engines are lowish compared to the rest of the truck. But 90% of the engine mass still sits above avg car bonnet height.
Yes, the drivers and vehicles them selves are subject to much more regulation than our lifted certified recreational vehicles are. None of that changes the fact that I see a crashed truck every week though.
Not to mention the number of trucks I am seeing around with no under-ride protection, and some that have it may as well not, it's so flimsy.

Any way, this is a small part of a large discussion. I don't think Trucks (kenworth etc) should be taken off the road. Just saying that the rule makers need to keep their eyes open and consider the whole picture.

Be interesting to see if we lose yet another freedom under the assumption that we are all idiots.

Really don't see the basis for you argument here Shortylux. Do you have experience in the Heavy Transport Industry? Trucks over 12T GVM have to operate within stability requirements as per the vehicle and dimension and mass rule. Trailers over 10T GVM have to be certified for stability (SRT). Your comparing factory compliant vehicles which meet international standards which if they are modified have to be certified by heavy vehicle certifiers and go through much more stringent inspections than Low Volume vehicles do.

Low Volume certifiers have their manual, anything outside their manual it goes to committee in wellington for review. The vehicle modifications that take place these days have come along way since the LVVTA manuals were written. I imagine part of this push to impose clearer guidelines is partly due to certifers not having guidelines on how to deal with some situations presented to them. I hope everyone can get together and work with NZTA and LVVTA on these matters, I work with NZTA a lot and it is much better to work with them than against them with policy change. Its much harder to fix a poorly implemented law once its past.

[tallsam66]

Peter
You say you advocate for all the 4wd community yet when Canterbury was having massive problems with 4wd thefts & I asked in this forum why NZ4WD Ass wasn't doing anything about it you told me via pm " we only have a small number of members in Canterbury and No members have asked us to be involved"
that's hardly helping out ALL the community is it !!

What would you have expected the NZFWDA to do about that problem? What did you expect Combined Clubs to do about that problem? And what was done about that problem?

Combined got a senior police officer & the press to attend one of there meeting & explained the issue to them & got positive responses from both , articles were published in news papers & police did undercover sting operations to try to catch thieves. ... combined made did all they could.


Individual owners are responsible for securing their vehicles. If there is a spate of thefts targeting 4WD's and owners should take extra care, I would think one of the best ways to inform 4WD owners would be this forum.
The collective responsibility would still fall to the Police.

In a choice of who deals with my vehicle security and who lobbies a Govt organisation on 4WD regulatory issues, I will look after the vehicle and let the 4WD representative body lobby Govt.

[shortylux]

Hi Doddzee.

I may be making my point poorly.

Yes. I have a little experience with the heavy transport industry.

To be clear, I am not talking about the stability of heavy transport vehicles. Nor am I talking about their modification.

The sole reason with which I make reference to the heavy transport industry is that their chassis (and engine in many cases) is at approximately the same height as a passanger cars windscreen.

I mention this because supposedly one of the concerns with lifted 4x4s is that it can raise the chassis to the windscreen level of passanger cars and this is an unacceptable safety risk for the cars.

I am suggesting that the increased risk to a passanger car of being involved in an under-ride type accident with a lifted 4x4 would be insignificant when you consider the traffic that shares the road with that passanger car every day.

Hopefully that is clear.

Arron.

[shortylux]

I hope everyone can get together and work with NZTA and LVVTA on these matters, I work with NZTA a lot and it is much better to work with them than against them with policy change. Its much harder to fix a poorly implemented law once its past.

Agree 100%. (Not that I work.with LTSA at all)

[doddzee]

The sole reason with which I make reference to the heavy transport industry is that their chassis (and engine in many cases) is at approximately the same height as a passanger cars windscreen.

I mention this because supposedly one of the concerns with lifted 4x4s is that it can raise the chassis to the windscreen level of passenger cars and this is an unacceptable safety risk for the cars.

Now I get ya

I would hope if logic like this is being used to pushed a fair argument to NZTA would be not to target lifted 4wds alone but suspension modifications in general.

Lowering a vehicle would have the same effect putting your vehicle in a more vulnerable position. Lowered vehicles still have alterations to steering geometry and changed handling characteristics which could be of concern.

If these changes are solely targeted at 4wd's stability is really their strongest argument of which to some degree is offset by increased wheel track due to larger tyres/offset rims typically fitted to lifted trucks, but that opens another can of worms with different spring rates and typical mud tyre handling characteristics