[cboy]

This is interesting. In Australia the government pretty well spells out to the letter how you have to build your street rod. Once at the site just click on any of the sub sections.

http://www.dotrs.gov.au/transreg/vsb/Street_Rod_Manual.aspx


Actually some pretty good safety lessons in those rules.

 

[BillyShope]

We who live as free men look at something like this and wonder why anyone puts up with it. But, people who have lived under socialism all their lives accept it without question. They're accustomed to others telling them what to do. They don't consider thinking and doing things on their own without first checking with "the rules."

And, of course, the rules are so voluminous and ambiguous that the government can, at any time, step in and send an individual off to the gulag because he didn't do it right. Consider one of the silly rules from this document: (paraphrasing) Street rods must have a frame and body construction. The body cannot contribute to the torsional rigidity.

But, a Tri-Five Chevy gets over half of its torsional rigidity from the body structure. Does this mean that, if you build a street rod from a '55 Chevy, you have to more than double the torsional rigidity of the stock frame? See what I mean? Voluminous, ambiguous, AND arbitrary. If the nearest government "inspector" is a "a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp. for use as a fuel" and you show up with your girlfriend, you'll never drive your car on the street.

Obviously, socialism has made its inroads into this country and there are millions who would rather live under a system of rules than in freedom.

Incidentally, this same freedom-sapping, ingenuity-killing mindset is found in the rules handed down by many of the race sanctioning organizations. Safety rules are one matter and are usually required by the insurers. But, for instance, when the NHRA says, in effect, if it ain't in our rule book, you can't do it, they've gone way too far!

 

[Rob (chuck) Berry]

Australian Rules!

G'day
To the last poster, misinformation can be confusing. In Oz we only call PRE 1949 built cars Street Rods so any reference to tri five Chevys and the like do not apply; I was the person who with others wrote the initial Guidelines for Rod rego in Queensland when I was the Secretary for the QLD Street Rod Technical Advisory Committee for the Australian Street Rod Federation.
The State Director, and two Mechanical Engineers formulated the Guideline with my help ( I spent thirty years as a mechanic and then as an Automotive Technical Teacher, Specialising in suspension brakes and steering; I am a member of the Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers and have built several Street Rods). These Guidelines then went to legislators and Street Rods are now legal and recognised as a legitimate pastime throughout Australia.
Before the Guidelines it was hit or miss when you went to register your car and now if you follow the Guidelines you are GUARANTEED registration. Your project is overseen and inspected in three stages by HOTRODDERS (read friends) who will advise you to right any problems, First stage rolling Chassis and running gear - no paint . Second stage Body on and check clearances to things like steering columns and brake pedals and third is completed car. The inspectors have to adhere to a Code of Conduct and are not to use their position to resrict the builders freedoms and individuality, the major concern is a safely strongly built car that will allow the builder to enjoy the drive.:nono:

 

[cboy]

Rob,

Great to get the inside scoop on these guidelines and their implementation direct from the horses mouth, so to speak. And welcome to HR.Com.

I'm curious if there are fees involved in the three inspections. In the U.S. many states require a final "safety inspection" of hand built or scratch built rods. But I know in Wisconsin, at least, there is no fee for the inspection - just a pretty good charge for the original title and license.

Thanks again for the details.

 

[BillyShope]

Re: Australian Rules!

G'day
To the last poster, misinformation can be confusing. In Oz we only call PRE 1949 built cars Street Rods so any reference to tri five Chevys and the like do not apply; I was the person who with others wrote the initial Guidelines for Rod rego in Queensland when I was the Secretary for the QLD Street Rod Technical Advisory Committee for the Australian Street Rod Federation.
The State Director, and two Mechanical Engineers formulated the Guideline with my help ( I spent thirty years as a mechanic and then as an Automotive Technical Teacher, Specialising in suspension brakes and steering; I am a member of the Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers and have built several Street Rods). These Guidelines then went to legislators and Street Rods are now legal and recognised as a legitimate pastime throughout Australia.
Before the Guidelines it was hit or miss when you went to register your car and now if you follow the Guidelines you are GUARANTEED registration. Your project is overseen and inspected in three stages by HOTRODDERS (read friends) who will advise you to right any problems, First stage rolling Chassis and running gear - no paint . Second stage Body on and check clearances to things like steering columns and brake pedals and third is completed car. The inspectors have to adhere to a Code of Conduct and are not to use their position to resrict the builders freedoms and individuality, the major concern is a safely strongly built car that will allow the builder to enjoy the drive.:nono:

Sorry if my comments offended you, but, in this country, we have a completely different mindset with regard to the government's role in our lives. When someone shows up at our door and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," we reach behind the door for the shotgun.

The intent of our Constitution is to closely define the matters in which the government can provide direction and assistance. "Rod building" is not included.

You see, we don't abide much with thievery here, even when it's done by men in suits. Both you and cboy have provided examples of how Australian rodders have benefited from these rules. Fine. But, what about the little old lady who couldn't care less about rods? She doesn't even drive! She is, however, forced to pay for all that was involved in drafting the rules and in the ongoing bureaucracy which continues to support and enforce them. But, she doesn't want to pay for this. Some time in jail will change her mind. But, what if she resists? Why, she'll be forcibly escorted to jail, of course. All of this is done very "legally," but those in this country fail to see the difference between the treatment of this little old lady by men in suits and the treatment she would receive if she carried her purse into a dark alley in the wrong part of town. Robbery is robbery, whether it's done under the color of law or not.

Australian politicians have decided that, "for the greater good," these rules are necessary and must be financed with tax dollars. But, who are they to make such a decision? Do they really consider themselves endowed with such godlike knowledge that they should know when it is necessary to take wealth from some people and give it to others?

In the early years of this country, Congress was asked to grant a small pension to the widow of an Army officer. The bill was about to pass with no comment when a congressman...Daniel Boone...stood to his feet and alerted his fellows to the fact that the Constitution did not grant them the authority to transfer the nation's wealth. (He offered to personally contribute to a fund for the lady and urged the others to do the same.) The bill was defeated almost unanimously. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my earlier post, socialism is on the ascendency and such a bill today would...and does...pass with no problem.

I realize you love Australia and, most likely, you love socialism. But, though we are decreasing in number, many of us here still value the freedom promised in our Constitution and recognize socialism as the enemy of that freedom.

(Incidentally, my torsional stiffness comments would apply to pre '49 cars as well, though the percentage carried by the body structure would be somewhat less.)

 

[38Chevy3WCoupe]

BillyShope

Please do not presume to speak for me when telling others how you --- not all Americans -- view things.

 

[cboy]

Re: Re: Australian Rules!

...but, in this country, we have a completely different mindset with regard to the government's role in our lives.

[snip]

The intent of our Constitution is to closely define the matters in which the government can provide direction and assistance. "Rod building" is not included.

[snip]

Australian politicians have decided that, "for the greater good," these rules are necessary and must be financed with tax dollars.

Not to stir up a hornets nest (and take this thread way off topic) but it seems to me it's not a question of socialism vs democracy (or whatever we want to call what we have in the states.) The fact is things are not that much different here than Australia when it comes to the government putting it's strong arm on rod building. The only difference I can see is that it is state government and not the federal government doing the intervening in the U.S. I know my '32 had to pass a pretty rigorous safety inspection by the state police before I could get it licensed to be on the road. There were more than 100 items on the checklist the inspector had to verify before I was deemed road worthy. Possibly the Australian version of this inspection IS more strict - but it seems to me that's just a matter of degree. Both cases have the same situation - government intervention in rod building.
And government tax money being used to pay for that intervention.

Also, regarding the "greater good", I do think there IS a greater good in having safety inspections of hand built or modified automobiles. I've seen some rat rods I wouldn't want bearing down the road at me from the opposite direction. So I'm willing to fork over some tax dough to keep myself a little safer. Seems to me that is the same thing the Aussies are doing.

I do think Billyshope makes some good points as to whether there SHOULD be the level of government involvement that there is in our daily lives - but I think it is unfair to point the finger at Australian government when our own government here in the states is doing virtually the exact same thing.

Dewey

 

[BillyShope]

You're absolutely right, cboy. When it comes right down to it, there's little difference in the operating characteristics of the US government and that in Australia.

But, in the US, this has been the result of many years of gradual departure from the original design.

The "founding fathers" (as those who wrote the Constitution are usually called) would, for instance, strongly object to the reference to our government as a "democracy." When you read their comments on this matter, it is obvious that they harbored a very strong dislike...even a hatred...for democracy. This was to be a "representative republic." They realized, for one thing, that it was totally impractical for legislation to be enacted by a vote of the people on every issue and, also, that a mob can often be misdirected through passionate oratory and by emotional reactions to events. Additionally, they recognized that a democracy will endure only until the mob realizes they have the power to empty the national treasury. Perhaps the most obvious example of the abandonment of the republic was the adoption of the amendment to provide for popular election of senators. Others would say that the North's victory in the Civil War was the final blow.

Today, politicians pay lip service to the Constitution and then proceed to do violence to it each and every day of their "service."

But, as I indicated, there's still a few of us who accept the Constitution as its written, and not as its "interpreted" by those nine old foks in their black nightshirts.

 

[mk8-78tabubba]

is this the constitution forumn?...im lost. all i know is, that i would be very upset with moving to australia, just because of the 460cid limit. does that mean: no uber big funmotors? no drag cars(top fuel/funny type of cars)thats no fun.

 

[bondo]

But, as I indicated, there's still a few of us who accept the Constitution as its written, and not as its "interpreted" by those nine old foks in their black nightshirts.

Ayuh.............

At Least 51% of Us feel that way................
The Election last month Proved That.................

"Out with All the Liberal Dummycrats............................"

 

[cboy]

"But, as I indicated, there's still a few of us who accept the Constitution as its written, and not as its "interpreted" by those nine old foks in their black nightshirts." (Quoted from BS and bondo's posts)

That would presume YOU are not "interpreting" while everyone else, including the Supreme Court, IS "interpreting".

In reality, the Constitution is simply a compilation of words. And whether you read it, I read it, or the Supreme Court reads it, we must each use our individual powers of comprehension to understand and make meaning out of those words. And since no two of us are the same and no one of us has the power of perfect comprehension, we inevitably end up with differences of opinion on what those original words in the constitution mean and how they ought to be applied.

I have no problem whatsoever with those who would say they adamantly disagree with the current court's interpretation and application of the Constitution. This is a right granted to each and every one of us and I want to believe that is what Bondo and Billyshope are getting at.

But I have a huge problem with any person who presumes there is only one way to comprehend the Constitution ("the way it was written") and that they are the one person (or persons) with the perfect powers to do the comprehending.

Further, if you read the Constitution, there appears to be a clear mandate for the 9 Justices to continually interpret and apply the provisions of that document. It's their job. So we can disagree vehemently with HOW they are interpreting - but I think we would be in error to say they SHOULDN'T be interpreting.

And how in the heck did we get to this point in a simple thread about street rods in Australia?

 

[BillyShope]

I'm probably responsible for sidetracking this thread. Sorry about that.

Your comments on interpretation reflect that which is commonly taught in the government schools today. The kids are not criticized if they fail to comprehend the intent of the author, but are encouraged to interpret a text in any way they desire. At this point, written communication becomes an exercise in futility. But, traditionally, the science of hermeneutics has been used in textual interpretation. When this is done, the precise meanings of words are used in the analysis of a document.

At the time the Constitution was written, it was assumed that the guidelines contained therein would be interpreted in just that manner. But, of course, that limited authority is not sufficient for the justices of today. Actually, the judicial arm of our government is relatively powerless. They can decide a law is unconstituional, but they lack any power to enforce their decision. And, at any time, Congress can say that they're not to hear cases of a certain sort. As an example, the Supremes ruled that state taxes in California could be payed only by gold and silver coin. Except to stop the activities of sheriffs who were collecting taxes in gold and silver and then paying Sacramento in Lincoln Greenbacks, the decision was totally ignored. Or, consider the bill admitting Ohio into the Union in 1953, which was made retroactive to 1803. This was clearly an ex post facto law and totally unconstitutional, but so what?

But, back to your comment about safety laws being necessary "for the common good." Once you allow the politicians that right, you've lost your freedom! Why? Consider the regulatory agencies. We have the FAA, which protects us as we fly; we have the FDA, which protects us from "bad" medicines; we have the FCC, which protects us from nasty language on the radio, and on and on. When each of these regulatory agencies was proposed, there were complaints about how this would cause a hardship to businesses and put people out of work. But, a bit more investigation uncovers the fact that each of the regulatory agencies was first proposed by the very industry which was to be regulated. Why would they ask for regulations which would cost them money? Because the net effect was to drive out the smaller competitiors and give big business more of a stranglehold on the market. Along with this comes control of the politicians by those same big business interests. With socialism, the means of production are owned by the government. With fascism, the means of production are controlled by the government through regulation. So, while the large chemical companies are not owned by the US government, the fact that they can introduce genetically altered foods with essentially no testing (compared to that which is required elsewhere in the world) indicates that the distinction between socialism and fascism is very small.

You simply cannot let the nose of the camel into the tent.

 

[cantspel]

Think maybe we could slip in a few Bible interpretations while we're at it?
Can't we all just get along?:boxing:

 

[Rob (chuck) Berry]

Australian Rules

Good grief guys! I just wanted to explain how the Guidelines came about in Australia. The whole thing was written by us Hotrodders and was made openly interpretable so that freedom of expression could be allowed. There is one point I feel I must make and that is if you do want a bigger engine or anything outside the norm in Australia regardless of year model you can have it as proven by Rod Hadfields 55 Chev with a V12 airplane engine in it ;he just had to get engineer assistance and you must agree that is a good idea. Finally when we used to get paid to do the inspections in Queensland, it added up to about $200 Oz which is less than a set of door handles!! Most inspections took over an hour and would be done by two guys. Hope this is enough to satisfy all.

 

[BillyShope]

Re: Australian Rules

The whole thing was written by us Hotrodders and was made openly interpretable so that freedom of expression could be allowed....

Fine! Great idea! As cboy has pointed out, these guidelines include some excellent rodbuilding tips. But, why didn't you let it go at that? Why did you get the government involved? It's fine when a group of rodders make some suggestions for our mutual benefit, but when they show up with a sheriff with a 9mm strapped to his waist, it's another matter! That's what started all this "Constitution" business.

 

[Rob (chuck) Berry]

The end I hope

As you are not Australian residents I will tell you how our car registration system works. After you build a car you have to go to a local registration office where your car is put on the state registration data base, at the same time your vin /chassis number is recorded and you are given or choose a licence plate number which cross identifies the car. This plate stays with the car for life unless you change it with the registration office, an annual fee is paid and off you go; it varies from state to state but the basics are the same. The Guidelines were written because the authorities and inspectors at the registration offices did not know what they were looking at when it came to pre 1949 Street Rods so lots of cars did not pass their safety inspection process for new vehicles. The Government saw the problem and asked the Rodders to make a systematic Guideline that, if adhered to, would ensure rego and eliminate the need for their inspectors to look at the street rods so that once the owner had a signed inspection sheet from the hot rodder inspector all he had to do was walk in and pay the man for registration.
The only way a policeman will show up at your door - gun drawn- with this system is if you use the Street Rod as a getaway car in a bank robbery! He cant take your car from you any more than your local policemen would be able to unless you are doing something illegal. Yes we are more restricted than you guys, but there was a time here when we all were walking a tight rope and as I said before geting your car on the road was a hit or miss affair. now Street Rod registration is law, your car is not picked on.
Merry Christmas if I don't hear from you!!!
:welcome:

 

[BillyShope]

Rob, you might have missed my point. All you had to do was alert rodders to the specific parameters which will be inspected during the "safety inspection" and then provide some guidelines (as you did) to increase the probability of success. Instead, all you've done is provide more parameters for the government inspectors and, as a result, you've increased the size of the bureaucracy and increased the tax load of the populace.

It would have been wise, in passing the results of your efforts on to the government, to have made it very clear that these were SUGGESTIONS and that they were NEVER to be the subjects of scrutiny during a vehicle inspection. In other words, they would become a government bulletin, available...perhaps at a small printing fee...for anyone seeking assistance in the registering of their street rod. At this time, the average government bureaucrat would have told you to go home and not bother him, for his goal is to increase the size of his "kingdom" and the number of his colleagues. He couldn't care less about you and your silly hobby.

So, I understand your good intentions and I appreciate the effort that must have gone into these guidelines, but it appears that your work has been hijacked and used to put more people on the government payroll.

Incidentally, enforcement of laws...any laws...must ultimately end with the use of force. Chairman Mao realized this when he stated that, "All power comes from the barrel of a gun." If that little old lady, mentioned in an earlier post, continues to resist paying her taxes, eventually she'll be beaten into submission, tasered, or shot. Force is the government's only answer to resistance and the level of force simply increases to overcome any level of resistance.

Finally [?], while I can't imagine celebrating our Savior's birth in the middle of the Summer, I hope you enjoy the Season.

 

[Rob (chuck) Berry]

Billy and cboy;

The Government vehicle inspectors dont look at the Rod under this system. Experienced Hotrodders look at the Rod and sign off the inspection sheet (these people are usually called "Approved Persons" and are usually members of the State "Technical Advisory Committee") before the government even gets to see the car. The Hot Rodder and the TAC inspector then sign off paperwork that is handed over the counter at the DMV (Rego Office to us)
The only beaurocrats involved are the guy who checks the engine and chassis number to make sure the car is not stolen and the person behind the counter who takes your money. Now the National Guidelines have been approved the Street /Hot rod is classified as a standard vehicle for their purposes and perhaps as important can be insured without problem. I know it is not a perfect system but it is a lot better than the old ones.
Whereas I agree that the enforcement of laws is a costly business it is also the right of an individual to be assured of a safe environment, and that little old lady would not like being skittled by a car built by an individual that was unsafely built due to the lack of a simple check, at least here with this system she will have a sporting chance!! I think that the rank and file HotRodder is not a bad person whose main objective is to cheat the system they just want to drive their cars.this is where the Guideline system will slow down those who succumb to human nature and try to avoid doing the "right thing" like installing an emergency brake or a neutral safety switch " I'll put one in later". There will always be the guy who takes the plates off another car and drives around thinking he is better than the "system" and cannot abide by the rules of the masses and these are the ones that in my opinion spoil it for all of us . Then there are guys here who go it alone and use an engineer to validate their modifications, more power to them.
The important thing is that the Guidelines are one option and they are not compulsory, just one way for most of the HotRod builders to get their car on the road efficiently.
I was involved as an Approved Person until 2003 when I moved from Queensland to South Australia now I will be on the other side of the table because my new Rod, a 34 roadster is getting closer to completion and is nearly ready to tear down and detail, and I will be the one facing the TAC inspectors critical eye ("you may have to reweld that Rob, and are you sure its 4 inches off the ground?") Down here one thing I do know is that my Rod has been built to the National Guidelines and will be legal to drive anywhere in Australia. So next Christmas I can go for a cruise to the beach and have some prawns and cold turkey with salad !!

 

[CruisingRam]

Damn Ozzies and thier damn good beer and thier damn common sense and thier damn safe country. Lord, I can't wait to go back again LOL

I still look for VB beer when I can find it, and Byron Bay is one of my favorite places on earth. Some great hot rods over there- isn't it just wrong with goverment and the affected persons work together to come up with a safe and sensible set of laws? :thumbup:

 

[BillyShope]

Well, as is so often the case with these long exchanges, the whole matter might be simply a misunderstanding.

If the builder has the choice to avoid these new guidelines and these hotrodder inspectors and enter the system exactly as before, with the government inspectors going over the same issues they always have, then I would say you've come up with a great way to handle it. If, on the other hand, these new guidelines inspectors are paid with tax monies (making them, by definition, a part of the bureaucracy) and their approval is mandatory before the builder can proceed with registration efforts, then, as I indicated in my last post, your good ideas have been taken hostage. Since you refer to them as "guidelines," it would appear that the first scenario is accurate, in which case I would compliment the new inspectors for donating their time and efforts. I would hope that the builders have at least an opportunity to make a donation in their behalf.

Now that this, hopefully, has been laid to rest, let me tell you about my plans to move to Australia. I was teaching at the General Motors Institute (Flint, Michigan) in the early sixties and had a number of students from the Holden division. They would regale me with stories of the wonders and beauties of Australia and, before long, I was entertaining thoughts of moving there. I introduced the idea to my wife and she also became interested. We contacted the Australian embassy and received a large amount of literature, all of which got us more excited about the move. At that time, as I recall, there was even some kind of financial incentive to induce people like myself to move. So, to gain a more personal perspective, we had the young men over for dinner one evening. Everything was going well until my wife asked the question, "What do you find most inviting and exciting about the US?". The answer was unanimous and quite a shocker! They were extremely impressed with our service stations. What??? Admittedly, at that time, they were still "full service" stations, but, still, what could possibly so impress them? When we pursued the matter further, we discovered that Australian gas prices were fixed by the government. Without incentive, service was comparable to that which we receive in our US post offices. Bathrooms were filthy. So, when US service station attendants came out to meet them and even invited them back, they were "blown away"! Well, to cut to the chase, this caused me to make a study of the government system in place in Australia and on to a general study of socialism, fascism, etc. The result was that, though we would have loved to enjoy the natural beauties of Australia, we were not about to live under its government. (Now, as cboy has pointed out, the Australian form of government has come to me.) My wife (my first wife, as it turned out) did get to visit Australia for a few weeks. She even had the opportunity to live in the Outback for a while and do things like go on a kangaroo hunt. I never got a chance to talk to her about it, but I understand she enjoyed it immensely. My present wife is a Filipina, so I've been close to Australia. One of these days, I'd like to travel those last few thousand miles.