33 replies to this topic

[Tyre biter]

US: A.G. Backeast
Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 01 June 2011 - 10:08 AM.

[Tyre biter]

Sorry I should add, that fella in the US reportedly does brilliant work in restoring tags, but as for remaking them you have to contact him to find out.

The subject of remaking them is a problematic one and depending on where you live, possibly unlawful to possess or affix the same to a vehicle.

- Remaking an ADR tag is a no-brainer for which I believe it is an offence everywhere to use, possess, affix, sell, buy, etc.

- Remaking the Body ID tag is likely an offence in all jurisdictions as well but might (in some places not be - see PSN tag comment), notwithstanding argument as to copyright issues pertaining to the Holden lion depicted in the tag.

- Remaking a PSN tag is (IMO) the only tag that might be allowed to be remade (in some jurisdictions) so long as it is not used as an identifier by the registration authority there (the number depicted on the PSN tag is not recorded in the rego database). If the PSN tag number is recorded then it would not be permissible - again merely my opinion having looked briefly at a number of Acts and Regs from around the country. I would add however that if the owner passed the car off as being original (including a remade PSN tag) there would clearly be fraud offences in play - sort of like when you ad a pergola to your house and sell it, you tell the buyer it isn't approved and thereby the risk associated with the same is inherited by him/her.

In many jurisdictions it doesn't matter if a remade tag is an exact copy of an existing and genuine tag belonging to a given vehicle, the tag still is fraudulent because it purports to be something it isn't - no different to making a facsimile of you birth certificate - the issue isn't the accuracy of the copy but the authority vested in the original belongs only to the same.

As for restoring a tag - I'd suggest this is likely permissible in most jurisdictions because it is not being altered and doesn't tell a lie about either the detail contained therein or the authority under which it was issued.

Having said all this, it would my strong suggestion that if you wish to restore tags, or even replace damaged or missing tags that you speak with the registration authority and/or the most appropriate area of your Police Service to gain sound advice as to the lawfulness of what you wish to do - if the reply is positive then I'd also be asking for said opinions in writing before doing anything further.

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 01 June 2011 - 10:48 AM.

[enderwigginau]

It is illegal to have new tags made or non-original tags fitted to any vehicle in Australia.
Exceptions can and have been made so speak to your local transport department.

Grant..

[orangeLJ]

my lj has no tags.... There are locked away inside necause I cbf refitting them.....

[its Paul]

So can you get your car registered then take the tags off and drive it around legally??

[rodomo]

It is illegal to have new tags made or non-original tags fitted to any vehicle in Australia.
Exceptions can and have been made so speak to your local transport department.

Make your mind up please and tell us the truth.

[enderwigginau]

It is illegal to have new tags made or non-original tags fitted to any vehicle in Australia.
Exceptions can and have been made so speak to your local transport department.

Make your mind up please and tell us the truth.

In some states you can register a vehicle without tags. There are known cars with alloy versions of their tags legally registered.
It is the registration authorities that decide whether you can do things outside the "rules".
BUT the over-riding legislation is that you CANNOT make, re-make or fit tags that did not come with the car.

Work with that, and if you wanna bend the rules, look to rego for permission.

Grant..

[S pack]

New South Wales Consolidated Acts
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [History] [Help]
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 154H
Making, using and interfering with unique identifiers
154H Making, using and interfering with unique identifiers

(1) A person who:

a: dishonestly interferes with, or copies, a unique identifier, or

b: possesses a motor vehicle or vessel, or a part of a motor vehicle or vessel, with the intention of dishonestly interfering with, or copying, a unique identifier, or

c: dishonestly makes a unique identifier, or a purported unique identifier, or

d: knowingly induces another person to accept any information attached to a motor vehicle, vessel or a part of a motor vehicle or vessel as a genuine unique identifier for the motor vehicle, vessel or part, when the information is not in fact a genuine unique identifier for that motor vehicle, vessel or part,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 7 years.

(2) For the purposes of this section, information is "attached" to a <a href="http://www.austlii.e..._vehicle">motor vehicle, vessel or a part of a motor vehicle or vessel if it is:

a: marked on or attached to the motor vehicle, vessel or part, or

b: marked on a thing attached to the motor vehicle, vessel or part, or

c: stored in electronic form in a part of the motor vehicle or vessel.

(3) In proceedings for an offence against this section, if it is necessary to allege a person knowingly induced another person to accept information attached to a motor vehicle, vessel or a part of a motor vehicle or vessel as a genuine unique identifier for the motor vehicle, vessel or part, it is not necessary to allege that the accused knowingly induced a particular person to accept the information as a genuine unique identifier.

(4) In this section, a reference to inducing a person to accept information attached to a motor vehicle, vessel or a part of a motor vehicle or vessel as a genuine unique identifier includes a reference to causing a computer to respond to the information attached to the motor vehicle, vessel or part as if it were a genuine unique identifier.

(5) In this section:
"information" includes numbers, letters or symbols.

Edited by S pack, 04 June 2011 - 05:41 PM.

[Toranamat69]

Some questions are better not asked in the first place. If remade tags are exactly identical to the damaged ones you are replacing, you will clearly be the only one to ever know.

There are some pretty sharp eyes out there though so they would have to be pretty damn good copies in every aspect or it will just stick out like dogs balls.

Don't post your details car or your VIN details or let anyone on here get them or you will forever star on the GMH-Torana forum hall of fame:-)

Wasn't this guy the one who would reproduce them if you had existing ones to copy - for some reason I seem to remember it was.

http://www.harrisonsearlyspares.com.au/

You can register an old 70's car in QLD without the tags - I have done it before - they do bitch and moan and every idiot you get at Dept of transport gives you a different story.

I don't see anythign above ^ that says you can't have them remade, it just says you can't do it dishonestly.

Edited by Toranamat69, 04 June 2011 - 06:19 PM.

[rexy]

Agree. The wording is clearly designed to give some wriggle room for honest replacement.

[S pack]

I don't see anythign above ^ that says you can't have them remade, it just says you can't do it dishonestly.

I suppose it all depends on the interpretation.

(1) A person who:
a: dishonestly interferes with, or copies, a unique identifier,

Or you could read it this way

A person who dishonestly interferes with a unique identifier, or
A person who copies a unique identifier

Edited by S pack, 05 June 2011 - 12:00 AM.

[Toranamat69]

I agree their use of commas is not only ambiguous but also incorrect in a couple of instances if that is a direct cut and paste - for example, the second comma in line 1. a) shouldn't even be there.

If you look at the comma usage in 1 b ) which is not ambiguous in the first usage, and in 1 d ) and 1 c ) and other places, then it would not be unreasondable to assume that they mean for it to mean 'A person who dishonestly copies' as that is how they use it in most other instances in the quoted ACT.

I'll bet like all these things, it will depend to whom you speak to on the day.

Would have been very easy to rewrite so it wasn't ambigous by adding another couple of bullet points instead of trying to use commas poorly. I have to be anal about these things - I do it all day long now, I have given up the design stuff I used to do for work and write these sorts of things - mine aren't ambiguous though :-)

Edited by Toranamat69, 05 June 2011 - 12:52 AM.

[S pack]

I agree their use of commas is not only ambiguous but also incorrect in a couple of instances if that is a direct cut and paste - for example, the second comma in line 1. a) shouldn't even be there.

If you look at the comma usage in 1 b ) which is not ambiguous in the first usage, and in 1 d ) and 1 c ) and other places, then it would not be unreasondable to assume that they mean for it to mean 'A person who dishonestly copies' as that is how they use it in most other instances in the quoted ACT.

I'll bet like all these things, it will depend to whom you speak to on the day.

Would have been very easy to rewrite so it wasn't ambigous by adding another couple of bullet points instead of trying to use commas poorly. I have to be anal about these things - I do it all day long now, I have given up the design stuff I used to do for work and write these sorts of things - mine aren't ambiguous though :-)

Yes it is a direct copy and paste, so that is how they posted it on their website.

I see where you are coming from and at first when I read it I thought it only implied doing something dishonest, but the more I read it I found other ways of interpreting it.

This is obviously a problem with laws and regulations, they are not always crystal clear in their intended meaning.

Cheers
Dave.

[Tyre biter]

...BUT the over-riding legislation is that you CANNOT make, re-make or fit tags that did not come with the car.

Work with that, and if you wanna bend the rules, look to rego for permission.

Grant..

Grant, whilst I agree with the sentiment, and in fact I think it spot on, I would say that (as forum chats of this type usually do) we look to one Act or Regulation despite there being eight jurisdictions and a Commonwealth one on top of those - in this case folks are looking at a NSW law (CA 1900) and thereby discussing things specific to that Act/state and yet this forum is a national one.

For this reason I think it wrong to essentially say (as you initially did) that it is an offence to copy any tag - full stop. Whilst I now understand why you said that - the offence status for this sort of conduct is different in different jurisdictions - I think it is okay to remake a number of tags in the ACT for example - under the Vehicle Registration Act & Regs it is probably all but a VIN or ADR tag can be remade so long as there is no nefarious intent behind the same.

The reality being it is not a blanket offence in all places, however as has been highlighted, all this sort of thing requires a very good grasp of the law, interpretations, case law and the alike (not claiming I possess such a good grasp by any means), and as you rightly suggested, it is best left alone unless a statutory body (Rego Authority, Police or similar) provide you with definitive advice to allow such conduct, and they do so in writing - keep in mind however that even then such a document is probably insufficient should a prosecution get to a Court room - refer the High Court matter for that poor bloody lobster fisherman.

Cheers, TB

[S pack]

This is all I could find so far for QLD.





Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995

Chapter 5 Road use Part 9 General

[s 1s5]




Altering, defacing or removing identifying numbers
Any person who-

(a) alters .defaces, or removes an identifying number on a

motor vehicle without the permission in writing of the

commissioner ;or

( places on a motor vehicle a number purporting to be, or

which is likely to be taken to be, an identifying number,

without previously-

(i) delivering to the commissioner a notice in writing

signed by such person and stating that the number

is to be placed on the motor vehicle and containing

particulars of such number and the registration

number of the vehicle under this Act; and

(ii) receiving permission in writing from the

commissioner to place the identifying number on

the motor vehicle; or

© without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie upon

the person, has in the person's possession or under the

person's control any motor vehicle upon which an

identifying number has been altered, or defaced, or from

which an identifying number has been removed, or upon

which any number has been placed in contravention of

this section;

shall be guilty of an offence.




Maximum penalty-lO0 penalty units or I year's imprisonment.



Page 372

Reprint 11M effective 14 April 2011

[enderwigginau]

I suppose it all depends on the interpretation.

(1) A person who:
a: dishonestly interferes with, or copies, a unique identifier,

Or you could read it this way

A person who dishonestly interferes with a unique identifier, or
A person who copies a unique identifier

That is the correct interpretation and the commas are placed correctly for that reason.
This is also the interpretation taken by NSW RTA and TMR Qld.

Note the getout clause in the QLD one.........

Yella can comment more on the correct usage of commas to convey the correct meaning in legislation.
Just spent a whole day in a comms course learning about the use of punctuation.......

Grant..

[Toranamat69]

The commas are not placed correctly, nor are they used consistantly as I demonstrated above. You don't need to do a course to learn that, just remember what they tought you in grade 5 grammar.

[rexy]

You will find most bits of law and regulation are deliberately written so some degree of ambiguity exists. These are of course the areas that tend to be contested in court when two parties have differing interpretations. Gives the parasites (lawers) a livelihood.