Sump Guard Australian Design Rule Compliance (ADR)

Do keep in mind that a sump guard is supposed to be air bag and pre-tensioner seat belt compliant if your car is fitted with them, as per the ADRs.

If it does not comply with the ADRs, there could also be insurance complications (or your insurance policy could be voided by your insurer ... ), as well as being technically unroadworthy, which voids your government compulsory third party personal injury insurance.

No one wants to be in any accident. We all hope not to be. However, it can happen (it does happen to someone every few minutes ... ), and when/if it does, one doesn't need the added financial burden of being uninsured all round ... .

Ratbag I guess it is the risk people take at the end of the day. I could count a well more than a dozen cars on this forum that would not comply and you could times that by 100 for the 4x4 community as a whole.

Gidday Will

Yeah, I know, mate.

The bloke who makes the alloy plate ones here is a member at Vic Subarus.

I would prefer one of these myself, but I am too old, and too experienced, to want to spend any of the time left to me fighting with the Police, insurance company, Tax Office, government, etc.

I have done a lot of this in my life with all of the above, and have almost always won. BUT - at a cost ... .

From my Batphone

G'day again Will

Further to my last post, I don't consider myself to be a member of any kind of "It can't happen to me" club, mate.

In fact, quite the contrary, I am only too aware that it can happen to me - whatever that "it" might happen to be ... :iconwink:. I don't think that this applies to winning the lottery though, specially seeing as how I never buy lottery tickets ... :rotfl:.

Seriously though, on the face of it, it appears that this fellow did, and look where it got him at the ripe old age of nearly 36 y.o.



Note the car emblem on the small rock at the right ... .

It not only can happen to us - it does happen to us ...

The ADRs are there to help reduce the chance of it happening to us ...

{shuffle, shuffle puts pulpit away for the moment.}

That is elephant rock on Beacy Emerald road yeah?

I know very well it does happen, at the same time I still feel a lot more confident going into a tree in my Subaru at 60kmh than I do on my dirt bike, bash plate there or not.

It is sad however you can't live thinking you are going to be next, you can do what you can to avoid accidents and improve your chances. At the end of the day it is luck :/

When your times up, it's up. There is nothing you can do.

Live life to the fullest with no regrets.

G'day again Will

hydrowill said:

That is elephant rock on Beacy Emerald road yeah?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

I know very well it does happen, at the same time I still feel a lot more confident going into a tree in my Subaru at 60kmh than I do on my dirt bike, bash plate there or not.

Click to expand...

Quite. One of the attractions of Subarus for me has always been their safety, both primary and secondary.

It is sad however you can't live thinking you are going to be next,

Click to expand...

It is indeed sad if that's what is happening in someone's life.
However, that is not the case AFAIAC.

you can do what you can to avoid accidents and improve your chances.

Click to expand...

Also agreed. Experience helps both of these things greatly. It is why those of us who are older feel a duty to impart what we can to those who are younger, and usually less experienced on forums like these.
It might just help them to avoid the mistakes we have been lucky to have survived, or those that have killed our friends ...

I am still alive, and unbroken at 65+ y.o.

Not because of fear and trepidation, but because I made the right decisions at certain crucial moments in my (driving) life. Experience helped me to make those decisions correctly. Losing some twelve of the kids (out of 76 ... ) I finished high school with before I was twenty instilled a certain amount of caution in me, I must admit. That was to the good. At least some good came from their otherwise senseless deaths.

At the end of the day it is luck :/

Click to expand...

Experience and insight improve one's "luck" dramatically, IMNSHO ...
So does being in a couple of serious car "accidents" along the way.

BTW, I would never encourage anyone to be fearful.
Being fearful creates as many, or more, problems that it avoids.
However, I always encourage people to be careful, and to think about what they are doing, and what the ramifications of what they are doing (or going to do ... ) are.

The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, wrote that "The unexamined life is not worth living". He was not talking about sitting back at the end of one's life and examining it then. He was talking about examining it moment by moment as one is living it. Good advice IMNSHO.

Most of us are only too well aware that life is a sexually transmitted disease, which is invariably fatal. The 'trick' is to put off the final moment as long as is reasonable and obtainable ... :iconwink: .

{shuffle, shuffle - Puts away soapbox again ... :lol:.}

IMO, your insurance company would need to prove the sumpguard was unsafe. As long as it sticks to a few design rules, you would be ok.

I cant find the ADRs on sumpguards, but the ones I know are:

* It can't interfere with the airbag sensors
* It must deform in an accident (ie, not be too rigid) & not interfere with the cars designed crumple zones
* The mounting bolts must shear in an accident to allow the engine to slide down under the cabin (this is so the engine doesnt push into the cabin, causing serious injury or death)

Any of the sump guards I've seen would comply with these, the only difference with the SubaXtreme one is its been tested. That doesnt make it safer or more compliant, it just means its been tested....

Pretty sure the onus would be on you to prove it was safe and compliant in the first place. Not up to them to prove it was unsafe in retrospect.

^ No.

Compliance certificate = roadworthy.
Absence of compliance certificate = un-roadworthy.

In order to void your policy, all your insurer or the TAC has to do is prove that the vehicle was un-roadworthy for any reason, including the fitment of a non-ADR compliant sump guard (or any other non-complying modification, FTM).

The burden of proof regarding anything that does not comply with the ADRs or associated regulations (etc) rests with the person making the assertion, not the insurer/s. There is a prima facie presumption that if your car is required to comply with the ADRs (etc), and it doesn't, then it is un-roadworthy.

In the absence of a written legal opinion by a lawyer who is an expert in this field of law, I wouldn't even bet a dollar on trying to fight this kind of legal battle. I sure as heck wouldn't bet my entire financial future on it ...

I might add, neither of those insurers will refund any premiums paid by us while the policy was null and void.

You might be able to prove in court that the non-complying item in no way contributed to the accident occurring or was not the proximate cause of the consequential damages, and did not contribute in any way to those consequential damages, but the courts are more than likely to apportion this blame, if they even accept the argument at all. Still leaves one out of pocket for serious costs. Bear in mind that this sort of matter is usually Supreme Court territory because of the value of the claim.

If the court/s finds for the insurer/s (and the plaintiff, via the insurer/s), then you will be liable for the insurer/s costs, the plaintiff's costs and your own costs. You would also be liable for the damages incurred by the other party or parties, both to their vehicle and personal injuries. The plaintiff might even be a passenger in your own vehicle - this is a very common scenario before the courts. Insurance companies and the statutory insurers have very deep pockets, and will usually fight these things to the bitter end IME.

The failure of a vehicle to crumple at the designed rate by even micro-seconds may well have a significant effect on the outcome of a particular accident, either with another vehicle, bicycle, motor bike or pedestrian. Proving that a non-complying item did not have such an effect is all but impossible. There is a presumption at law that it did. This presumption is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

I am not a lawyer, but nor am I ignorant of how these things work.

This is the sort of matter that causes a feeding frenzy for the lawyers, and everyone else generally loses ... .

Gidday Venom

Venom said:

Pretty sure the onus would be on you to prove it was safe and compliant in the first place. Not up to them to prove it was unsafe in retrospect.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what my experience and knowledge of these things is also.

BTW, thanks for providing the trigger for the formation of this new sub-forum .
It should prove to be a valuable resource for us all as time passes.

Hmmmm might strip and sell the suby and buy a Jeep. Anyone interested in outback parts?

hydrowill said:

Hmmmm might strip and sell the suby and buy a Jeep. Anyone interested in outback parts?

Click to expand...

Why??? A Subie is made in Japan & very reliable, a Jeep is made in Mexico & one of the most unreliable makes in the automotive market

Well according to all this I'd say that my

Lift with 'standard' king springs

Bashplate

Custom rear bar

Custom roof rack

Would all be against ADR

Might just be easier to get something that will suit the same requirements as my car with mods from ARB that would all be ADR tested. Would be a shame as I love this car in it's current form and planned on keeping it for a long time. Anyone know what is involved in getting stuff engineered? I hear that the engineers don't like to be brought mods that are already done. What sort of costs and screwing around are involved? I also hear that even if your car is engineered that I doesn't mean squat towards a RWC

^ Well, first up Will, please tell me that you have notified your comprehensive insurer about all this, and that they have included the extra value and items on your insurance policy document.

The extras list on my policies for Roo2 and RR each run to about half a page ... :iconwink:.

Adds a couple of thou to the value of each of them ...

Always best to reach agreement about these things before anything unfortunate should occur ... .

If your insurer is happy about all this (in writing, or listed on your policy document), your position with anyone else goes up like a good rocket.

I can't say about engineering certificates. Dulagarl and Venom would be your best call there. IIRC, both their cars have such certification.

RWCs are required for other reasons. Why they don't have a reasonably priced annual or even a 5 year check here in Victoria is beyond me. We had the Camry and the Impreza for about 18 years each without ever having them checked by an independent tester. Mind, Ross is pretty hot on all this sort of stuff, but I'll bet that plenty of mechanics out there aren't - and I'm not a betting man ... :iconwink:.

hydrowill said:

Anyone know what is involved in getting stuff engineered? I hear that the engineers don't like to be brought mods that are already done. What sort of costs and screwing around are involved? I also hear that even if your car is engineered that I doesn't mean squat towards a RWC

Click to expand...

Not sure what it costs now but it aint cheap. An Engineers certificate means that the RWC tester & VicRoads have to accept your mods. The RWC tester will still have his own items separate to the engineer but you wont need a RWC unless you sell it.

I dont think an engineer will have too many probs with your mods. He may want better brakes because of the larger tyres but thats not a bad thing lol. WRX, STi & Brembo brakes all bolt straight on & improve braking out of sight!

The rear bar & roof rack dont really affect the cars safety as long as they are done properly. Front bars however have a major effect on safety items.

(A steel front bar has a major impact on airbag sensors & crumple zones, far far more than any bash plate ever could!)

The lift kit with standard Kings is fine, its the lift with tyre lift thats an issue as it is more than 2" total. If he passes it thats the end of the story as far as VicRoads & police go. You then shouldnt have issues finding an insurer willing to accept those mods, however some dont like mods of any kind so you'll need to shop around

Lucky my front bar is adr approved.

^ That's a very good start :biggrin:.

Ratbag said:

I
This is the real world effect of using an item that does not comply with the relevant ADRs that apply to the car that one owns.

Click to expand...

Killjoys! :lol:

^ Aren't they though?

It mostly does stop the crazy and very dangerous modifications that people like me and my friends did to our cars in our youth.
A de-tuned Supermarine Swift Spitfire motor in an FJ Holden?
Yup, it happened; but the coppers took it off the road in pretty short order :rotfl:. Just as well, too!

IMNSHO very few of the things governments do have any effect on the road toll (but raise significant amounts of revenue, like problem gambling does ... ).

However, it is my belief that some things have dramatically impacted on both deaths and injuries. These are:

1) The compulsory fitting and wearing of seatbelts (and the gradual improvement in design of these);

2) The huge improvement in suspension design and roll-over characteristics and angles of many makes and models of cars;

3) Similar huge improvements in the design of the passenger cabin and doors; and the concomitant introduction of pre-determined crumple rates in cars (first implemented in the BMC Mini, IIRC).

4) Air bags. A two edged sword in some ways. It is possible for a car to be very safe without them. It is also possible for a car to be very unsafe while being equipped with a full complement of them, if the improvements in point (3) are sacrificed " ... in the interests of weight reduction to improve fuel economy ... ", or some such specious reasoning. In a well designed and manufactured car, having pre-tensioner seatbelts and properly designed and functioning air bags will reduce head injuries in particular. Head injuries are the single biggest cause of permanent disability; and the most disabling.

5) FAR better roads and signage.

No particular order ... :iconwink:.