UnpimpeD

Whats funny though is that the original recon information is on the DOTs website and taillights ect have to be DOT approved so they have to be affiliation. our guess was they just did not want to talk to us.

eRicaSWGN

hm this is interesting.

year 1998 Senate bill 1196, SD 1 was to repeal recon laws, recon was established to decrease the use of stolen car parts. Both the DOT and HPD backed the repeal and stated that it did not prevent the use of stolen car parts and the House transportation committee would no go through with the repeal.

If the HPD and DOT said no to recon and they said yes to recon, I think recon is here for good.

I still fully support any effort to work on recon though.
I would be interesting to see if the DOT and HPD still feel the same way as they did in 1998.


Oh and, lol, the DOT obviously just did not want to talk to us

UnpimpeD

wow recon went from being about stolen car parts to "safety"

Frank Young (President of Hawaii Automotive Repair and Gasoline Dealers Association & Citizens against gasoline price gouging) was against the bill and he seems to have a lot of respect from legislatures.

If he is still active he would be someone else to contact if someone did try to bring recon reform up, his support could make a difference.

It would also be interesting to see who is on the House Transportation Committee.

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

It's also apparent that the word "safety" is subtext for nuisance, as in loud mufflers or cars that are lowered pose a nuisance.

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

deleted and moved to first post

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/...mm/commTRN.asp

Representative Joseph M. Souki
Chair

Representative Scott Y. Nishimoto
Vice-Chair
Members:

• Representative Cindy Evans
• Representative Sharon E. Har
• Representative Marilyn B. Lee
• Representative Sylvia Luke
• Representative Angus L.K. McKelvey
• Representative Bob Nakasone
• Representative Alex M. Sonson
• Representative Dwight Y. Takamine
• Representative Roy M. Takumi
• Representative Colleen Rose Meyer
• Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine

ReleaseDaKraken

iTrader: (12)

It seems like the concern is mostly for noise control. I don't understand how that translates to me having 2" of suspension travel, which was the only thing that kept me from passing. No questions about my exhaust or even my fmic.

Well the whole inspection process is bull s h i t anyway. Chris had marginally more suspension travel than my car (definitely not 2 inches) and he passed. The person who did his inspection was cool. He let him perform the bounce test. The ***** who did my inspection didn't let me touch my car. I could tell by the look on his face that he had no intention of passing me as soon as he saw my car. On top of that, they use no tangible way of measuring the suspension travel. Just push on the bumper and if they feel like it, you pass. If they don't like you or the look of your car, you fail. You gotta love a system that lets numb skulls play god.

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

*I just want to say outright that I'm using this thread to keep this community informed and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the issue--not to promise a reform in the statute (although I'm hoping it goes in that direction later).

Well from what I understand from the information I've posted--without doing the legwork to talk to anyone like Ericaswgn and Unpimped--it's clear that the reconstructed vehicle definition is broad so as to give officers leeway to cite specific violations that quell public concerns, such as loud exhaust and speeding.

While the original intent was to curb thefts and to prevent the resale of items, it's now changed as a "go to" for officers to cite target vehicles who tend to pose a nuisance to engaged citizens who attend neigborhood meetings and who voice their concerns, in which representatives are present. So their voices are being heard, while ours are not. The legal and rule based issues seem easier to tackle--showing how the law is ineffective at curbing theft and how it does not really measure vehicle safety in any way. This we can probably prove and write about. But for the other part, we're against the wall because as far as getting cars that non enthusiasts find a nuisance off the road--both the noise and the speeding--the recon laws probably do work. It enables the police to give tickets to cars and drivers that the public is complaining about--just because.

So should we lobby to "just" remove the bounce test? Or is it better to look at the statute and itself and argue for more specific exhaust laws and perhaps refine or "redefine" reconstructed vehicles to better target the public concerns without impacting our own enthusiast concerns?

Ditchhanger

iTrader: (16)

This has a lot of good information. Thanks for gathering all this info, Reid. I think we can all learn something from this thread. **stuck**

mo & jo

what if i get suspension, rims, exhaust...do i need da recon? my safety expires this month

Ditchhanger

iTrader: (16)

The info is posted up in the links on the front page...the guidelines have changed since I got recon a loooooooooooong time ago, so just check the links on the first page!

This link might be helpful to answer your question:
http://www.forumshawaii.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=309267

hayn_wrx

iTrader: (29)

recon info always changing and hard to keep up with. maybe im just lazy or foolish. that being said im one of those guys that ridin dirty (tint) that's it. live and learn. it's alot of good info on here. good work

mo & jo you need recon for suspension and rims(only if you 2'inc bigger then srocks' so if ur running 18's you need it). exhaust you dont need recon but cops still give you tickets for it..weird i know.

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

Unless I'm misreading the statute, you do need recon permit for all modifications. The idea that rims don't violate reconstruction is untrue as far as I know: "Modified by the removal, addition, alteration, or substitution of other than original replacement essential parts, including the vehicle's body, power train, steering system, suspension system, exhaust system, intake system, or bumper system," unless wheels don't constitute part of the suspension system, which I think it does. But you may not need the permit for certain items to receive a safety check

I think there's confusion about reconstruction laws, safety check policies, and reconstruction permit testing. The law hasn't really changed in a long time, but it seems that they amend the testing procedures for the reconstructed vehicles (information that's not updated) as well as items of interest for safety check inspections.


You technically may violate the law without a recon permit for any modification, BUT you may still be able to get safety check because they're aren't testing for rims. But that doesn't mean you can't get a ticket for no recon.
Also, the method used for the reconstructed vehicle testing is also another issue. They won't perhaps check your rims and your exhaust, so long as it meets the testing requirements.

From what I understand, here's the bottom line:

1) You can get a ticket for a recon violation if you have modified exhaust, suspension or body without a reconstructed vehicle permit for those modifications, even if you have a safety check
2) They can't give you a ticket for no safety check if you have one, even with vehicle modifications
3) It seems that to get a reconstructed permit you CAN have rims and modified exhaust; they're not concerned with either

hayn_wrx

iTrader: (29)

thanks reid-0

reid-o

iTrader: (1)

It's confusing I know. As I was compiling the information, it's not like I came away feeling any better or more informed.

But the bottom line is that if they want to they can give you a ticket (IF THEY WANT TO) for most vehicle modifications. So getting the permit is important.
But it seems like to get the permit, they're not testing rims and exhaust.