PDA

View Full Version : UK Traffic Law


Alloa Akbar
10th Jan 2013, 15:12
So Girlfriend of Akbar, a District Nurse gets pulled over by the Rozzers this morning for having a faulty brake light bulb. Upon being made aware, g/f replies that she will get her fella to change the bulb today. The Police have told her that the bulb must be changed by a recognised car mechanic business, and paperwork stamped by them to prove the work is carried out.

Is this correct??

Lightning Mate
10th Jan 2013, 15:15
No - change the bulb and take the car to the police office to check that it's working. Or just change the bulb and be done with it.

The police have no remit to demand such a course of action.

ORAC
10th Jan 2013, 15:18
Faults with your vehicle (https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/faults-with-your-vehicle)

If your vehicle has something wrong with it, eg a broken brake light, the police may give you a ‘vehicle defect rectification notice’.

You’ll need to get your vehicle fixed and provide proof that it’s been fixed (eg a receipt for the work from a mechanic). You have 14 days from the date of the notice to show the proof to the police.

Beagle-eye
10th Jan 2013, 15:29
ORAC is correct.

From the AA website …..

You will normally be required to take the vehicle to an MOT test station to obtain official verification that the defect(s) noted by the Police have been rectified. If the MOT test centre is a general repair garage you can of course ask them to repair the defect too.

If the nominated tester is satisfied that the defects listed on the vehicle defect rectification form have been properly rectified he will complete the appropriate section of the form. Check that they have included their Vehicle Test Station number and that the form has been endorsed using an official embossing or rubber stamp showing the testing station's business details.

This is not a formal MOT test. You will pay a commercial rate for the inspection (no set fees are published) and you should be told of any other faults the tester notices in the course of his inspection, but no MOT paperwork will be issued.

B-E

Alloa Akbar
10th Jan 2013, 15:36
Christ what a racket that is.. How many coppers have shares in MOT testing stations?? :*

421dog
10th Jan 2013, 15:36
Jeezuz..

You guys really need more citizens with guns...

Alloa Akbar
10th Jan 2013, 15:38
421 Dog

It doesn't happen often, however...

:D:D:D:D:D

Very witty.

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Jan 2013, 15:39
Does that work then? You can commit any traffic offences you like with no risk of being stopped because the police are afraid you might have a gun?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
10th Jan 2013, 15:43
...or carry spare bulbs, and know how to change them?


Nothing to do with the Police. It's just not a good idea to drive around with broken bulbs.

west lakes
10th Jan 2013, 15:52
Though it is amazing the number of police vehicles that have defective lights! The last time I pointed this out to the driver I suggested his passenger issued him a Vehicle Defect Notice!

Alloa Akbar
10th Jan 2013, 15:57
I would have expected that Staffordshire Police might just have told her to sort it, and leave it at that.. Obviously they had nothing better to do..

Tableview
10th Jan 2013, 16:03
I am normally on the side of the police but this is ludicrous, it's another example of the bully/nanny state taking over. For a serious defect or one which might be beyond the scope of the average handyman it might be reasonable, but what's happened here is that the police officer has had his power of discretion taken away from him.

This is a f..... brake light FFS! Thin end of the wedge.

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 16:08
Though it is amazing the number of police vehicles that have defective lights! The last time I pointed this out to the driver I suggested his passenger issued him a Vehicle Defect Notice!


thank you.. i just snorted tea through my nose.

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 16:09
She's not black is she?

Stuart Lawrence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20958573).

BabyBear
10th Jan 2013, 16:10
I think the written word is being taken too literally and has been designed for issues not readily identifiable as being repaired.

No way I would take it to a garage, I would change the bulb, self certify it had been done and when taking my written certification to the police station I would take said vehicle just in case they wanted to see it.

BB

421dog
10th Jan 2013, 16:13
Gertrude, when I get stopped for a burned out taillight, I generally get a warning which, if I get stopped again for the same infraction, will probably result in a ticket.

For the present, anyway, I, as a citizen with 22 years of post-high school education, don't have to apply to a state-approved wonk to verify that I can replace a light bulb.

Alloa Akbar
10th Jan 2013, 16:16
G-CPTN -Nope.. caucasian.. or "Blonde bint" as I describe her.. :O

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Jan 2013, 16:28
I generally get a warning which, if I get stopped again for the same infraction, will probably result in a ticket
That's what I would expect, yes. Had a brake light fail a couple of weeks ago - several people told me about it, but I got it replaced before a policeman saw it. But I wouldn't have had a problem showing the police the receipt for £2.16 if that's what turned out to be necessary.

spekesoftly
10th Jan 2013, 16:42
what's happened here is that the police officer has had his power of discretion taken away from him. Not sure that I agree.

the police may give you a ‘vehicle defect rectification notice’.That suggests an element of discretion, but evidently not exercised this time.


...or carry spare bulbs, and know how to change them?
Carrying spare bulbs is not a bad idea, and mandatory in some countries. Once upon a time changing car bulbs was an easy roadside job. But not so now on many modern vehicles.

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 16:53
I never ever needed to change any bulbs of my 12 year old 140,000 mile Peugeot (which I owned from nearly new), though I always carried a full set together with the tools (and the service manual) so that I could tackle the problem.

Shortly before the last MOT was due I found that both stoplamps weren't working, but it turned-out to be a sticking stoplamp switch (on the brake pedal) which responded to a squirt of WD40.

ExXB
10th Jan 2013, 16:54
Last time I looked (about 30 seconds ago) eg meant:e.g., an abbreviation of exempli gratia, Latin: "for example"

Fix it yourself and return the form with receipt attached.

spekesoftly
10th Jan 2013, 16:54
which responded to a squirt of WD40.

Ah, but do you have the paperwork to prove it! ;)

merlinxx
10th Jan 2013, 17:01
Coming out of Tescostan the other day a Surrey Nick paddy wagon turned right three times without and signals:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Tableview
10th Jan 2013, 17:05
turned right three times without and signalsShouldn't that be turned right three times without 'and signals? I take it their indicators weren't working.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLxZyC_OjFICj27Ob_aKJ10frH4L78NHU2e_vpEgM NoNRuZEVmYQ

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 17:09
There are double yellow lines outside the village shop.

I have seen (on very rare occasions) passing policecars stop and remonstrate with those motorists who have 'just popped in' rather than parking in the empty bays further along the street (all of twenty yards).

I have a photograph of a police vehicle parked on the footpath straddling the double yellows - but I dare not broach the subject . . .

vulcanised
10th Jan 2013, 17:12
That's made for an interesting thought, Tableview.

I wonder what most of the present generation of motorists would make of someone using hand signals?

Particularly the soup-stirring tuning left!

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 17:14
Or rotating the whip held vertically . . .

ShyTorque
10th Jan 2013, 17:53
The UK "authorities" have lost the plot.

I live at the end of a privately owned cul-de-sac. I own the frontage to the middle of the road, so do all the other residents. We recently had it re-tarmacked, at some large expense. The road is signposted as such. Three days ago I saw a chap in a hard hat and a dayglo jacket walk past my driveway gates onto my frontage carrying a large portable road sign. A minute or so later he went past again, carrying two cones. As he could have gone nowhere else except onto my private property/ parking space, I went out to see what was going on.

He had placed the "road narrows" sign and the two big cones slap bang in the middle of my parking space. He was in the process of placing another sign and another two cones on the other side of my gate. I asked him what he was doing and he told me he was placing road signs around the "roadworks" they were about to start. I noticed three doors up, on the other side of the road, there was a series of white plastic barriers, "pedestrians this way" signs, round blue and white arrow signs on the barriers and about a dozen more cones. On the other side of the barriers, facing the other way, there was a similar setup. Enough to cordon off a motorway. Altogether they had narrowed the road to half its width and blocked four or five parking spaces with their signs and cones, in addition to mine.

"They" were contractors working for Severn Trent Water.

I asked the chap who had placed the signs on my parking space to move them. He said he couldn't. I told him it was my private property and I didn't want them there because they were an obstruction. He said they had to be there. I again said they were on private land and pointed out that they were facing a hedge and the fence at the end of the cul-de-sac and no traffic could possibly get to a position where the signs could be seen and so they were totally pointless!

He said if the signs weren't put out the council would fine them. In practice, all they did, for no reason, was cause a hazard to cars and pedestrians (especially as the street isn't lit). I told him that I would have to move the signs off my frontage myself. He then agreed to move them but all he did was walk to the other side of my gates and placed them closer to other signs already there (still on my property). As they weren't causing a problem on that side I called it quits and left them there.

And the reason for all this "Health and Safety" debacle? They needed to dig an eighteen inch by eighteen inch by two foot deep hole around a neighbour's seized up stop tap, so it could be turned off, while a plumber fixed a leak in the house. That took a couple of hours, at least the plumber left after that long.

It took three days for the road signs and barriers/roadblock to be taken away. They've just gone.

Big Hammer
10th Jan 2013, 18:28
Shy, could you not charge rent for the space the signs took up if it was on your property as per telegraph poles etc?

OFSO
10th Jan 2013, 18:36
Once upon a time changing car bulbs was an easy roadside job.

Headlamp / sidelamp / foglamp bulbs on my last four cars have required a visit to the dealer to change as most of the front needs dismantling and replacing and then a realignment of the lamp. Amazingly Ford here in Spain will do this and only charge for the bulb......but I certainly wouldn't want to DIY it.

(The new Mondeo for inst. needs the headlamp unit removing from the car to get to the bulb).

tom775257
10th Jan 2013, 18:55
I find it funny that in France the law is to carry replacement bulbs, alas the most important of them all, the headlight bulb, requires the front bumper being removed on many new Renault models.

I doubt many Xenon headlamped cars carry a spare HID bulb, or indeed ballast.

I managed to replace the bulb on my BMW the other day.... through the wheel well liner. Good luck with that.

Blues&twos
10th Jan 2013, 18:59
Same with my wife's Renault Clio. Why would anyone approve a design which won't allow replacement at the roadside? And don't get me started on the ridiculously complex spare wheel retaining device. I'm an engineer, and it still took me 15 minutes of trying, followed by reading the handbook before I was able to see how to lower the spare off the underside of the car.

Curious Pax
10th Jan 2013, 19:12
Had a brake light bulb fail a couple of months ago. Police car pulled alongside at traffic lights in central Manchester and told me. That was it - no drama, just information courteously passed on.

Even better the Honda dealer fitted the new bulb for me, and despite having to remove the rear light assembly, charged just the cost of the bulb, a paltry £1.95!

I suppose I was lucky....

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 19:13
I stopped to help a motorist with a flat tyre.

His problem was that his wheelnut spanner didn't fit his wheelnuts which were deeply recessed into the wheels.
Nor did my wheelnut spanner fit, the nuts were too large.

They guy said that the wheels were non-standard but had been on the car when he bought it.


When the breakdown recovery chap arrived he used the piece of bent wire in the toolkit to pull off the caps from the wheelnuts, revealing wheelnuts that fitted the wheelnut spanner! :ugh:

The caps were designed to look just like wheelnuts . . .

skydiver69
10th Jan 2013, 19:31
Though it is amazing the number of police vehicles that have defective lights! The last time I pointed this out to the driver I suggested his passenger issued him a Vehicle Defect Notice!

I check my police car at the start of every shift but on two or three occasions in the last 2 years colleagues have informed me that one of the bulbs has blown, which just shows that you can try to be careful and still get caught out.

Re use of VDRS. I often use a blown bulb as a way of stopping a vehicle and to perform further checks such as licence/insurance/breath test. If all is in order then I give the driver words of advice about the bulb and off they go. If on the other hand I am tutoring a student officer then the driver will be given a VDRS as it gives the new PC chance to fill in forms with a live person and to get used to traffic process, using the caution and giving a verbal notice of intended prosecution (should the bulb not be replaced).

ExSp33db1rd
10th Jan 2013, 19:52
Failed rear light bulb.

I wasn't going to once again admit to a driving misdemeanour after my last admonishment, but I did allude to another benevolent cop, this time of the USA persuasion.

With 3 days in Baltimore ( the second prize being 5 days in Baltimore ! ) the skipper and I persuaded two of the girls to join us in a hire car to go look at Washington one day, this was pre-Dulles when International airlines used Baltimore, Wash.Nat. being too small.

The skipper drove, but I hadn't realised that part of his cunning plot was to visit the airline's D.C. office, where a retirement party was in progress, and following this, and deciding that he had drunk more than was sensible to be allowed to drive, I insisted that this was 'my sector Captain'. He objected, but when I then suggested that he could therefore cuddle up in the back seat he handed over the keys.

It was dark, the headlights worked, but surprisingly the instrument lights didn't, however, not to be outdone I got the girl in the passenger seat to flick her ciggy lighter on from time to time and established an easy 60 mph on the freeway home.

Halfway back to Baltimore the flashing red and blue lights in the mirror drew my attention, so pulled over, got out, and met the State Trooper halfway between the cars, and asked what the H*ll ( or words to that effect ) he had stopped me for, I wasn't speeding ? No, he said, you've got no rear lights.

At this the skipper, attempting to help me, fell drunkenly out of the rear door, instantly the Trooper had his gun aimed at him, and told him to get back inside ... "and I mean NOW, bud."

He then explained that no one is allowed to get out of the car when stopped, until told, but I had beaten him to it, don't do it again - Licence pls. Gee, a Limey licence, well off you go and give Avis a kick up the Ass tomorrow morning !

A Happy Ending.

Some of my less benevolent co-pilot colleagues suggested that I should have let the skipper get shot. One more notch up the seniority ladder !

( I now check all aspects of a hire car of course, not just the 'cheat sheet' that they present )

ExSp33db1rd
10th Jan 2013, 20:08
I stopped to help a motorist with a flat tyre.

Stopped recently at the behest of two, not too scruffy looking, youths gazing disconsolately at their front wheel. Did I have a wheel brace, yes, why, got a puncture ? No, front wheel loose.

I discovered that there were only 3 nuts on all wheels, and all 12 were loose !

Also the exhaust pipe had broken off near the engine, and the silencer was being held up by the front passenger seat belt.

They then asked directions to a town about 300 Km away near the top of the North Island of NZ - What ? in this ? where had they come from ? Invercargill, (a town on the South Coast of the South Island! ) and can you give us $20 for petrol ?

No, You've used my wheel brace and I don't think you should drive this heap any further. "p*ss off then, mate" was my thanks.

I rang a local Police friend and "suggested" that he might set wheels in motion to stop someone being killed, which would have been on my conscience if they had.

Never did follow up, so don't know.

Kiltrash
10th Jan 2013, 20:36
In my line of work, no I am not a Traffic Warden, I have cause to see more than my fair share of failed stop lights and on average when I point this out to the driver I get severe F*** O*** more than half the time, what is it got to do with you!!

Makes you want to give up helping and just report the offending registration numbers to the over worked authorities

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 20:57
A further point about the faulty stoplamp switch:-
I sourced one from the interweb at minimal cost, but the Haynes manual stated that replacement of the switch required removal of the complete fascia and instrument panel - a job that, if incorrectly effected would disable the vehicle, and, if entreated to a garage would cost more than the value of the 12 year old vehicle, so it was with great relief that squirting WD40 solved the problem.

The space where the switch is fitted was impossible to see (even with a mirror) and the success of trying to change the switch without major 'surgery' seemed unlikely (though some reckoned it was possible).

M.Mouse
10th Jan 2013, 21:13
And the reason for all this "Health and Safety" debacle? They needed to dig an eighteen inch by eighteen inch by two foot deep hole around a neighbour's seized up stop tap, so it could be turned off, while a plumber fixed a leak in the house.

That was the reason for the job but the reason for the debacle was the propensity of the feckless to sue for damages given the slightest chance of gaining recompense for tripping over or some such other act attributable to their own carelessness. Hence the H & S crap we all experience every day.

He then explained that no one is allowed to get out of the car when stopped, until told, but I had beaten him to it, don't do it again...

Being stopped by the American cops is a very different experience from that in the UK. Something to do with Americans having the constitutional right to shoot anybody they disagree with or something.

ShyTorque
10th Jan 2013, 21:50
That was the reason for the job but the reason for the debacle was the propensity of the feckless to sue for damages given the slightest chance of gaining recompense for tripping over or some such other act attributable to their own carelessness. Hence the H & S crap we all experience every day.

Yes, but the point is, as I mentioned, the street isn't lit and they introduced at least half a dozen trip hazards. They left them there for three days, whilst the reason for them being there was gone before dark on the first day.

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 22:03
Jobsworths I'm afraid.

Ronald Reagan
10th Jan 2013, 22:05
Yet another sign of the ever growing police state.

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 22:09
I believe it's more a case of unthinking regulation (which, I concede, could be a consequence of '1984' implementation).

west lakes
10th Jan 2013, 22:22
Jobsworths I'm afraid.

Chapter 8 of the road Traffic Act which covers the signs and barriers required at street works does not apply on private land or can be enforced by the county council staff.

Yes it makes sense to provide some signing, lighting (looks like that didn't happen) guarding to prevent injuries, but not the full range of it. There is also allowance under the Act to move signs if they would be an obstruction!

RedhillPhil
10th Jan 2013, 22:24
I wish the police would get a bit keen on the cyclops headlamp drivers around here in East Surreyshire. It seems as though every twelfth vehicle has only one headlamp working with the other on main beam.

AlpineSkier
10th Jan 2013, 22:34
Being stopped by the American cops is a very different experience from that in the UK. Something to do with Americans having the constitutional right to shoot anybody they disagree with or something.

M.Mouse are you are cretin all the time, or just when you feel like it ?

G-CPTN
10th Jan 2013, 22:36
I wish the police would get a bit keen on the cyclops headlamp drivers Yes, I notice a significant percentage of vehicles with only one headlamp working.

They will have to get it fixed when they take it for MOT, but I wonder how many people notice otherwise?

TWT
11th Jan 2013, 02:03
Then there's the idiots driving around at night,hours after sunset, with no lights on at all.Which means they don't know their speed or how much fuel they have left either :rolleyes:

Alloa Akbar
11th Jan 2013, 07:47
Skydiver69 - I spoke to the missus last night and got the full story.. Bearing in mind she is a 39 year old District nurse, in uniform and driving a 4 year old car in otherwise and obvious pristine condition..

2 very young officers in a BMW X5 pulled her over because one of her tail stop lights was out, the other 2 (1 normal and 1 high level LED) were working fine. They kept her at the roadside for 15 mins to issue a full patronising explanation of the dangers of faulty stop lamps before insisting that she take the car to the nearest garage immediately for repair and issuing the form you mentioned. My girlfriend enquired that since she had 2 working stop lights and she also had a full case load of patients, would it be OK if her boyfriend did the job at the end of the day. Answer from Police robot was that she must report to the nearest garage immediately. She also said that the young officers were clearly full of their own self importance and proud of their big plush Police vehicle if you catch my drift.

She summed the whole thing up perfectly when she said "What happened to old fashioned coppers who would have a quick, friendly, common sense word in your ear rather than these arrogant ar5eh0les"? After all, her car had a fault, she had no problem accepting that, and acknowledging that it needed fixing.

I guess they don't teach the Police the importance of courtesy and respect these days, any more than they remind them they are public servants, not lords and masters.

G-CPTN
11th Jan 2013, 08:33
Alloa Akbar - it sounds as if your friend encountered a training session.
If on the other hand I am tutoring a student officer then the driver will be given a VDRS as it gives the new PC chance to fill in forms with a live person and to get used to traffic process, using the caution and giving a verbal notice of intended prosecution (should the bulb not be replaced).
I agree that one out of three stoplamps not working is hardly the crime of the century.

The law allows (I believe) for the failure of bulbs to have occurred during the journey without it being an offence, but, I agree that drivers should check their lights (but how many do?). Stoplamps are difficult to self-check unless you can see them reflected in a shop-window or the front of a following car (easier in the rain).

hval
11th Jan 2013, 08:46
Westlakes,

Chapter 8 of the road Traffic Act which covers the signs and barriers required at street works does not apply on private land or can be enforced by the county council staff.

Chapter 8 is more often used for high speed roads. "Safety at Street Works and Road Works" is what would be used in this situation.

Chapter 8 is advisory and not a legal requirement. having said that I am aware of court cases where non compliance with Chapter 8 has been cited.

I would also look at the HAUCS (for England) and RAUCS (Scotland) websites for all advise notes pertaining to roadworks.

Any utility has the right to carry out works to maintain and to repair their aparatus. This includes carrying out works in unadopted roads. Any utility not complying with the relevant signs manuals may be issued witha FPN (Fixed penalty notice) for not having correct TM (Traffic management). Any accident/ incident occuring that occurs, people try and blame the Traffic management for being incorrect. this is why there will have been so much TM.

A private road is not necessarily a road to which the public does not have access. Nor is it a road exempt from the law.

radeng
11th Jan 2013, 09:10
But are they allowed to put signs etc on private land not belonging to the owner of the land on which they are working?

hval
11th Jan 2013, 10:00
Radeng,

Yes; within reason. Wouldn't expect it in your garden for instance, unless barriers were being put up for safety reasons.

gingernut
11th Jan 2013, 10:35
'spose the MOT ticket is quite a good compromise, as long as it's not too expensive. Better than a ticket.I used to get pulled up all the time in me 'yoof, and used to nod, "yes officer," then take about 4 months to get the job done. Me and me mate got pulled for having no lights on our' pushbikes once in our local village. Promised the officer we would walk home, waited 'till he was round the corner, and rode on.

He went the other way, in his panda car, and pulled us again 5 minutes later. He made us let our tyres down and sent us walking on our way- oh how common sense prevailed.

I guess most people tell a few porkies to the police. I've got a mate who is an officer of the law, and he always seems to start on the pretext that someone is lying. Funny, in my job, I always start on the pretext that people are telling the truth. I know which way round I prefer to work.

On a different note, a small confession. For years, The Saajan kebab house have always given me my usual "Police Discount." I'm tall, have got flat feet, short hair and look vaguely stupid, so I guess they've just made the assumption.:}

vee-tail-1
11th Jan 2013, 10:51
Police State?
How about this!!
My wife driving my 4x4 to town one weekday morning. She is followed for some time by an unmarked police vehicle, which suddenly flashes blue lights and indicates that she should stop. She continues until finding a suitable place to pull over near houses and other people. The single policeman comes to the car window and demands proof of her insurance. She tells him she is insured to drive my 4x4 and why did he stop her? He says the DVLA 4x4 data shows a man as the insured driver ... she is a woman ... she must provide proof of insurance to drive the 4x4. She says the insurance for her own car covers her husband's 4x4. The policeman then orders her to get out of the 4x4 and into his car in order for him to investigate this probable offence. She says "No way am I getting into your car alone with you”, to which he replies "Then you must follow me to the nearest Police station” (about 10 miles away) My wife decides to get in the back of the police car and is subjected to lots of questioning about her own car and insurance until the disappointed policeman realises that all is in order. My wife then attempts to get out of the police car only to find that the door has been locked by the policeman. He releases her and she comes home in a very shocked and angry state. I am incandescent with rage and am still looking out for that policeman... I regularly cruise the same route hoping he will show up in his unmarked BMW ... I do not know what I will do if I encounter him, it very much depends on his attitude :\ :\

ShyTorque
11th Jan 2013, 11:39
Just noticed this morning that the hole was actually dug on a non tarmacked part of the frontage, effectively a disused flower bed alongside the top of the front driveway of the house involved. There is nothing that could be described as a pavement, residents are obliged to walk in the narrow street. The street has been here since 1911, according to my deeds, and as far as we know, there is no record of anyone getting run over or having a car accident down here.

The "rules are always right / rules must be complied with" mentality has taken hold on this forum too, when in fact rules themselves are a blunt instrument which don't leave scope for common sense to be applied. There was no practical need for any road signs at all; the workmen invented a problem and put roadsigns around it, which caused trip hazards down much of the street, and left them there for three days.

What would have been the outcome if someone had tripped over one of the many road signs, I wonder?

hval
11th Jan 2013, 11:55
Shytorque,

Unfortunately common sense does not reside within the UK courts; or should I write rarely does commonsense reside within UK justice.

Therefore common sense is thrown away due to people not wishing to be fined, imprisoned, sacked from their jobs, sued or given a criminal record.

ShyTorque
11th Jan 2013, 12:03
hval, yes, my point exactly - see the first line of my post #28. ;)

Alloa Akbar
11th Jan 2013, 13:17
I have noticed several vids on Yooftube regarding dealing with uppity Policemen, however in the interests of being grown up and recognizing that all Policemen are not actually knobs, perhaps I could invite Skydiver69 to comment on the following:

1. The question when directed at a Policeman "Are you acting in accordance with the oath you took?" what is the interrogator getting at here??

2. When a Policemen says "Ok Lewis, out of the car" or words to such effect, I am led to believe that I can ask if he is requesting me, or ordering me. If ordering me then the officer must be able to tell me exactly which law I am suspected of having broken. Is this correct? If requesting I can decline his request, yes?

Cheers

Alloa

radeng
11th Jan 2013, 13:36
vee tail,

Complaint to Chief Constable has effects. Mrs radeng did that after being stopped three times a week for three weeks on her way to work, and had a visit from a very apologetic Chief Superintendent.

skydiver69
11th Jan 2013, 13:54
Alloa Akbar...I'll try to answer as best I can.

1. The question when directed at a Policeman "Are you acting in accordance with the oath you took?" what is the interrogator getting at here??

2. When a Policemen says "Ok Lewis, out of the car" or words to such effect, I am led to believe that I can ask if he is requesting me, or ordering me. If ordering me then the officer must be able to tell me exactly which law I am suspected of having broken. Is this correct? If requesting I can decline his request, yes?


1 -Presumable they are referring to our attestation, something I read twice many years ago and can't remember much of.

I........of......do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity,
diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and
according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best
of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent
all offences against people and property; and that while I continue
to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and
knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to
law.’

A few people try to use this lack of knowledge to try to disrupt the police and to put them of, claiming that if the attestation can't be remembered then we aren't acting lawfully, but I'm not aware of any case where an arrest has been deemed unlawful due to this. As it happens I can't remember every legal definition for every offence I come across but again that doesn't stop me doing my job.

2 - Members of the public don't have to accompany the police unless under arrest, so asking someone to get out of their car and into a police vehicle should be done with the agreement/consent of the driver. In practice 99.9% of people I've dealt with do take a seat in my car without question. Technically a person is detained by the police once in the police car, especially one with a childlock in use, as they can't get out without assistance. As with a lot of things we do (stop searches, asking for details after an assault/theft etc) we should be looking for the MOP consent, rather than using bullying tactics which a small minority seem to fall back on.

I would imagine that the PC's who detained your friend were either traffic or firearms as an X5 tends to be used by specialist teams rather than regular plod. Either way they seem to have come across as numpties and created a bad impression.

M.Mouse
11th Jan 2013, 14:03
Alpine Skier,

M.Mouse are you are cretin all the time, or just when you feel like it ?

I couldn't possibly comment.

The line was a joke but perhaps I should have put one of those twee :) at the end to help those lacking a sense of humour.

I keep away from firearms debates because as far as I am concerned America can govern itself quite happily without my input but since the heated debates which regularly occur over the issue here I have noticed, and laughed, at the humourous insertion of firearm references in completely unconnected threads. I hope that helps you understand.

B Fraser
11th Jan 2013, 14:59
I doubt many Xenon headlamped cars carry a spare HID bulb, or indeed ballast.

If it's one of Stuttgart's mid or rear engined funmobiles then the entire headlamp unit has to be replaced at a 4 figure price. You would also need to carry a left and a right spare in anticipation that either failed. Those cars are probably exempt from the rule.

Alloa,

Perhaps the spotty oik was just angling for "her ladyship" to visit the station again in uniform.

:E

AlpineSkier
11th Jan 2013, 18:46
M Mouse

Please accept my apologies. It wasn't just the comment, I had in fact confused you with someone who is rather vociferous on the matter of weapons and the USA.

TZ350
11th Jan 2013, 22:00
This is another thread that confirms that the UK's Stasi are nothing but a bunch of contemptible, useless c**nts.

Mr Chips
11th Jan 2013, 22:03
This is another post that confirms that TZ350 is nothing but an objectionable twonk

Corrected that one for you TZ350

Now, just why do you have such a problem with the police?

Tableview
11th Jan 2013, 22:07
The police are not to blame, it's the wuckfits who make the laws, in most cases the police are merely following instructions.

Lord Spandex Masher
11th Jan 2013, 22:14
c**nts.

Counts....?

TZ350
11th Jan 2013, 22:21
" Now, just why do you have such a problem with the police? "

This thread illustrates ( once again ) that they are not interested in providing protection of person and property as many threads have previously indicated ( pikey theft is one outstanding example )

vee-tail-1 and AA's posts are prime examples of scum in uniform. And then there is the institutionalised intimidation and lying that also have been reported here.All my friends that are unfortunately resident in the UK have nothing good to say about them ( pikey problems # 1 )

Mr Chips
11th Jan 2013, 22:23
so you don't live in the UK TZ350 and yet you are an expert on our police?

Fascinating.

I assume your friends are all criminals then.

(I note that you don't seem to feel the need to back any assertions with facts)

gingernut
11th Jan 2013, 22:42
There's almost a comfy feeling on here between "nice" people, like Alloa's Mrs, who is a District Nurse, and nasty " people",Tw*ts who need locking up.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle.

The cop's are just doing their job, it all get's a bit twitchy when thing's look like they're getting to court, but that say's more about the adversarial of law we court, than the individual officers.

Having said all that, was just watching one of those "Cop's and Camera's" show's, and it all looks like the police could do with learning some listening skills.

Ginge. (ex District Nurse & not been caught-yet:))

TZ350
11th Jan 2013, 23:21
" I assume your friends are all criminals then "

Ah , Chips, another HUA Limey muschi , assuming too much and all totally :mad: wrong. Obviously in the early stages of dementia.

By your assumption , all who have posted their negative experiences here are lying and /or criminals. :ugh:

Two's in
11th Jan 2013, 23:58
The police are not to blame, it's the wuckfits who make the laws, in most cases the police are merely following instructions.

1. News International corruption and press leaks.
2. Hillsborough corruption and cover up.
3. West Midlands Serious Crime Squad corruption
4. Stephen Lawrence corruption and cover up.
5. Jimmy Saville cover up.

Ad Nauseum infinitum....


Yep, it's just the poor old Bobbies taking the flak, not a bent copper out there.

Hobo
12th Jan 2013, 06:30
ShyTorque Before Trent Water started, did they obtain a streetworks licence under S.50 of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991? (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/22/contents)

Under the Water Industries Act 1991 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/contents), they are required to give 'reasonable notice' to a landowner of any works and 3 months for any new pipe.

If electricity was involved, they would have needed a wayleave licence under Schedule 4 (6) of the Electricity Act 1989 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/contents).

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2013, 06:34
Ah, TZ has arrived, living proof as to why anthropology is by no means finite regarding the definitions of the species that inhabit this planet.

Have a look ar this link

Memorial for seven UK police killed on the job - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/memorial-for-seven-uk-police-killed-on-the-job)

Now, scroll down to the maths ( these are the numbers located above the photograph of the memorial floral tributes for the "stasi" as your somewhat restricted vocabulary defines Police Officers ) and then, divide 4000 / 180

Feel free to use an abacus, although on second thoughts, this may prove rather too complex for you, or, alternatively, use the tried and tested fingers and toes method, both your own and those of your friends as the long division process will involve extensive numerical calculations.

And finally, a three part question I have posed before.....I suppose you could have missed this however, so, helpful as always, I will reiterate for you,,,,,, in bold this time.

Do you still retain UK nationality, do you have dual nationality with your current country of domicile, or have you taken out the nationality of that country ?.

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2013, 06:39
There was once a publication in the UK called " Moriarty's Police Law"

I was tempted by the name - which I thought particularly apt - and bought a copy, which provided all the answers to what the Police could and could not do, and also what Joe Public was normally expected to do to avoid becoming A Person of Interest.

I couldn't possibly find my copy now.

(A quick Giggle search suggests that the volume has now reached version 24.)

radeng
12th Jan 2013, 09:06
Last night, I was talking to a retired traffic cop about this thread. He said that they were being stupid PLUS never, ever as a traffic cop, upset a doctor or a nurse. Especially a district nurse, because if she gets her hands on you professionally, you are more than likely to learn very quickly about 'Friend or enema' - with repeated lessons!

ShyTorque
12th Jan 2013, 09:20
ShyTorque Before Trent Water started, did they obtain a streetworks licence under S.50 of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991?

Under the Water Industries Act 1991, they are required to give 'reasonable notice' to a landowner of any works and 3 months for any new pipe.

If electricity was involved, they would have needed a wayleave licence under Schedule 4 (6) of the Electricity Act 1989.

I wouldn't think so because it was a water leak, so classed as an emergency callout.

I don't think it involved electricity.

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Jan 2013, 10:51
the police could do with learning some listening skills
Not so easy, give that they've heard it all before ... many times ... and usually it was all lies.

stuckgear
12th Jan 2013, 11:24
Not so easy, give that they've heard it all before ... many times ... and usually it was all lies.

and that's just from their collegues.

:E

airship
12th Jan 2013, 11:45
Perhaps G-CPTN and his vast experience of the car industry, could help us to understand why...

...cars manufactured today are invariably equipped with the facilities to immediately inform the driver that: oil level is good; coolant level is good; hand-brake is on; seat-belt not worn; and even that we've left the lights on. Yet apparently cannot signal to the driver that any individual stop or brake light etc. is not working...?!

More generally, I have to wonder at all the confusion. Motorbikes usually have just 1 headlamp and one brake / stop light. Motorcars usually have twice as many. The "2nd set" should be considered as "working spares", if the light on 1 side fails but the light on the opposite side functions, this should not be considered as an offence...?!

So far as the requirements that suggest that only 3rd party "official organisations" are enabled to provide proof that the light or whatever has been suitably repaired etc. goes: IMHO, the police who issued the original ticket or whatever indicating the simple default visually, should also be able to simply indicate (visually) that the default has been corrected. If that were the case, I can guarantee you that the policemen will think twice before issuing such notices in future, as it will imply use of their own time, in today's circumstances when paid overtime opportunities are frowned upon... :ok:

"2 engines are better than 1, 4 are even better than 2, I miss the DC-10 and L-1011..."

west lakes
12th Jan 2013, 11:47
Yet apparently cannot signal to the driver that any individual stop or brake light etc. is not working...?!

Depends on model and age I think, my present car and the last two have the facility

Ronald Reagan
12th Jan 2013, 12:01
Britain of 2012 is a police state, anyone who cannot see that must be blind to whats going on around them. Sure there are good police officers, not all are bad, but sadly the bigger picture is of an ever increasing police state. There is more and more interference into the lives of normal people by the state all the time. Its a very sad state of affairs its come to this. We have all this talk of the UK being a free country when thats just a lie. The political class really are the ones to blame as they are the ones who have done this, though those who enforce the laws have to share some of that. But I am a libertarian so have no time for big and controlling government.

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2013, 12:45
Way back in the 1960s we received samples of fibre optic cables. and it was the intention to install these as 'indicators' from each lamp to a central cluster on the instrument panel where they would inform the driver whether the bulbs were lit, however it was confusing (having so many) as they worked in reverse (ie they signalled a fault by being extinguished rather than being illuminated.

At that time, fibre optics were also still expensive and the total lengths required to equip a vehicle was enormous (and they would have presented a problem finding space for them in addition to the wiring harness feeding the lights).

Nobody had considered using fibre optics to transmit telephone signals, they were simply used for things like table lamps.

OFSO
12th Jan 2013, 13:40
What happens if my photocard licence has expired? Apply for a new one immediately – once the application is with the DVLA technically you can drive even before you receive it. Failure to renew risks a £1,000 fine and the implications of driving without insurance since entitlement to drive legally has ended so invalidating the insurance.

Today's news reckons that there are 2,000,000 UK drivers who haven't renewed. Multiply by £1,000 and that's an awful lot of moolah.

ShyTorque
12th Jan 2013, 14:13
It's surely nothing more than another (Labour) government money making exercise. This dates back to when the ID card debate was ongoing. Labour wanted everyone to carry ID, this was a back door way of getting many people to do so.

When you first apply for a photocard licence you have to get someone to countersign that the photo is of the applicant, as if it's for a passport.

However, when you renew the licence, you don't have to get the photo countersigned (it specifically says so on the form).

So, it appears there is no government / DVLA requirement for the photo to be "bang up to date". For practical purposes, as long as the police can recognise the photo as the person holding the licence, if they do need to check it, there should be no problem for the individual. I'm not saying how recent the "new" photo was when I renewed my licence a while back because I reckon £20 was enough to pay for something imposed upon me for no real gain; but I didn't go out and pay even more to have a special photo taken, just to comply with a new way to pay more tax.

I did consider sending a photo of Tony Blair to see what happened, but I reckoned it would be just my luck to get pulled over by a copper who was a staunch Conservative supporter, then I'd be down the nick sharpish!

Ozzy
12th Jan 2013, 15:04
I have never really understood why a government mandated requriement should be paid by the consumer...

Ozzy

EEngr
12th Jan 2013, 15:11
...cars manufactured today are invariably equipped with the facilities to immediately inform the driver that: oil level is good; coolant level is good; hand-brake is on; seat-belt not worn; and even that we've left the lights on. Yet apparently cannot signal to the driver that any individual stop or brake light etc. is not working...?!1979 Porsche 928 Central Warning System does this. Not even new technology.

teeteringhead
12th Jan 2013, 15:27
So, it appears there is no government / DVLA requirement for the photo to be "bang up to date". For practical purposes, as long as the police can recognise the photo as the person holding the licence, if they do need to check it, there should be no problem for the individual. .. even (potentially?) scarier, I was recently helping junior Teeterette (who works lots overseas) with the aforesaid photo update.

It seemed the form said something like - we don't need a new photo, we can use your passport photo.

So DVLA must have access to passport records....... wtf ........:eek:

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2013, 15:32
I don't have a current passport.

stuckgear
12th Jan 2013, 15:36
1979 Porsche 928 Central Warning System does this. Not even new technology.


so does a P38 (1994-2002) range rover, which specific bulb also.

west lakes
12th Jan 2013, 16:09
Talking of unthinking police state officials

Annals of the Security State, Glider Pilot Edition - James Fallows - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/annals-of-the-security-state-glider-pilot-edition/267080/#ooid=ZodG45ODqmBqYkQwWPCzO3XB1YlUcWPk)

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Jan 2013, 16:38
I have never really understood why a government mandated requriement should be paid by the consumer...
It's quite simple.

Either all the drivers pay for the driving licences, or all the taxpayers, including those who are not drivers, pay for driving licences.

Sometimes politicians choose one approach, sometimes the other. In this instance they have chosen that people who don't have driving licences should not subsidise those who do.

Victor Inox
12th Jan 2013, 17:25
...cars manufactured today are invariably equipped with the facilities to immediately inform the driver that: oil level is good; coolant level is good; hand-brake is on; seat-belt not worn; and even that we've left the lights on. Yet apparently cannot signal to the driver that any individual stop or brake light etc. is not working...?!

I remember that the Ford Scorpio (or Granada in some markets) already had this in the 1980s. Perhaps you should check your manual.

However, what is alarming nowadays is that many cars have a constantly illuminated instrument panel, regardless of whether the headlights are on or off. This encourages the brain dead among our fellow motorists to drive without lights in poor ambient light, in fog or rain.

Lord Spandex Masher
12th Jan 2013, 20:01
Just to go back to UK traffic law. Apparently there is one test the police must carry out every time they stop someone for speeding. If they don't do it you'll get off scot free. Remember I did say apparently.

So does anyone know what the test is?

Failing that try saying - "I do not recognise the significance of those words and I would like to exercise my legal right to refer to PACE."

Read it slowly, when you get hold of it, and hope they get bored.

ShyTorque
12th Jan 2013, 20:12
My twenty year old Beemer would switch its instrument panel lights off if a rear light bulb failed.

Later cars had two bulbs in the rear light unit.

Brake lights are easy enough to check by yourself- use your rear view mirror with the car parked in front of something reflective. A pale coloured wall, a garage door, shop window will do. Or, as I do for the pre-MOT walkround check - put a sweeping broom on the brake pedal and nip round the back for a look.

The rear number plate lights are a common MOT failure point and are enough for a keen copper to pull you over for a roadside check - just removed mine and cleaned up the contacts and Waxoyled them to see me through the winter; one of the bulb contacts was corroded even though the bulb was OK.

OFSO
12th Jan 2013, 20:33
there is one test the police must carry out every time they stop someone for speeding

That's the one where they check to see if there's a folded fifty-pound note attached to the second part of the driving licence, right ?

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2013, 20:53
put a sweeping broom on the brake pedal and nip round the back for a look.


You do that before you drive off every time you come out of a shop, do you ?
( yes, in NZ we can- usually - park outside every shop, then drive off and park outside the next one ! )

I've always driven with my motor cycle headlight on, day or night, and until recently it didn't matter if it failed by day ( I can usually see if it fails by night ) but now it does because it has just become law in NZ. Now I worry, so I now drive with the main beam on all the time, on the assumption that if the light fails then little blue indicator light for 'main beam' might also go out ? ( maybe this assumption is false ? ) Funny how many on-coming motorists are flashing a welcome signal to me all the time now - friendly lot, NZ drivers. ( one recently gave me a funny sort of one fingered wave out of his window after I had been following him for some time, too. )

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2013, 21:00
My twenty year old Beemer would switch its instrument panel lights off if a rear light bulb failed.

Ahhh ! a clue. See 4th para. of my post #36. No, it wasn't a Beemer, undoubtedly the cheapest thing Mr. Avis had available in Baltimore circa. 1960.

ShyTorque
12th Jan 2013, 21:11
You do that before you drive off every time you come out of a shop, do you ?

No, you've deliberately missed off the first part of that sentence:

Or, as I do for the pre-MOT walkround check - put a sweeping broom on the brake pedal and nip round the back for a look.


There, I've put it in bold and underlined it for you. The MOT test is one we have in UK to ensure our vehicles are roadworthy at least once a year.

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2013, 21:17
I fixed the back door handle of my Morris Minor Traveller (estate) so that it pointed upwards - where it was visible in my rearview mirror and reflected the rear lights (including the brakelights) so I could tell at a glance whether they were working.

hval
12th Jan 2013, 21:33
G-CPTN,

Nobody had considered using fibre optics to transmit telephone signals,

Earliest thoughts on using fibre optics for communications were in the 1880's. In the 1960's the Royal Signals Research & Development Establishment were working on fibre optics for communications as were a number of civilian organisations. look up Charles Kao of STC Laboratories.

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2013, 21:45
Well I learn something almost every day on here!.

IIRC our samples came direct from Du Pont.

We all thought it was magic!

Windy Militant
12th Jan 2013, 21:50
Our Works Ford Galaxys have a brake light failure warning light on the dash, as well as a warning light for the other lights they are side by side and only show when illuminated.
Shortly after we acquired our first Galaxy I was driving up the road and noticed that the light was on so I stopped checked round the car couldn't find any bulbs blown so after a bit of head scratching looked in the manual. There I found out that the brake test light stays on after you turn on the ignition until the first press of the brakes. Usually I use the brakes to stop just after pulling out of the bay we keep it in, to put a traffic cone in the middle of the bay to try to stop people parking there, it saves the next guy using it having to hunt for it! This morning I'd forgotten something and stopped the engine while I got out and fetched it and then drove off. Some how I got onto the A34 without using the brakes and then noticed the light! :O

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2013, 22:06
The MOT test is one we have in UK to ensure our vehicles are roadworthy at least once a year.

Every 6 months in NZ, but it only ensures that vehicles are legal ( which is not the same as safe ) for 2 seconds a year, i.e. briefly, each time they are collected from the MoT testing station, for the rest of the 6 months they drive around with many defects that go unnoticed and uncorrected -and uncared. (i.e. she'll be right mate, no problem, sweet as.. )

and how many drivers ever bother to have their blood pressure, and other potentially death causing conditions, checked as they drive towards you at a closing speed of 140 mph ? Are you sure you can pull off the road when you have your stroke whilst driving ? A local friend fortunately did recently, but he could just as easily have slumped the other way as he died on a busy road.

reflected the rear lights

Good idea, in NZ all recently registered cars must have a 'highlight' i.e. a stop light mounted high in the rear window, and mine reflects in the glass, so I know that at least one red light shines back, doesn't make it legal but at least I know that the guy behind gets some indication that I'm stamping on the anchors at the behest of Mrs. ExS.to avoid killing a sparrow. ( actually I don't, heeding the advice of an early instructor to never brake or swerve for an animal, 'cept possibly a cow, but that doesn't add to desirable domestic harmony for the next few days. )

Dushan
12th Jan 2013, 22:08
Does that work then? You can commit any traffic offences you like with no risk of being stopped because the police are afraid you might have a gun?

No, but having one rear bulb out is not an offense. That's why there are two.

Dushan
12th Jan 2013, 22:12
...cars manufactured today are invariably equipped with the facilities to immediately inform the driver that: oil level is good; coolant level is good; hand-brake is on; seat-belt not worn; and even that we've left the lights on. Yet apparently cannot signal to the driver that any individual stop or brake light etc. is not working...?!




Not true. BMWs inform you that lights are burnt. It doesn't tell you which side, bit distinguishes between brake and parking and signal.

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Jan 2013, 22:24
the advice of an early instructor to never brake or swerve for an animal
My grandfather had taken this girl out for a drive.

A dog ran into the road in front of him at the same time as a child ran into the road in front of him from the other side.

"Mind the dog!" cried the girl.

My grandfather didn't go out with her again.

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2013, 23:11
My father (who taught me to drive) indoctrinated me against reacting to dogs (or cats or pheasants) running into the road from well before I was old enough to be able to drive in case the ultimate casualty might be a human (especially a child).

I travelled extensively with my father from my earliest memory (he was the Man from the Prudential collecting from rural settlements) and before I started school and during school holidays I travelled with him almost every day. He explained how the car worked and how he controlled it. I never actually drove until I reached 17 and had my provisional licence, but I already knew the theory and principals involved as well as the background that you don't get taught except by experience or learning by example.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jan 2013, 05:14
As for animals, I'm quite happy to take avoiding action within the capability of the car. It's good practice for avoiding deer, which out in the country make for higher insurance premiums than in the city.

If the idiot in front of you is suddenly braking for no apparent reason, it's probably for a deer:eek:

It is truly amazing how deer blend into the scenery. A cyclist will stand out a mile away while even 50 yards away a deer blends in:uhoh:

Skill at avoiding deer comes in good stead when the elk or moose turn up on the road. Collision with one of these is often fatal to people in the car.

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Jan 2013, 09:42
Skill at avoiding deer comes in good stead when the elk or moose turn up on the road. Collision with one of these is often fatal to people in the car.
You don't get many of those in "rural" East Anglia ... (small deer, yes, but not elk or moose).

But I do know someone who had a horse jump over a hedge into the road, landing on, and going through, his windscreen. No chance of avoiding that one.

ShyTorque
13th Jan 2013, 09:42
Having a motorcycling background, if an animal jumps out in front (happens not infrequently round here, rabbit, hare, sometimes deer, often pheasants which are the amongst the most stupid of animals), I brake or take what avoiding action I can reasonably take, but certainly without swerving, especially into oncoming traffic.

OFSO
13th Jan 2013, 09:50
at least once a year

Believe it or not, the EU standard is every two years, but the UK opted to make it more frequently. Spain is every two years until the vehicle is ten years old. Spain also opted to start the testing only after the car has reached it's fourth birthday. (Cake and candles optional).

Running into animals: you do NOT want to drive into an adult wild boar. If you do, stay in the car until it has gone away. They are not of a happy disposition even before you've driven into them. (Tasty, though).

Squealing Pig
13th Jan 2013, 10:17
Tax disc reminder arrived recently, a note has now appeared on them

From 18th November 2012 vehicles manufactured or registered before 1st January 1960 will no longer need an MoT

Could someone explain the logic for this?

Tableview
13th Jan 2013, 10:18
You're assuming that there is logic in any edict issued by government or any of its authorities. Big mistake!

spekesoftly
13th Jan 2013, 10:29
Could someone explain the logic for this? The following link gives an explanation:-

BBC News - Classic and historic cars exempted from MoT (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326)Seems fair enough, and refreshing to have red tape removed when appropriate.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 10:54
Could someone explain the logic for this?


yes. the MOT test requirements cover safety systems as well as the structure of the vehicle and emmissions. many classic cars could be taken off the road for not being able to meet MOT requirements.

it would more than a travesty to see classic cars needing to be scrapped or removed from the roads beacuase of automatic headlight adjustment or the lack of catlytic converters.

in essence pre -1960's cars are not DD's and used only occasionaly so exempting them from the MOT makes sense.

of course, governments doing what makes sense is a rare thing !


NB: GTW, hitting a deer is enough to kill you, they tend to have the bodyweight higher up, so being hit by a car tends to put the body mass through the windscreen.

ShyTorque
13th Jan 2013, 11:03
at least once a year

Believe it or not, the EU standard is every two years, but the UK opted to make it more frequently. Spain is every two years until the vehicle is ten years old. Spain also opted to start the testing only after the car has reached it's fourth birthday. (Cake and candles optional).

The UK introduced the annual MOT test well before the EU was even thought of, in about 1960, I believe. Problem in UK (and probably elsewhere) is that many car owners seem to consider doing something about their vehicle's roadworthiness only after it has failed the MOT test. I don't think the situation has changed much in the last half century or so.

Classic car and bike owners are a bit different, I suppose. They tend to be more "into" their vehicle. Hopefully removing the requirement to MOT those vehicles won't drive standards down.

I'm intrigued to see if the classic motorsport organisations will still insist on an MOT test - some do so now, even for some off-road events where the vehicle is scrutineered.

Tableview
13th Jan 2013, 11:03
They should still be subject to some sort of simplified road testing to make sure they are safe and not likely to cause accidents.

Many of them are very heavy and quite powerful, and their brakes, lighting, and roadholding are, in many cases, not up to modern day road speeds and conditions. Also, critical components could be badly corroded or worn.

I am all for preserving heritage and I love old cars, but they should only be used on the roads if safe.

Some pre 1960 cars are well-preserved specimens of quality cars, owned and driven by enthusiasts, but some are just rusting and dangerous hulks which should be on a scrapheap.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 11:24
Some pre 1960 cars are well-preserved specimens of quality cars, owned and driven by enthusiasts, but some are just rusting and dangerous hulks which should be on a scrapheap.


like a 3 year old renault ! :}

Tableview
13th Jan 2013, 11:31
Funny you should say that! A friend came round last night with a 4 year old Renault Megane, 90,000 km on the clock, mostly motorway as her commute is 80km daily, of which 70 is motorway, and she said : "I'm starting to have expensive problems with it." I said the expensive problems started the day it left the factory!

Metro man
13th Jan 2013, 12:01
LED lights are more reliable and could be worth considering as replacements for incandescents.

I remember watching a crime program on The Discovery Channel where an armed robber stated that he changed the bulbs on his brake lights before driving to a job to avoid being pulled over for a simple offence which could lead to a 10 year stretch.

Tankertrashnav
13th Jan 2013, 12:05
But I do know someone who had a horse jump over a hedge into the road, landing on, and going through, his windscreen. No chance of avoiding that one.


Chap I knew at Catterick had that happen to him in a car he had just bought in Richmond (5 miles away). As it was a Saturday afternoon, and this was pre-internet days he thought he'd take a chance and drive it back uninsured and sort the insurance out on Monday morning.

Expensive mistake!

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 12:43
" Some pre 1960 cars are well-preserved specimens of quality cars, owned and driven by enthusiasts, but some are just rusting and dangerous hulks which should be on a scrapheap"

I would say virtually all pre 1960's cars that you see on the road are as far from removed from the last part of your statement that it's possible to be.

Notably for the fact that they are not used as commuting vehicles, make compartively few road trips and are owned by people who have a genuine interest in old cars and thus their maintenance could be expected to far exceed the interest in such ( minimal at best ) shown by drivers of modern vehicles.

Given the age of the vehicle, the owners are also much more attuned to safe driving and not being reliant on the wonders of technology which are now deemed "essential" on modern cars.

I get bemused by those who cannot perform a basic "walk round" check of their vehicles, either before setting off regarding working filaments, or to open the bonnet and check the various fluid levels and also tyre px checks....:ugh:

On the subject of working filaments however, I suppose it's fair to say that they can and do fail at any time which brings up a question please.

Once upon a happy time, when driving in Germany / Holland etc, it was mandatory to keep a spare set of filaments..a habit I have kept. However, technology moves on and we now have LED lights...of which I am not a fan as they dazzle oncoming traffic in certain weather conditions....and these cannot be simply changed at the roadside or wherever..not forgetting that access to filaments is, strangely, made as difficult as possible for a routine task.

So is the legislation still applicable in Germany etc and is there any form of dispensation for LED failings at all ?.

Tableview
13th Jan 2013, 13:13
" Some pre 1960 cars are well-preserved specimens of quality cars, owned and driven by enthusiasts, but some are just rusting and dangerous hulks which should be on a scrapheap"

I would say virtually all pre 1960's cars that you see on the road are as far from removed from the last part of your statement that it's possible to be.

Perhaps I should have said Most pre 1960 cars are well-preserved specimens of quality cars, owned and driven by enthusiasts, but some are just rusting and dangerous hulks which should be on a scrapheap" but as you take issue with pretty much everything I say for the sake of so doing, it would not have made lot of difference in all truth!

Maybe you should take a walk round Langley Green (the one in Sussex, not the one near Birmingham) and similar insalubrious parts, where you will see ancient rotting hulks of old Vauxhall Vivas, Ford Cortinas and Escorts, decaying Minis, and so on. Untaxed, unroadworthy, uninsured, but 'runners' in the loosest sense of the word, and I have seen them mobile.

AlpineSkier
13th Jan 2013, 13:28
KnC

As far as I know/remember, bulbs were never mandatory in Germany unlike France. Here they are still mandatory but I have never heard/read of gendarmes asking for them. I personally keep as set as a source of replacements but would never dream of replacing one at the roadside. I think I would use that as my defence if I were ever stopped i.e. it would be too dangerous to do this on the road at night.

Fairly certain there is no latitude allowed for type of lighting as I have read numerous articles bemoaning the stupidity of requiring motorists to carry bulbs when , irrespective of bulb-type, you may need to remove bumper etc to replace any bulb.

In respect of this I was out with a friend in her car last year and when we drove off, no headlights. It turned out that we had no dipped headlights, because she hadn't noticed when the first one blew and then the second one went leaving us in the dark .

I got us home (30 km ) by dropping the main-beams as far as possible with the adjusting motors. I was very surprised to later find out that she NEVER used the main-beams as she found it difficult to activate the switch and thought dips were fine ! My attempted explanation that main-beam also helps people behind who want to overtake seemed to strike her as bizarre.

The next day when I went to check the problem and confirmed blown bulbs, I was unable to see what I needed to do to change the bulbs ( Renault Megane Cabrio 2005 ), didn't want to risk damaging anything and had to tell her it was a garage visit. Think they charged around E 60.

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 14:12
AS,

Thanks for that reply :ok:

Ah, possibly my mistake there given that it was a long time ago in BFG...I could have sworn that, along with the warning triangle and first aid kit, filaments were also mandatory.....hence the query.

Not entirely true Tableview...you have posted the odd sensible comment and I have agreed with you....rare I grant you, but it has happened. :):E

hval
13th Jan 2013, 14:26
Tankertrashnav,

Same thing happened to my mother on the road from Catterick Garrison to Richmond (A6136) many, many years ago. My mother, who was never a good driver or passenger, was even more terrified driving from then on. As were her passengers.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jan 2013, 16:05
That brings back memories of my Renault 5. It demanded new front wheel bearings every 20K or so and new CVs every 30K.

My landlady had one when I moved in. I told her firmly to get rid of it by 70K as from that point, everything would have to be replaced, only to see the body section that supported the rear suspension mounts rust away at 110K.

Since then it's been Toyota and Subaru.

AlpineSkier
13th Jan 2013, 19:27
RBF

If those figures are accurate, either you spent an awful amount of time driving along the kerbs or there was something badly wrong with the car ! Having said that, when I replaced my car three months ago, in spite of living in France, I didn't consider any French-manufactured vehicles.

RatherBeFlying
14th Jan 2013, 00:25
Ontario, Canada roads departments spread amazing amounts of salt on the roads.

Ontario has both an auto industry and salt mines. The more salt is spread on the roads, the sooner people have to replace their cars -- it keeps the factories busy:}

cockney steve
14th Jan 2013, 00:29
Older vehicles already have different parameters?exemptions for the MOT test.
Seatbelts....not required on vehicles predating mandatory fitting.
Exhaust emissions...varying thresholds or complete exemption
reflective numberplates...mandated year they became compulsory.
Mirrors-currently 2, previously one ,external driver's side+1 other (outside or interior) previously, any 2 and prior to that, 1 only.
windscreen washers...mandated year they became compulsory.
windscreen wipers...not required on folding/opening windscreens.
dipping headlights....single-beam legal as long as it doesn't dazzle- not sure if the old system-(o/s (right) dipped to l.h. kerb and LH extinguished) was actually outlawed ...there were conversion-kits back in the day to make them both dip.
Brake lights ISTR weren't compulsory

early speedometers only had to show if you exceeded 30 mph.

you can ride a motorcycle with no lighting whatsoever in "daylight"
If lighting is fitted, it has to meet regs and work.

So, yes, the decision to scrap tests on older vehicles is illogical......until you take in that they're ZERO road-tax......still need to do the paperwork and get a tax-disc, but , like the MOT it doesn't benefit Gov't coffers....so that saves civil serpents a paperchase,especially if they abandon the "free" tax-disc for pre-'72 vehicles,altogether....there's probably a few thousand affected and it wouldn't be politic to reinstate charging tax on these Historic vehicles.

OFSO
14th Jan 2013, 07:18
Ontario, Canada roads departments spread amazing amounts of salt on the roads.

Completely unnecessary. I spent some time in Sweden in winter. Snow just packs down hard on the roads, winter tires get a good grip, chains where fresh snow is deep. In fact I never remember Swedish roads clogged with snow-bound traffic like the rest of Europe gets. Perhaps I wasn't curious (yellow) enough.

Oh, and I drove a Renault 5 in Germany for four years, way back when Germany also salted roads. Never had any rust. (Or needed wheel bearings).

Victor Inox
14th Jan 2013, 08:52
you can ride a motorcycle with no lighting whatsoever in "daylight"

Having driven motorcycles for over 40 years, it never ceases to amaze me how any rider can contemplate moving around without the headlight on. And why do so many motorcyclists insist on wearing black gear? :ugh:

Alloa Akbar
14th Jan 2013, 12:18
BBC News - Borders A1 speed camera set alight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-21011176)

This Police appeal has to be the most optimistic ever.. :ugh:

AlpineSkier
14th Jan 2013, 12:45
It's strange that whilst you would imagine that speed cameras are both easy to vandalise and give people the motive to do so, there doesn't seem to be a widespread tendency to do so. I would have expected it to happen frequently in France because of both the contrainess of motorists and their " respect " of traffic-laws and also the fact that lots of cameras are mounted in cabinets (size of Post Office cable cabinets ) and therefore only about three feet off the ground. Well, I would expect it, but it's not the case: relatively few cases of damage.

I think I have read of more cases over the border in Switzerland. Last case I read of in CH, they caught the guy because the newer cameras download images to a data-station and those photographed are always the first port-of-call. He got a stiff sentence plus about E 40,000 costs to replace the camera and radar unit.

Victor Inox
14th Jan 2013, 12:52
I think I have read of more cases over the border in Switzerland


Speaking of which, A.S., new laws and sentencing guidelines for speeding offenses have been introduced in Switzerland (w.e.f. 1/1/13). Extreme cases of speeding will be dealt with by confiscating the car on the spot (an extreme case would be exceeding the posted speed limit on a motorway by more than 70 km/h). In a departure from the practice in force until end 2012, confiscated cars can now be disposed of with all proceeds going to the public coffers. Before, the proceeds had to be returned to the owner (after having deducted legal costs, any fine etc.).

OFSO
14th Jan 2013, 12:56
Many GATSO's in Spain have a second camera pointed at the GATSO to photograph the vandalisers. The newspaper "El Punt" had a cartoon depicting a policeman standing looking at the secondary camera in case THAT was vandalised....

panda-k-bear
14th Jan 2013, 13:02
Oooh, so many little tidbits to contribue here - where shall we start?

Many a long year ago, I owned a 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i. In the dash it had a little LED icon of the car showing headlights, tail lights and brake lights and indicating failure of any of the above (like the earlier post about the Galaxy, the brake light icons didn't extinguish until you actually used the brakes). So 30 years ago, a 'normal' car offered the facility to show any lost lighting.

I was once driving this self same car up the M11 when I happened to catch a glimpse of something taking off from the left. I was in the overtaking lane with a van or lorry in the left hand lane - just as I emerged at a 'good' 70mph, the pheasant stoved my windscreen in. Sometimes it is better to take avoiding action.

Today my wife drives a Galaxy II fitted with a quite sophisticated towbar. the computer on the Galaxy tells you (by writing, not by icons) not only if you have any bulbs out on the car but also whether whatever your towing has any bulbs out, too.

I drive a car where the headlights are sealed units and spare bulbs are both pointless and unavailable. What would the Gendarmerie make of that, I wonder? And I regularly pass a French speed camera that is located at the entrance end of a layby - such that should a truck park in the layby it would obscure the camera's view of the road. How pointless is that???