.... is no excuse for non-compliance, as the police are fond of telling us.
So I'm trundling back along the A40 dual carriageway just outside Carmarthen tonight, coming back from a VMCC meeting on the 45; that's a 1942-built Harley side-valve by the way. See a car in my mirrors and it stays behind me for a while; guessed it was a copper as I'm only doing 50, sure enough after a minute or so on come the blue lights , so I acknowledge and pull into the next lay-by. First though, dammit me rear bulb's gone.
Stop bike, take lid off, check rear light, it's OK. So I politely ask the two young coppers what the problem is and why he's pulled me over.
Plod;"You bike hasn't got a current MOT certificate, sir"
Me; "Correct; did you check its year of manufacture?"
Plod; "What's that got to do with it?"
Me; "Didn't you know that pre-1960 vehicles are exempt from MOT?"
Clearly he didn't; so I enlightened him, then asked him, quite seriously, if they got updated on the law regularly.
Plod; (getting a bit cheesed off by now and starting to wish he hadn't bothered) "It's a few years since I was at police college sir"
Me; "As it happens it was about two years ago that the law changed; I was involved in the consultation process with the federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs."
Plod looks even more fed up, and I can see where this one's heading.
So he changed tack came out with some other waffle about the bike weaving a bit. I pointed out the lack of rear suspension and drew his notice to the stretch of uneven road surface (signposted) that we'd just gone over about a mile or so back. Two-nil to me so his mate plays the joker.
"Have you had a drink this evening sir?"
Yes I had, one pint of bitter at the meeting; told him that I was quite happy for him to breathalyse me if he wanted to. He goes back to the car, rummages in the boot, has a quick muttered word with his mate then gets on the radio; comes back to me and says I'll just have to wait a few minutes. It transpires that they haven't got a breathalyser with them and their other mate's bringing one over.
Five minutes pass, during which time I take their numbers and inform them that whilst they may be doing their job I'm not particularly impressed with either their knowledge of current traffic law nor their standard of preparation, and I'll be writing to their gaffer; another cop car pulls up; WPC gets out and hands the young sprog a breathalyser kit. We do the routine and it comes up nigh on zero as I already knew it would.
Put lid on, start bike; 45 obligingly backfires sending sheet of flame and cloud of soot up copper's trouser leg. Serve him right for standing too close. He jumps in his car and drives off with his blues on.
Now on the one hand, you could say that they're only doing their job. On the other, as I mentioned in the title, if they're going to expect us to follow the law they should damn well know it themselves. Do I let it pass; or write a snotty e-mail to their boss?
|
The only bit missing there is the patronising advice at the end. Surely he didn't overlook that?
I think "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" would be a fitting subject heading for your letter :)
|
Let it go, they've got your number and won't bother again.
Alternatively, let one of the BIBs here respond.
|
I'm not that bothered about being stopped; comes with the territory on bikes. You do expect them, though, to be up to date on what should really be common knowledge.
I did have to bite me tongue once though; during the conversation one of the coppers observed that my lights weren't particularly bright. I dutifully explained the six-volt electrics, but I REALLY wish I'd told him what I was actually thinking. I'm sure you can guess what that was.
|
|
Is the exemption from MOTs an automatic thing for pre-1960 vehicles? Or does one need a certificate? A bit like the nil rate road tax for Classic vehicles?
|
www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/vehicles-exempt-from-mot
It was suggested that many historic vehicle owners would get an MoT anyway as a safety check, or as evidence of roadworthiness should they be challenged. That is not the case with the ones I know.
|
Harleyman,
Move on, don't get stressed about it.
I did 31 years in the job, retired at a management rank, am a proper petrol head, own a bike .. and had no idea about the non MOT arrangement you describe.
There are so many laws you cannot possibly remember them all, especially in cases that are outside the norm.
If you were a lawyer preparing for a case, you can refresh your memory and look up the relevant legislation prior to your court visit, whereas on the streets you have to go with what's in your head.
Even the stuff you can remember you have to make sure you get it in the correct sequence e.g. definition of robbery..."A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force"....
...so if I punch you on your nose and then steal your wallet, I'm a robber, if I steal your wallet and at the time I'm doing that, I punch you on the nose, I'm a robber, if I steal your wallet, leave and you run after me and I then punch you on the nose, I'm not a robber, i'm just a thief.
...and the whole system is like that.
|
Isn't part of the problem that the system which is accessed by the PC in question simply told him "No MOT" instead of saying MOT Exempt.
Surely it will not flag up cars under 3 years old as no MOT, the data on age of vehicle is known so why does it not say MOT Exempt.
We have all come to rely on computers, often a bit too much. This one did not tell the officer the full information, part of the blame goes to the person specifying requirements for the computer system.
|
>> Harleyman,
>>
>> Move on, don't get stressed about it.
I agree actually, despite my slightly sarky comment.
It's not personal, unless you make it so, and pursuing what is really a bit of a moan won't bother them in the slightest and it's only the complainant who wastes time and gets wound up by it.
I'm also surprised it's not common(er) knowledge though.
|
As you say, par for the course with an older vehicle.
Whatever the provocation, I do believe it is always safer to act as if sitting the attitude test, even if you are 100% in the right. Once you have annoyed or humiliated them they are likely to look for some tiny infringement that otherwise wouldn't even have been noticed.
Number plate a bit dirty?
Oil drip inconveniently happens at that moment?
Number plate lamp just failed?
Bungy grip holding your sandwich box on the rack possibly just a fraction insecure?
All good subjective stuff.
In my experience they stop an older vehicle because:
They want a chat - "my dad used to have one of those" - favourite Triumph 2000 gambit.
You are driving cautiously and correctly because it's your pride and joy.
They are genuinely unaware of some older regulation - fog lamps, wipers, number plate style, sideways seating, seat belts.
They have a quota of stops or breathalysing to do, so they might as well stop an interesting vehicle.
|
>> I did 31 years in the job, retired at a management rank, am a proper
>> petrol head, own a bike .. and had no idea about the non MOT arrangement
>> you describe.
>>
To be honest, and particularly bearing in mind your non-job experience, I find it a bit amazing that you didn't know that. It doesn't affect me at all but it was quite a controversial move, even amongst classic vehicle owners.
As pointed out by another poster, it does seem a bit of a system failure that ANPR doesn't show 'exempt'.
Sweeping generalisation, but Police Officers really don't do themselves any favours when they stop people on the road. 30+ yrs later my view of the Police is still coloured by encounters I had as a young lad, and I never got done for anything (because I was generally stopped for no good reason).
|
>> To be honest, and particularly bearing in mind your non-job experience, I find it a
>> bit amazing that you didn't know that. It doesn't affect me at all but it
>> was quite a controversial move, even amongst classic vehicle owners.
Now that you've put it like that, there's a semblance of memory coming back, recent ish wasn't it?
|
>> Now that you've put it like that, there's a semblance of memory coming back, recent
>> ish wasn't it?
>>
Couple of years. IIRC it was one of those things that was talked about for some time and then just seemed to suddenly happen. Bit like tax disks going away (salesman in dealer yesterday didn't know) and licence counterparts.
I've also heard conflicting reports on old paper licences (I still have mine) being recalled.
|
|
Its not often a post makes me laugh out loud but reading about the flame and trouser leg made me chuckle.
|
Many police officers don't seem to want to get involved in construction and use violations as the law is far from straight forward. Those that do, often come to grief, like the young PC who thought he was on a winner when the Morgan 4/4 had no windscreen wipers. His boss put him straight, you only need wipers if you have a windscreen - car was on aero screens at the time.
Anyone who points out the deficiency with the brake lights on the trike will get a very rude awakening. I'll return the car to original, remove one wire - takes seconds, and there'll be no brake lights at all. Quite legal with a pre 34 car, it genuinely was sold with no brake lights.
|
>>you only need wipers if you have a windscreen - car was on aero screens at the time.<<
if I recall correctly if you have a hinge-down front screen, (like some landrovers and my old Mini Scamp), no wipers/washers are required.
I remember in the mid 60s having an argument with a copper who did not believe that 1948 MM Morris Minors were manufactured with only a single drivers side wiper.
|
Barley an, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall.
And yes, you would have thought ANPR would show MOT status as 'exempt' rather than 'none'.
|
If I recall correctly if you have a hinge-down front screen, (like some landrovers and my old Mini Scamp), no wipers/washers are required.
I remember in the mid 60s having an argument with a copper who did not believe that 1948 MM Morris Minors were manufactured with only a single drivers side wiper.
You do need to be a bit careful here. Thinking about it, if you presented a vehicle with a folding screen in the down position, washers and wipers may not be needed, but I'm not sure - and suspect the MOT tester might not either!
Some of the legislation applying here though is retrospective though and that is unusual. Same with some of the lighting regulations. Unsure of the exact date, but I think the washer and wiper regulations were altered in the mid 70s.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Wed 3 Sep 14 at 22:54
|
They should have apologised to you Harley Man.
Sorry we wasted your and our time Sir,won't happen again.(Not with you) >:)
|
You are never too old to learn and they should have thanked you for imparting that knowledge.
To show my lack of knowledge, I thought that all police cars carried a breathalyser kit. I assume that we are all strongly anti drink & drive here, so not carrying a kit gives some party a little longer to pass the test.
Personally I would send a polite letter. It's only 30 minutes of your time, and I would definitely point out your surprise at the lack of a breathalyser kit. Three of my friends are police officers and I shall ask them when I see them in the next few days
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 08:21
|
>> I thought that all police cars carried a breathalyser
>> kit. .......and
>> I would definitely point out your surprise at the lack of a breathalyser kit.
On a good night I'd put out 10 patrol cars/vans, then there'd be at least one supervisors cars and sometimes me as well.
There'd be 4 or 5 breathalyser kits distributed amongst us all.
If you stopped someone driving and suspected alcohol you'd ask for someone else to bring a kit, standard practice...
...also standard practice for everyone with a kit to be tied up and not immediately available, so you'd have to wait.
|
>>
>> Some of the legislation applying here though is retrospective though and that is unusual. Same
>> with some of the lighting regulations. Unsure of the exact date, but I think the
>> washer and wiper regulations were altered in the mid 70s.
>>
Also you have to be aware of the difference between passing an MOT and being road legal in actual use.
You can pass an MOT with no wipers and the windscreen folded down. But if on the road you put the windscreen up then I think you do need wipers.
It's the same with lights - you are not obliged to have lights to pass an MOT (if you have them they must work) but if you drive at night you do.
The washer regulation is retrospective, but only if you have a windscreen (obviously!) and presumably only if you have wiper(s).
The traditional single offside tail light is retrospectively outlawed. Watch period dramas for the old cars that anachronistically leave their retro twin tail lights in place.
Landrovers with split screens only need a wiper for the driver (with single washer jet) but the other wiper must not be present, and any fixing holes must be blanked off.
I don't think there are any other retrospective regulations (apart from some vehicles being totally banned, as Zero pointed out re invalid trike cars)
|
Thanks for the reply Westpig. I am surprised to say the least. Living in a very rural part of N Yorks it could take ages for another police vehicle to arrive with a breathalyser kit, by which time the culprit could have gained sufficient time to pass the test.
And when there is the annual Xmas crack down and anti drink drive publicity, surely all cars must have one then? In the grand scheme of things the cost must be pretty minimal.
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 10:00
|
>> And when there is the annual Xmas crack down and anti drink drive publicity, surely
>> all cars must have one then? In the grand scheme of things the cost must
>> be pretty minimal.
>>
You can only get so many because of cost, from memory I think they were/are £200 a pop...
....then you'd have some lost, broken, off for a regular re-calibration, left in the car when it goes for a service and unofficially re-distributed to another nick, left in someone's locker from 'night duty' last night..etc.
|
I gave in to temptation and sent them an e-mail;
"Dear Sirs
Whilst returning from Narberth this evening following a Vintage Motor Cycle Club meeting, riding my 1942 Harley-Davidson reg no. ******, I was stopped by two of your officers (**** and ***) at about 21.55 on the A40 Bancyfelin bypass.
Having pulled into a lay-by after seeing their blue lights, my first thought was that my rear light had failed; this proved not to be the case so I inquired as to why I had been stopped. The officer informed me that my motorcycle did not have a current MOT certificate.
A brief perusal of the MOT regulations will tell you that vehicles manufactured before 1960 are exempt from testing, something I would expect a police officer to be fully aware of especially since the relevant legislation is now at least two years old. I do not know how much information the PNC gives on-screen but I would have thought that this would include the year of manufacture, and certainly the taxation class, which in this case of course is Historic Vehicle. If it is indeed the case that the PNC flags up "MOT expired" by default in such cases, I would suggest that this matter is in need of remedial action to forestall any other potential misunderstandings in future.
During the course of my delay, the officer asked me if I had consumed alcohol; I confirmed that I had drunk one pint of beer, and volunteered a breathalyser test. I then had a further delay, as the officers found that their vehicle was not equipped with a breathalyser; apparently they had lent it to a colleague earlier, so we had to wait until she returned with it.
I have no problems with being stopped by police officers; I fully appreciate that they have a job to do. I would however suggest that to stop a vehicle without being fully cognisant of such a relatively common bit of legislation does not inspire confidence in their capability, this being compounded by their lack of a relatively basic and essential piece of equipment. I would add that your officers were at all times polite and courteous,and I have no complaint about their conduct but nevertheless I wasn't impressed.
Sincerely"
Regarding Westpig's comments; that surely is a pittance compared to the cost of mobile phones and all the other paraphenalia with which a bobby does his job nowadays? And as for the reasons for not having one; well, if I happen to forget to be carrying my DCPC card or digital tacho card, or paper licence counterpart, or a spare roll of tachograph print-out paper I risk a fine from the powers that be. Is it not therefore reasonable to expect those who enforce the law to be equipped with the basic tools to do so? One rule for one, etc.
|
>> I gave in to temptation and sent them an e-mail;
>>
>>
Rearrange this well know phrase or saying
marked is card your
|
>> >> I gave in to temptation and sent them an e-mail;
>> >>
>> >>
>> Rearrange this well know phrase or saying
>>
>> marked is card your
>>
Bothered am I?
|
snipquote!!!
>> Bothered am I?
>
I hope you think the potential hassle is worth getting a couple of coppers rapped knuckles.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 5 Sep 14 at 01:11
|
I don't think they'll get that, and it certainly isn't my intention that they should; as I pointed out in my e-mail I had no issues with their conduct and manner, merely with their lack of preparedness (which as Westpig points out is not perhaps unusual) and lack of familiarity with the law, which is more a failing on the part of the system than the officers.
In effect, I'm mildly inconveniencing them, which is exactly what they did to me.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 22:33
|
>> I don't think they'll get that, and it certainly isn't my intention that they should;
>> as I pointed out in my e-mail I had no issues with their conduct and
>> manner, merely with their lack of preparedness (which as Westpig points out is not perhaps
>> unusual) and lack of familiarity with the law, which is more a failing on the
>> part of the system than the officers.
>>
>> In effect, I'm mildly inconveniencing them, which is exactly what they did to me.
>>
So they didn't know their job and hadn't checked their equipment on starting their shift. Their boss will love that.
|
>> So they didn't know their job and hadn't checked their equipment on starting their shift.
>> Their boss will love that.
The boss won't give a flying fig.
A very minor traffic related law was not known about .. and.. a breath kit wasn't readily available, an event that happens daily.
There's plenty of other things to worry about that will be considerably higher up the agenda.
Someone* will write a polite blah, blah, blah letter back ..and that will be that. It wasn't worth the postage stamp.
* I used to be that 'someone'.
|
|
No wonder the police are telling people to investigate their own problems.
|
>> No wonder the police are telling people to investigate their own problems.
>>
Sadly, that is correct.
.... and the reason?
- vastly* increased workload,
- mostly the same amount of staff to achieve it,
- interference by politicians and the Home Office re targets and the ensuing target culture, meaning those targets are concentrated on to the detriment of other work.
There are other things that also muddy the waters**, but the above is the main reason and a lack of openness, instead of trying to muddle through and pretend it can be achieved, senior managers should have said over 20 years ago that they cannot achieve everything with the current resources.
*vast doesn't really begin to describe the changes
** e.g. PCSOs. What's the point of paying people nearly a Constable's salary, yet not having them trained much and who can achieve considerably less than what a PC can?.. other than to hoodwink the public into thinking there are more cops about..yet for what they are, they are expensive.
|
>> >> No wonder the police are telling people to investigate their own problems.
>> >>
>>
>> Sadly, that is correct.
>>
>> .... and the reason?
>>
I know, I saw the same happen to the Navy.
|
>> The boss won't give a flying fig.
>>
>> A very minor traffic related law was not known about .. and.. a breath kit
>> wasn't readily available, an event that happens daily.
>>
>> There's plenty of other things to worry about that will be considerably higher up the
>> agenda.
>>
>> Someone* will write a polite blah, blah, blah letter back ..and that will be that.
>> It wasn't worth the postage stamp.
Didn't even cost me a stamp. It will however cost them a phone call and some time. Yes I know that eventually costs me, and yes I know it's petty. The point however has to be made that the public expect the police to be competent, and it's the public who pay for it. If they are seen not to be the public have a right to highlight that fact.
Maybe I am wearing my rose-tinted hindsight spectacles here, but when I was younger the police seemed not only to know what they were doing, but also to be able to use a bit of common sense and discretion.
|
>> but also to be able
>> to use a bit of common sense and discretion.
>>
Common sense and discretion has virtually gone out of the window.
Micro management, a heavy duty complaint's system, targets, political correctness, etc.. has junior staff constantly looking over their shoulder and even some of the managers are reluctant to make decisions.
|
>> Common sense and discretion has virtually gone out of the window.
>>
>> Micro management, a heavy duty complaint's system, targets, political correctness, etc.. has junior staff constantly
>> looking over their shoulder and even some of the managers are reluctant to make decisions.
>>
So what you're actually saying is that the police have become like any other big business?
|
|
I use to listen in regularly to police broadcasts - it was a regular occurrence for an officer in a patrol car who had stopped a motorist to request another officer with a breathalyser kit to attend the scene. But, as you say, officers should be well aware of basic VED legislation.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Fri 5 Sep 14 at 00:24
|
Not having a go, but, it doesn't say much for the calibre of the operatives if they get lost, left in the car when it goes to service or left in someone's locker
Just saying
|
|
I'm afraid failing to look after/take responsibility for kit is endemic.
|
There is no random breath testing in this country, and plod usually use some sort of excuse to pull you over to do the deed.
Whether a touch of speeding, or a light out. I think the no MOT ANPR bing and a bit of fake ignorance gave them the excuse to pull you over specifically to breath test you. Then the smell of alcohol on your breath was a green light for them to test you. Favourably for you, negative.
But your interaction with them probably didn't help matters for you by your tone. You should have just pointed out it didn't need an MOT and left it at that. No-one likes it when someone tells them they're not doing their job properly, especially plod. You handled it wrong and I'd put that communication in the bin.
|
>>I'd put that communication in the bin.
Too late, he has cast his bread upon the water!
|
>> But your interaction with them probably didn't help matters for you by your tone. You
>> should have just pointed out it didn't need an MOT and left it at that.
>> No-one likes it when someone tells them they're not doing their job properly, especially plod.
>> You handled it wrong and I'd put that communication in the bin.
>>
I was polite and helpful but not subservient. I didn't tell them they hadn't done their job properly, merely expressed surprise that they weren't conversant with the laws which they are, after all, paid to enforce. They handled it wrong not me.
|
Wish I knew. Lack of personal responsibility, self discipline, accountability, softly softly management. Culture of 'someone else will do it'? Started to go down hill when Police became a service not a force and watering down of discipline to stop allegations of bullying. Supervisors tied up with performance, admin tasks and so on.
It's certainly nothing new but my experience would be such instances of boot kit left at scenes but no communication at shift change so next time you want the equipment it ain't there. Battery operated devices (like BT machines) left with flat batteries because someone couldn't be bothered to change them. Cars left in carp order inside and out. Cars having to be driven on rough ground/over kerbs and then left for the next person potentially to do speeds in excess of 100MPH. I could go on.
Set against that is the typical bureaucracy of actually getting some batteries at 3 in a morning or replacing lost/broken kit. All locked away you see in case people take cones home for the kids to play with :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 5 Sep 14 at 14:05
|
Have to say FC, it is a general issue in society. If I has a pound for every time I have gone to collect printout to find the printer with an out of paper or low toner message and a queue of about 10 documents before mine......
Definitely a "someone else will do it" issue.
|
|
Funny you should mention the printer. We have a magnificent specimen in our office. If it runs out of ink a phone call to Konika (I think it is) produces another in a day or two. No sweat if you order when it gives the low ink warning. Anyway I took responsibility and there are two of each of the 4 colours sat in a cupboard with the direction of 'Please leave the empty on my desk and I'll do the ordering'. Does that happen - No! But by having some stock allows a wide margin of resilience. Simples.
|
But by having some stock allows a wide margin of resilience. Simples.
you need a better machine - our Konica managed machine orders toner when it identifies low levels itself...!
|
>> Cars having to be driven on rough ground/over kerbs and then left for the next person potentially to do speeds in excess of 100MPH. I could go on.
That's a bit frightening.
When you have had to abuse a pursuit car like that Fc, do you take a look for cut tyres, dented rims etc. and inform the transport techies (presumably there are some)?
|
|
Well that 's what a responsible person would do. But hey, forms to fill in, centralisation of workshop services. No one easily at hand to just say, "Can you just stick this on a ramp and have a quick looksee"."Has to be booked in you know and we're really busy/ short staffed. Cant look at it for X days."
|
As one expensively, if haphazardly, raised to be a high-flying bureaucrat, I can only agree Fc that bureaucracy is a cancer harmful to society.
But it does have its uses and functions. One of life's many annoying contradictions.
|
>> Well that 's what a responsible person would do. But hey, forms to fill in,
>> centralisation of workshop services. No one easily at hand to just say, "Can you just
>> stick this on a ramp and have a quick looksee"."Has to be booked in you
>> know and we're really busy/ short staffed. Cant look at it for X days."
>>
Not good enough. If you'll excuse the pun, a cop-out.
Police and the civvy enforcement services are red-hot on any minor infraction by vocational drivers and their employers, be it a blown bulb or a damaged tyre. If I get pulled and can't produce a defect book or a daily check sheet for that day I stand to be fined quite substantially. It is not unreasonable to expect them to follow the same procedures as those who are on the receiving end.
And by the way a faulty police car is at least as lethal as a faulty artic.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 8 Sep 14 at 00:33
|
It would have been fun to just confirm the lack of MOT and wait for the NIP to arrive.
Copper would have looked a right twit in court!
|
>>Police and the civvy enforcement services are red-hot on any minor infraction by vocational drivers and their employers, be it a blown bulb or a damaged tyre.<<
I must admit I was surprised they don't have a rigid internal policy of daily checks on Police vehicles both on shift and off shift.
Surely the speeds they can be asked to do mean that safety checks are a necessity?
Do you have a VOR system in place to prevent the use of a vehicle which may have clipped a kerb or have a defective and unsafe tyre fitted?
Pat
|
|
As I said above Pat; one rule for them.....
|
>> I must admit I was surprised they don't have a rigid internal policy of daily
>> checks on Police vehicles both on shift and off shift.
There is a strong internal policy on thoroughly checking vehicles before each shift and a brief check before each journey .. and if you fall foul of it, it is a disciplinary matter for not doing it.. but.. can I honestly say that in circumstances where a decent '999' call comes out before you've done your Daily Inspection then you nip out and spend half an hour doing the DI rather than attending the 999 call?
There's a blind eye turned to it sometimes and I'm convinced some say they've done it when they haven't...then at the other end of the spectrum, the officer who was lazy, who insisted on spending 40 mins every shift doing it, to keep him away from some of the weary calls.
Difficult to put the correct management message across to him, when he's very thoroughly doing what is expected of him, but nevertheless taking the 'p'.
>>
>> Surely the speeds they can be asked to do mean that safety checks are a
>> necessity?
>>
>> Do you have a VOR system in place to prevent the use of a vehicle
>> which may have clipped a kerb or have a defective and unsafe tyre fitted?
What does VOR mean?
Any problem with a vehicle e.g. a kerbing has to be reported to a traffic supervisor and if there's any doubt, it will be taken out of service ..and any defects e.g. a bulb not working, likewise it's taken out of service....but... there's not garages full of spare vehicles.
So the temptation is to 'not notice' the sidelight isn't working, because you know the vehicle will be out of service for many days until it is sorted out.
In the old days you'd have a stock of spare bulbs, nowadays it is contracted out to company's who insist they do do it only .. there is a mobile unit that does the rounds, but that can be a bit hit or miss.
Not ideal, but the bottom line is people in trying circumstances desperately trying to keep vehicles on the road, so they can at least try to provide a service, 'p' poor as it is.
|
"What does VOR mean?"
Vehicle Off Road; defect reporting system. Apparently from your answer there is.
Your description of why it isn't fully adhered to makes sense and I can sympathise to an extent, especially where the 999 calls are concerned; nevertheless it remains the case that if the general public were caught doing likewise, particularly lorries and buses, they'd soon be for the high jump. It is perhaps unfair to accuse the police of double standards, but it does smack of "do as I say not as I do".
|
>>it does smack of "do as I say not as I do".
>>
Twas always so.
|
>> "do as I say not as I do".
>>
>> >> Twas always so.
I'm quite open about it.
'It isn't a good thing to do darlings,' I explain kindly, 'but it's only to be expected that a horrid old man will curse a bit sometimes when irritated. It's quite different for nice little girls whose mothers, fathers and even grandfathers expect them to become ladies. They can never eff and blind however annoyed they are. I know it's unfair, but there it is... '
|
|
I was in a situation where I came on shift and was left a potentially lethal vehicle. I assure you it only happened once during that 3 month task. I provided some very firm supervision.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 5 Sep 14 at 14:28
|
>> I was in a situation where I came on shift and was left a potentially lethal vehicle.
Midget submarine with flat batteries... oxygen low... load of limpet mines already ticking, set to go off in half an hour... enemy speedboats combing the surface with searchlights and heavy machine guns... I can just imagine ON. You can't have been best pleased.
|
|
Not enemy speedboats, just Luds super yacht. :)
|
>> just Luds super yacht. :)
... paddle driven, powered by a vast coalfired single-action steam engine stoked by sweating matelots with shovels... like the Fighting Téméraire in that fabulous painting...
Leaky suit. Spetznaz-trained giant super-frogmen diving in from the speedboats with bayonets between their teeth...
|
>> like the Fighting Téméraire in that fabulous painting...
>>
You mean like the tug boat towing the fighting Temeraire?
|
>> You mean like the tug boat towing the fighting Temeraire?
No, I mean the FT itself. No doubt it had sails as well, but it wasn't powered by modern turbines when the wind dropped! Have you seen the steamy bits of the SS Great Britain? Huge and very inefficient.
That is a great painting though. JMW Turner I think.
|
>> That is a great painting though. JMW Turner I think.
>>
>>
I did read somewhere that JMW had got the position of the Sun wrong. If it was being towed up a certain river in the evening, the Sun would have been behind the artist.
No harm in a bit of artistic licence, though...........JMW wasn''t a bad little dauber of paint !
|
The Temeraire had no engine It was a sailing frigate built in 1798. Turner's picture depicts the contrast of the old and the new in the form of the steam tugboat and the hulk of the sailing vessel being towed to the breaker's yard.
The Temeraire depicts the heroic past. The ship had fought in the Battle of Trafalgar and had come to the assistance of Nelson's flagship, the Victory.
|
Guh. Damn, you've shown me up this time CGN.
I should have looked at the painting again. Now you will all think I'm a deckhead.
(Limps off trying to whistle)
|
>> Guh. Damn, you've shown me up this time CGN.
>>
Well, I did suggest that perhaps you meant the tug, not the FT. :)
|
>> Well, I did suggest that perhaps you meant the tug, not the FT. :)
I did notice that you were right too CP.
I wonder what sort of noise the tug made? A lot of clanking and churning I would think. You wouldn't have wanted to be below decks in the GB when the engine was working.
|
|
Thanks Fc. I wonder why there isn't a simple handover/takeover, sheet to sign etc. Possibly a culture thing.
|
There is - of sorts. Vehicle log books. Standing orders which say you must check your vehicle - tyres, lights, levels, equiment, previous damage and all that sort of thing but it's easy to circumvent or ignore.
Even in my early days Sun morning was dedicated to full vehicle/equipment checks which I rigidly adhered to but it became apparent that some shifts/reliefs continuously didn't bother. I remember one night shift emptying the contents of a dustbin in a car before handover to shame some offenders into action. Guess who got a rollocking?
|
>> There is - of sorts.
Thanks, a lack of supervision then?
|
|
To some extent yes but it falls near the bottom of the pile of the prioritisation list.
|
|
Sounds familiar, it's lack of time to do the nuts and bolts things.
|
>> Sounds familiar, it's lack of time to do the nuts and bolts things.
>>
That is a slippery slope, the day it all goes wrong the guy under the time pressure gets all the grief. Blame is subject to gravity and runs downhill.
|
Finally got round to having the chat with the police sergeant tonight; delayed by my having an unexpected five nights in the local hospital with an infected haematoma.
Conversation was pleasant; it seems that the inherent problem, not apparently uncommon, is a combination of younger and less experienced officers,and inadequate or indeed inaccurate information held on the PNC. Effectively the latter does not discriminate between vehicles which are exempt from an MOT and those whose certificates have expired. There are also other inaccuracies, some of which rather surprised me.
I was given the example of the Toyota MR2; as we all know this is a 2-seater sports car but for some reason it flags up on the PNC as an estate. We both came to the conclusion that this is possibly as a result of inputting errors on the PNC, which relies partly for its updates on the information put into it by garages when they MOT test vehicles.
Anyone who owns an "exotic" vehicle will be aware of the hassles which cropped up when MOT testing went on-line; the system would refuse a certificate on the grounds that it did not recognise the vehicle, giving the tester no choice but to indulge in a bit of chicanery in order to get the vehicle accepted and issue the ticket. There would also, no doubt, be genuine mistakes which went unnoticed at the time.
The end result is that the sergeant offered to ensure that his own officers were better briefed regarding classic vehicles, and he would also raise the issue of inaccuracies on the PNC and the potential problems thereof, to his superiors.
Good result all round I think.
|
|
At one point, a PNC check on the vintage car came back as a dumper truck. Which even the most stupid would see as nonsense. Probably provoked a few giggles but never caused me to be stopped.
|
>>Anyone who owns an "exotic" vehicle will be aware of the hassles which cropped up when MOT testing went on-line
My old Kia Pride would cause problems at each MOT. It would take nearly an hour for them to complete the emissions, because the thing was so filthy it would fail everything, until they RTFM, put in the registration and engine number, then it would scrape through. I never dared take it to another place.
I took another car there a few weeks ago. They were so traumatised by the old Kia, one of them them mentioned they'd seen it on the road recently - I flogged it nearly two years ago!
|
It was never traumatic taking the Jowett for a ticket...........I used to do it myself until the garage where I was relief tester shut down. Was recommended to a good man in the village, an older long term tester..didn't do repairs so no need to make things up. We just sat and drank tea until the hour was up.
Now, most of the testing is done by young Asian lads who haven't a clue about old cars so the MOT exempt ruling couldn't have arrived at a better time for me.
My motorbike tester has never failed anything for me...I take the modern cars there and he's happy to give advisories and a pass. Took the naughty Note in the other day and got advisories on pads...nothing else. He'd tell me if they needed urgent work though.
|
>> Now, most of the testing is done by young Asian lads who haven't a clue
>> about old cars so the MOT exempt ruling couldn't have arrived at a better time
>> for me.
>>
My former tester took the view that he welcomed older cars and the challenges they posed, as a relief from the mundane "plug and play" routine on modern cars. He also shared my concern that not only did the exemption offer the chance for serious structural failure or defects to be overlooked but also that the system was now open to abuse.
|
Ignorance of the law...... - Manatee
