 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Car Maintenance (UK group) / March 2009New test item for MOT- Towbars
Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & 7. it will come into force as soon as we are sent the special notice with the commencment date. we had the new test criteria pages to be inserted into the manual this morning. it should be listed here at some point. http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/publications/specialnotices/specialnotices.htm "reg" <reg@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & > 7. Presumably, just a check on compliance with the post-98 EU regs? > "reg" <reg@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Presumably, just a check on compliance with the post-98 EU regs? Yo Cock, I'm on the sauce tonight due to a toothache. is this your house? http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7961000/7961224.stm "Mill Autos" <Don't-ask@hidden.co.us> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Yo Cock, I'm on the sauce tonight due to a toothache. Clearly. Hello, TeflonMorphBoi. > is this your house? > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7961000/7961224.stm Wish it was. That's a rather nice house. Shame about the portrait of you painted on it. > "Mill Autos" <Don't-ask@hidden.co.us> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> Yo Cock, I'm on the sauce tonight due to a toothache. > > Clearly. Hello, TeflonMorphBoi. Get f.cked you dopey c.nt >> is this your house? >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7961000/7961224.stm > > Wish it was. That's a rather nice house. Shame I'm to simple to ever earn > enough money to afford it. Fair comment. >> "reg" <reg@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >> saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7961000/7961224.stm Bit early for 1st April. Very poor bit of image manipulation. Mark "Mark" <mark@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7961000/7961224.stm > Bit early for 1st April. Very poor bit of image manipulation. No, it's real... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/25/berkshire_mansion/ > "Mark" <mark@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, it's real... > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/25/berkshire_mansion/ We'll see. Looks a well flakey grey background image laid on that roof to me, not even crisp edges, but we will see. Mark > Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, > & 7. Thank god. Does this mean an end to the barely connected to the vehicle examples with non functioning electrical sockets?  SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, >> & 7. >> > Thank god. Does this mean an end to the barely connected to the vehicle > examples Agreed, that has to be a good thing. > with non functioning electrical sockets? Hope not, since I've never got around to fitting trailer electrics to my Rover and only fitted the towbar to pull the wheelie bin down the drive. >>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, >>> & 7. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hope not, since I've never got around to fitting trailer electrics to my > Rover and only fitted the towbar to pull the wheelie bin down the drive. A local caravanning family I knew of had difficulty getting their 'van parked using the tow-car. It was too tight for space. They had an elderly Fiesta as an emergency runabout; they fitted a towbar to the front of it as that was the best option to get the caravan in place. I wonder how that car would fare if MOTed now :-) Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > A local caravanning family I knew of had difficulty getting their 'van > parked using the tow-car. It was too tight for space. > > They had an elderly Fiesta as an emergency runabout; they fitted a towbar > to the front of it as that was the best option to get the caravan in > place. I have an old SWB Land Rover for similar purposes. It was supposed to be a scrapper onto which I bolted a front towbar to make a temporary shunter, but has proved so useful I'm keeping it and have added a crane to the back for lifting engines and things. > I wonder how that car would fare if MOTed now :-) Luckily not an issue for this one. > Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & > 7. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/publications/specialnotices/specialnotices.htm We got the letter yesterday , I reckon it will go the way the number plate change went. >> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & >> 7. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We got the letter yesterday , I reckon it will go the way the number plate > change went. but thats coming back, it was discussed at the last mot seminar we had back in february. >>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & >>> 7. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but thats coming back, it was discussed at the last mot seminar we had > back in february. I hope so, we also make plates. > Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes 3,4,5, & 7. What counts as a towbar? If the hitch is removed, is it still testable? >> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >> 3,4,5, & 7. > > What counts as a towbar? If the hitch is removed, is it still > testable? the test is only going to be for safety of attachment to the vehicle IIUC >>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the test is only going to be for safety of attachment to the vehicle IIUC Which is a shame, because it will leave us with the "car indicating right, trailer indicating left" dipsticks, not to mention the trailers which are little more than an orange box on wheels, the boat trailers dipped in salt water several times a year and about to shed their wheels on the motorway, and all the other delights they'll be showing us any time now. Roll on when trailers also have to be registered and tested as in some other countries. Steve >>>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which is a shame, because it will leave us with the "car indicating right, > trailer indicating left" dipsticks, Isn't that already illegal? If laws aren't enforced, there's not a lot of point making new ones to try to correct the situation. Besides, "car indicating right, brakelights flashing right" is far more common. >>>>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>>>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Isn't that already illegal? If laws aren't enforced, there's not a lot > of point making new ones to try to correct the situation. I guess you've completely missed the point of the MOT. Bald tyres are illegal. Are you now suggesting they shouldn't be tested? SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >>>>>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>>>>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I guess you've completely missed the point of the MOT. Bald tyres are > illegal. Are you now suggesting they shouldn't be tested? If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then you're the one who's missing the point. And if you think an annual test will ensure that trailer lights will work correctly for a year, you've clearly never owned a trailer. >>>>>>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>>>>>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >And if you think an annual test will ensure that trailer lights will >work correctly for a year, you've clearly never owned a trailer. A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a registration scheme. Which is the case in France... Signatureasahartz woz ere > A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a > registration scheme. Which is the case in France... Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what they use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a >> registration scheme. Which is the case in France... > > Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what they > use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. Only Conor could compare a 250Kg car trailer to the 40 ton, 60ft lump that hangs behind the cab of an HGV. Mark "Mark" <mark@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a >>> registration scheme. Which is the case in France... >> Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what >> they use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. > Only Conor could compare a 250Kg car trailer to the 40 ton, 60ft lump > that hangs behind the cab of an HGV. <shrug> He's right. Trailers should be registered and tested. > "Mark" <mark@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > <shrug> > He's right. About what exactly? He's not right in thinking that non-hgv trailers automatically have a chassis number; some of them are home-made! > Trailers should be registered and tested. Yep, no argument there. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. Chris Whelan <cawhelan@prejudicentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what >>>> they use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. >>> Only Conor could compare a 250Kg car trailer to the 40 ton, 60ft lump >>> that hangs behind the cab of an HGV. >> <shrug> >> He's right. > About what exactly? He's not right in thinking that non-hgv trailers > automatically have a chassis number; some of them are home-made! Doesn't mean they're legal. IIRC, any trailer built in the last couple of decades requires a manufacturer's plate with a serial number & weight figures on. > Chris Whelan <cawhelan@prejudicentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Doesn't mean they're legal. Oh, of course not. > IIRC, any trailer built in the last couple of decades requires a > manufacturer's plate with a serial number & weight figures on. There's lots of trailers in use a lot older that that though. I wone der if that law was retrospective? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > There's lots of trailers in use a lot older that that though. I wone > der > if that law was retrospective? If wagon trailers are anything to go by, no. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> "Mark" <mark@nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > About what exactly? He's not right in thinking that non-hgv trailers > automatically have a chassis number; some of them are home-made! Can you tell me where I suggested they did? It was suggested that a test for trailers would only be workable if they had a registration scheme. I pointed out that there's one already for HGV trailers so it does exist. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > Trailers should be registered and tested. How big is the problem of unroadworthy trailers? Ian >> Trailers should be registered and tested. > > How big is the problem of unroadworthy trailers? You presumably don't live near the coast. I live near Poole, and I can tell you that through the summer, hardly ever a weekend goes past without a boat trailer shedding a wheel and bringing the A31/M27 to a grinding halt. Add to that the caravans which do the same thing bcause "we've only used it for a fortnight a year and the odd bank holiday weekend for the last ten years, so there can't be anything wrong with it". Plus the aforementioned orange box on two wheels variety, and yes there is quite a problem. Don't ask me for statistics. Last year one had the outer part of a wheel come off, leaving the centre disc part of the wheel still held firmly on by it's wheel nuts. There was an upside to that one though, because the owner got some nasty cuts to his hand in picking up the wheel, so he may have learned his lesson. Steve In article <3b6ee2b3-9053-4e5c-be87-7ffd5f736828 @e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says... > > Trailers should be registered and tested. > > How big is the problem of unroadworthy trailers? Very. Just travel down any holiday route and look at the caravans. Also if you live and travel in rural areas, you'll come across plenty of agricultural trailers that look very dodgy. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > In article <3b6ee2b3-9053-4e5c-be87-7ffd5f736828 > @e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Very. Just travel down any holiday route and look at the caravans. Used to see plenty, but haven't for a good few years. Same with boat trailers, which were commonly with one wheel missing by the side of the road. These are pretty much unknown now following a spate of thefts. Thieves had cottoned on to the fact that holiday makers often filled their boats with goodies while travelling home, then left them unattended when the salt laden bearings seized up. Of course no MOT is going to prevent bearings seizing after being reversed into the sea... > Also > if you live and travel in rural areas, you'll come across plenty of > agricultural trailers that look very dodgy. Aye, was following one yesterday. Fuckwitted farmer had piled a load of silage bale wrappers onto a trailer, weighed a few down with an old railway sleeper, then headed out onto the road in very windy weather. Result - black plastic blowing everywhere; farmer not giving a toss. >> A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a >> registration scheme. Which is the case in France... > >Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what >they use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. Except that many trailers don't even have chassis numbers. Signatureasahartz woz ere > >> A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a > >> registration scheme. Which is the case in France... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except that many trailers don't even have chassis numbers. Easy enough to introduce them. The HGV ones are usually just letters put on the rails in weld. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams asahartz <asahartz@hotMEATPIEmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> A test for trailers would only be workable if they also had a >>> registration scheme. Which is the case in France... >>Yet strangely there's an MOT test for HGV trailers......I wonder what >>they use. Oh yeah, chassis numbers recorded on a database. > Except that many trailers don't even have chassis numbers. Every trailer built in about the last 20yrs, IIRC, has to have a manufacturer plate with VIN, weights etc. > Every trailer built in about the last 20yrs, IIRC, has to have a > manufacturer plate with VIN, weights etc. I don't think there has been any ban on home-made trailer in that time, has there? Ian [...] > Every trailer built in about the last 20yrs, IIRC, has to have a > manufacturer plate with VIN, weights etc. ISTR that was from 1998? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then > you're the one who's missing the point. Tell that to the people who end up running into the rear of trailers because of faulty lights. > And if you think an annual test will ensure that trailer lights will > work correctly for a year, you've clearly never owned a trailer. And if you think an MOT guarantees a car is safe for a year, you've obviously not got a clue. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then you're >> the one who's missing the point. > Tell that to the people who end up running into the rear of trailers > because of faulty lights. Odd. I thought people ran into the rear of trailers because of faulty eyes and brains. > "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Odd. I thought people ran into the rear of trailers because of faulty > eyes and brains. Around here, tractors have been known to stop suddenly for no apparent reason. I was heartened one day when a trafpol was parked up behind one fine example of agricultural roadworthiness and was still there an hour later with a VOSA van. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Tell that to the people who end up running into the rear of trailers >>> because of faulty lights. >> Odd. I thought people ran into the rear of trailers because of faulty >> eyes and brains. > Around here, tractors have been known to stop suddenly for no apparent > reason. As they have round here, and round where I grew up. It still takes a healthy degree of fuckwittery to actually drive into the f.cking things, though. > I was heartened one day when a trafpol was parked up behind one > fine example of agricultural roadworthiness and was still there an hour > later with a VOSA van. <chuckle> >> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fine example of agricultural roadworthiness and was still there an hour > later with a VOSA van. And if trailers become MOT-able, you can guarantee that agricultural ones will be exempt. Though of course, your example indicates that VOSA are quite capable of enforcing the current rules anyway, showing again that there's no need for additional testing. Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > And if trailers become MOT-able, you can guarantee that agricultural > ones will be exempt. Since agricultural vehicles are exempt, sadly you're right. > "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Odd. I thought people ran into the rear of trailers because of faulty > eyes and brains. Odd! they don't come much odder than you. > "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Odd. I thought people ran into the rear of trailers because of faulty > eyes and brains. No, that's only when they crash into the rear of LGV trailers. When LGV drivers crash into the rear of car trailers, it's because of faulty lights. SignatureDavid Taylor >> If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then >> you're the one who's missing the point. >> > Tell that to the people who end up running into the rear of trailers > because of faulty lights. And how often does that happen? I put it to you that if there's really a significant number of accidents involving trailers (which I doubt), then the majority of cases will have nothing to do with faults with the trailer itself, but were caused by overloading, uneven loading, speeding or sheer driver incompetence. None of which will be solved by testing the trailer. >> And if you think an annual test will ensure that trailer lights will >> work correctly for a year, you've clearly never owned a trailer. > > And if you think an MOT guarantees a car is safe for a year, you've > obviously not got a clue. The point that you clearly can't grasp, is that the electrics on any trailer that's stored outside are hugely unreliable so there's no substitute for checking that all the lights work every time it's used. An MOT test will achieve nothing. If anything, it will have a negative effect as owners will be less likely to bother to check their lights as "it passed last week, so must be alright". The _only_ way to cut down on trailers with defective lights, is to enforce the law and educate people to check them regularly. That doesn't need new or revised legislation. Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The point that you clearly can't grasp, is that the electrics on any > trailer that's stored outside are hugely unreliable so there's no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trailers with defective lights, is to enforce the law and educate people > to check them regularly. That doesn't need new or revised legislation. That's fine for things like lights. But it doesn't go very far with respect to the potentially serious stuff like ancient rock-hard-and-cracked tyres, seized brakes, f.cked wheel bearings or bodged construction. And let's be honest, there's a shitload of trailers & caravans out there like that... [...] > That's fine for things like lights. > > But it doesn't go very far with respect to the potentially serious stuff > like ancient rock-hard-and-cracked tyres, seized brakes, f.cked wheel > bearings or bodged construction. And let's be honest, there's a shitload > of trailers & caravans out there like that... It's comparatively easy to monitor MOT compliance for a car. Without it, you can't get a tax disc, the certificate relates to a specific vehicle by registration number and VIN, and it shows on ANPR. How would you monitor compliance with a trailer? Pre '98 ones are not even required to have any identification or load plates at all. If you have to rely on stopping and checking paperwork, it would be more effective, as Willy is implying, to use that resource to actually check the trailer and prosecute if defective. I'm not against a procedure that removes dangerous trailers from the road, but any introduction of a "trailer MOT" would need a lot of thought. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >>> If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then >>> you're the one who's missing the point. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And how often does that happen? In rural areas? Enough. > I put it to you that if there's really a significant number of > accidents involving trailers (which I doubt), then the majority of > cases will have nothing to do with faults with the trailer itself, but > were caused by overloading, uneven loading, speeding or sheer driver > incompetence. None of which will be solved by testing the trailer. Did you actually read what I posted? > The point that you clearly can't grasp, is that the electrics on any > trailer that's stored outside are hugely unreliable so there's no > substitute for checking that all the lights work every time it's used. No disputing of the fact. > An MOT test will achieve nothing. If anything, it will have a negative > effect as owners will be less likely to bother to check their lights > as "it passed last week, so must be alright". With many, an MOT check will be one more than they'd normally get. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >>>> If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then >>>> you're the one who's missing the point. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > In rural areas? Enough. I live in a rural area and don't remember hearing of any accidents involving trailers. There have been plenty of others though. >> I put it to you that if there's really a significant number of >> accidents involving trailers (which I doubt), then the majority of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Did you actually read what I posted? Sadly, I did. Can't say it was the high point of my day. >> The point that you clearly can't grasp, is that the electrics on any >> trailer that's stored outside are hugely unreliable so there's no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > With many, an MOT check will be one more than they'd normally get. With many, it would be a pointless, time wasting and needlessly costly incumberance. Now if you actually came up with some statistics showing that there's a genuine problem that needs correcting, I might see a justification. But only if a workable system could be introduced that would actually make a difference. So far, nothing you've said persuades me at all. > I live in a rural area and don't remember hearing of any accidents > involving trailers. There have been plenty of others though. We get 'em all the time in my rural area. Almost invariably it's fuckwits in HGVs going round corners faster than centrifugal force thinks reasonable. Ian In article <966d3297-2cb6-4ff3-acc6-5e03bd223070 @p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says... > > I live in a rural area and don't remember hearing of any accidents > > involving trailers. There have been plenty of others though. > > We get 'em all the time in my rural area. Almost invariably it's > fuckwits in HGVs going round corners faster than centrifugal force > thinks reasonable. You'll find that's more likely to be a lost load or going over on its side. It's virtually impossible to have a HGV trailer break sideways, even under braking. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > In article <966d3297-2cb6-4ff3-acc6-5e03bd223070 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > side. It's virtually impossible to have a HGV trailer break sideways, > even under braking. Yes, it's normally trailers going on their sides. Roundabouts are the favourite places for this, as well as a couple of places where the boys with the disconnected speed limiters find they have to pull in a bit sharpish. Ian >> In article <966d3297-2cb6-4ff3-acc6-5e03bd223070 >> @p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says...> On 26 Mar, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ian See the A14 Huntingdon junction, which now has traffic lights as it proved too difficult to drive an articulated lorry round it at least twice a month. >>> If you're equating dodgy trailer electrics with bald tyres, then >>> you're the one who's missing the point. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > enforce the law and educate people to check them regularly. That doesn't > need new or revised legislation. Well the only accident I know of involing a trailer was when a wheel fell off. When I used to have to tow oother peoples trailers regularly I just gave up expecting them to work (most common failure seemed to be crushing the cable) & bought my own towboard. >>>>> Towbars will now become a testable item in the test for classes >>>>> 3,4,5, & 7. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Isn't that already illegal? If laws aren't enforced, there's not a lot >of point making new ones to try to correct the situation. FWIW my electric car didn't need an MOT because (partly I guess) they wouldn't know how to test it properly and there weren't that many about at the time (20 years ago). Anyone know if that's still the case? Also FWIW I still run the trailer I built over 30 years ago and treat that in the same way as I did the EV or any other thing I have on the public highway in that I try to ensure it's up to spec etc. I think the legislation for un powered domestic stuff (unlike HGV trailers etc) would be tricky as where would you stop ... cycles and disability scooters next? ;-) T i m On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > Which is a shame, because it will leave us with the "car indicating right, > trailer indicating left" dipsticks... There is no need to have any lights at all on a trailer, as I recall. Ian > On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is no need to have any lights at all on a trailer, as I recall. also there is no need to have any lights fitted at all to your vehicle if your only using it during daylight hours. > > On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also there is no need to have any lights fitted at all to your vehicle if > your only using it during daylight hours. Wrong. Depending on year of construction, it must have at least stop and indicators. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> > On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wrong. Depending on year of construction, it must have at least stop > and indicators. im afraid your wrong, it applies to any vehicle regardless of age, <quote> Direction indicators and hazard warning devices are not required by regulations on vehicles not fitted with any front or rear position lamps</quote> http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_150.htm same goes for stop lights & rear reflectors, also they are not required on vehicles used before 1st january 1936. if its claimed the vehicle is used during the daylight hours only & is presented for a test without the lights, stops ect ect not fitted we have to issue a vt 32 (advise) saying the vehicle was presented without any lights ect fitted. > "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Wrong. Depending on year of construction, it must have at least stop > > and indicators. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > issue a vt 32 (advise) saying the vehicle was presented without any lights > ect fitted. You f.cking dumb c.nt. Which part of "Depending on year of construction, " did you not understand? And how many pre 1936 cars do you come across? Are you honestly claiming that if I took my MK3 Mondeo in without any light clusters, you'd pass it? SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Are you honestly claiming that if I took my MK3 Mondeo in without any > light clusters, you'd pass it? They're not required at all on a pre 1936 vehicle, on a post 1936 vehicle they're only required if it's got headlamps or taillights. See a lot of construction machinery. So yes, if you take a MK3 Mondeo in with no lights at all & no sharp edges it can get an MOT. You won't be able to drive it or park it on the public road & you'll nead to relearn & use your handsignals, & inform your insurance company. >> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Are you honestly claiming that if I took my MK3 Mondeo in without any > light clusters, you'd pass it? you've got such a nice way with words, i guess its the wrong time of the month for you then connor ? you really are a tosser !!!! yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! [...] > yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! :-) Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! So when I take in my Capri for its MOT which doesn't have side repeaters, as long as I cover all the other lights, it'll pass then? SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! >> > So when I take in my Capri for its MOT which doesn't have side > repeaters, as long as I cover all the other lights, it'll pass then? only vehicles first used on or after the 1st april 86 require side repeaters. [...] > only vehicles first used on or after the 1st april 86 require side > repeaters. From Wikipedia: "When the last Capri was made on 19 December 1986..." Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "When the last Capri was made on 19 December 1986..." And the last Brookies are on E plates making them at least 1987. As mine is a D plate, it should but according to reg, I merely have to cover all my lights and it'll pass. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> From Wikipedia: >> >> "When the last Capri was made on 19 December 1986..." >> > And the last Brookies are on E plates making them at least 1987. When made and when registered are two very different things. >> [...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As mine is a D plate, it should but according to reg, I merely have to > cover all my lights and it'll pass. Cover in a not easily removed fashion. & inform your insurers you've modified it, so it would seem pretty daft on a Capri. >> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! >> > So when I take in my Capri for its MOT which doesn't have side > repeaters, as long as I cover all the other lights, it'll pass then? if you either paint over them or remove the entire loom then yes, side repeaters are irrelevant then. (3) Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to- (a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp, & (4) Without prejudice to regulation 16, for the purposes of these Regulations a lamp shall not be treated as being a lamp if it is- (a) so painted over or masked that it is not capable of being immediately used or readily put to use; or (b) an electric lamp which is not provided with any system of wiring by means of which that lamp is, or can readily be, connected with a source of electricity. > yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! No problem. I'd just pay VOSA to investigate. I know who'll give a sh.t more about that. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! >> > No problem. I'd just pay VOSA to investigate. I know who'll give a sh.t > more about that. lol >> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! >> > No problem. I'd just pay VOSA to investigate. I know who'll give a > sh.t more about that. There would be nothing to pay them to do. It would be entirely a business decision, vosa would not get involved. In the course of a few years there have been several customers that I have told to f.ck off, including for MoTs (when I used to do them about 20 years ago) Some customers are just not worth the effort. Mrcheerful > >> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! > >> > > No problem. I'd just pay VOSA to investigate. I know who'll give a > > sh.t more about that. > > There would be nothing to pay them to do. Contest an MOT decision. Requires you to pay for a test at VOSA. > It would be entirely a business decision, vosa would not get involved. Oh dear. I guess you don't know the procedure for complaining if you believe your MOT test was unfair. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >>>> yes but not your vehicle , id tell you to f.ck off !!! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oh dear. I guess you don't know the procedure for complaining if you > believe your MOT test was unfair. if no test is carried out then vosa would have no interest. In article <1dd0a1b5-331a-43ed-9a83-15fd75bfbe11 @y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says... > On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There is no need to have any lights at all on a trailer, as I recall. Then you recall wrong. The towing vehicle and trailer are counted as a single vehicle when coupled together and the lights and numberplate must be on the rear of the vehicle and therefore the trailer. When towing a trailer, you cannot be prosecuted for missing numberplate or defective rear lights on the towing vehicle as long as those on the trailer are working fine. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > In article <1dd0a1b5-331a-43ed-9a83-15fd75bfbe11 > @y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, The Real Doctor says...> On 25 Mar, 15:11, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > defective rear lights on the towing vehicle as long as those on the > trailer are working fine. Most dinghies are towed around with a lighting board on the transom of the boat. The trailers have no lights. There are also, as I recall, exceptions when the car's lights/ numberplates are clearly visible over the trailer. Ian > There are also, as I recall, exceptions when the car's lights/ > numberplates are clearly visible over the trailer. Gorrit. Only applies to brake and indicator lights, only to older trailers "No trailer manufactured before 1st October 1990 is required by regulation 18 to be fitted with any stop lamp or direction indicator whilst being drawn by a motor vehicle fitted with one or two stop lamps and two or more direction indicators if the dimensions of the trailer are such that when the longitudinal axes of the drawing vehicle and the trailer lie in the same vertical plane such stop lamps and at last one direction indicator on each side of the vehicle are visible to an observer in that vertical plane from a point 6 m behind the rear of the trailer whether it is loaded or not." The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 Ian We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Real Doctor <ian.groups@btinternet.com> saying something like: >"No trailer manufactured before 1st October 1990 is required by >regulation 18 to be fitted with any stop lamp or direction indicator [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >visible to an observer in that vertical plane from a point 6 m behind >the rear of the trailer whether it is loaded or not." There's at least one modern 4x4 with an additional set of sidelights and indicators high up on the rear - sufficiently high to be seen by traffic following if the 4x4 is pulling a typical small trailer. Probably for just that reason. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.