Jump to content

Marmite!!

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Marmite!!

    War and Peace Show 2007

    in Future events and meetings

    Posted

    For most IMPS long standing members it's free entry... I presume this still stands....

     

    http://www.thewarandpeaceshow.com/mailing_list/february_2002.html

     

    Access to the War and Peace Show. By now all IMPS members should have had the opportunity to read the War and Peace Ltd - IMPS contract and it has been brought to my attention that there is some confusion over the expiry date of free pedestrian and vehicular access. To clarify this in the contract - Obligations of the Company, clause 5.4 we quote: "Allow current and new members of IMPS with valid membership cards issued prior to 31 December 2000 free public entry, free vehicle entry and half price caravan entry to the show for the duration of this agreement". In December 2000 War and Peace extended this concession as a gesture of goodwill to the 31st December 2001 and in June 2001 when the new 2002 entry forms were printed this was confirmed in writing. The entry forms were examined and found to be correct by the committee at that time. We therefore stand by the extended date of 31st Dec 2001.

    www.Longforgotten.co.uk Underground Exploration open day.....

    in Future events and meetings

    Posted

    Where is Rob ?? may be he's gone for a bit of therapy :nut:

     

     

    Just had an email from Rob, he can't get on the Forum so that's why we haven't seen him about :?

     

    Hi Lee

    I haven't been able to get on it at all, I've clicked on google links and all sorts but it just comes up invalid action etc.

    Ive reported it to jack via his personal e-mail and we will see whats happened.

    Have i missed anything?

    what time do you want me at coalhouse on sat?

    Rob

    Kelvedon Hatch (Essex) Secret Nuclear Bunker 2007

    in Future events and meetings

    Posted

    Essex Armour & Softskins MV Group will be holding their 2nd. Annual Military Vehicle & Re-enactor Show at "Kelvedon Hatch (Essex) Secret Nuclear Bunker" on 19th & 20th May 2007, camping from Friday 18th, on site catering & Bar, all vehicles welcome including Tracked. Re-enactors welcome & large areana.

    The Bunker is located on the A128 Ongar Road Nr. Brentwood Essex & is within easy reach of the M25 & M11. A12, A13

     

    Militaria Stalls please email for trade form.

     

    For a booking form or more details please click here to email bunkerbash@essex-armour-softskins.co.uk

     

    A FRAME JEEP

    in I may be stupid, but......

    Posted

    OK here goes...IT IS NOT ILLEGAL......:-) only stipulation "plod" has is that the jeep has a cable attached braking system attached to the existing brake circuit of the Jeep so that you can have rear wheel braking...

     

     

     

     

    Not according to The National Trailer & Towing Association...

     

    I have a motor home and want to tow a Fiat Seicento behind it using an A-frame. This car has a kerb weight under 750 kg so am I legal with this outfit? Sorry no is the answer. The law regards this as an unbraked trailer and you are allowed to tow up to 750 kg Gross Trailer Weight, not a car’s kerb weight. The figure you have to use is the car’s Gross Vehicle Weight or Maximum Permitted Weight. This is usually at least 300 - 400 kg more than the kerb weight. We have no knowledge of any car sold in the UK that has a GVW under 750 kg. The only vehicle we know that is completely legal to tow with an A-frame is the French Aixam small "car". This is a full four seater and details can be obtained from Aixam UK on 01926 886100. An A-frame or dolly can only be used to recover a broken down vehicle to a place of safety. Transporting a car is, therefore, illegal. A-frames may be offered with a braking system that applies the car's brakes. These do not conform to the law as the car then becomes a "braked trailer" and has to conform to European Directives contained within the Construction and Use Regulations. It does not conform to the European Directive 71/320/EEC and amendments regarding braking requirements in any way. The use of this A-frame for transportation is illegal. It is still OK for use to recover a vehicle to a place of safety.

    Is insurance needed for taxed vehicle?

    in I may be stupid, but......

    Posted

    Is this what you are looking for...

     

    Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate.

     

     

    Pumbien v Vines

     

     

    (1995) The Times June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court

     

     

    A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy.

     

     

    The Court so held in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Andee Pumbien against his conviction of offences of using a motor vehicle on a road without either a valid test certificate or insurance policy contrary to sections 47(1) and 143(1) of the 1988 act.

     

     

    THE FACTS

     

     

    The facts are taken from the judgment of MR JUSTlCE MITCHELL.

     

     

    In March 1992 Pumbien (the appellant) parked the vehicle on a road at a time when the vehicle was in working order. He cancelled the policy of insurance covering the use of the vehicle and in August 1992 the MOT test certificate expired Pumbien had not driven it since parking it there in March.

     

     

    No insurance policy or MOT test certificate were in existence for November 10. The prosecution alleged that by reason of the presence of the vehicle on the road on that date Pumbien was using it for the purposes of the two provisions under which he was charged.

     

     

    On November 13 the vehicle was collected by a vehicle dismantler to whom it had been sold on a date after November 10. The condition of the vehicle was found to have been as follows:

     

     

    The tyres were deflated, the handbrake was on and the rear brakes were seized. The gearbox contained n oil because there was a leak in the transmission pipe.

     

     

    It would not have been possible to move the vehicle without first freeing the brakes, replacing the transmission pipe and oiling the gearbox.

     

     

    The justices found that that Pumbien had taken no positive action to immobilise the vehicle. It was clear that in that state the vehicle, although clearly repairable, could neither be driven nor towed unless it was literally dragged.

     

     

    THE LAW

     

     

    The court considered the authorities and concluded that the position appeared to be:

     

     

    1 A motor vehicle which was mobile at least to the extent that its wheels would rotate had to be insured and there had to be an appropriate test certificate in force in respect of it before it could lawfully be parked on a road: see Elliott v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 and Gosling v Howard [1975] RTR 429.

     

     

    2 A motor vehicle which was immobile at least to the extent that its wheels would not rotate did not require a current test certificate before it could lawfully be parked on a road :see Hewer v Cutler (1974) RTR 155.

     

     

    In The court's judgment, provided (i) that a vehicle was a "motor vehicle" within the definition in section 185 of the Act and (ii) that the vehicle was on a road, the owner of that vehicle had the use of it on a road whether at the material time it could move on its wheels or not.

     

     

    The court found it impossible either in law or in common sense to justify the proposition that a motor vehicle which was in good condition but which had been immobilised to prevent its wheels from rotating did not attract the insurance requirements whereas the requirements did apply to a vehicle in poor condition and without certain important parts if the wheels could rotate.

     

     

    Such a distinction was both artificial and unfair; all the more so if the insurance obligation could be avoided simply · by immobilising the vehicle to the extent that the wheels could not rotate. The one was neither more nor less of a hazard than the other when standing stationary on a road.

     

     

    Hewer v Cutler. could be distinguished on the ground that the insurance provision was not there under consideration and Thomas v Hooper [1986] RTR 1on the basis that Lord Justice Glidewell had emphasised that it was a decision on its own facts.

     

     

    In The court's judgment the two allegations should stand or fall together. That had been the approach of the court in Gosling v Howard. It was true that both in that case and in Elliott the vehicle had not been immobile but, more significantly, Lord Parker, who presided on each occasion, made it clear in Gosling that in the case of each provision the test of user was the same.

     

     

    The definition of user in those statutory provisions obviously had to have some regard to the mischief which the prohibition was catering for. The provisions were catering not for different mischiefs but for different aspects of the same mischief. Their object and that of many other provisions was to protect the safety of property of other road users.

     

     

    The court did not. therefore. accept that as between the two provisions the word "use" had a different meaning Nor did he accept that the distinction between mobility and immobility had any greater relevance to issue of "use" in section 47 than it did in section 143.

     

     

    Further, if a particular user was such as to warrant insurance he failed to understand why the same use might not warrant the existence of a current MOT certificate.

     

     

    Applying those principles to the facts of the case, the appeal had to be dismissed. Pumbien's vehicle was on the road. It was a motor vehicle as defined in the Act, notwithstanding that one aspect of its condition was reversible immobility. In such circumstances Pumbien was under the obligations imposed upon him by sections 47 and 143 of the Act.

     

     

    Comment

     

     

    By distinguishing both Hewer v Cutler and Thomas v Hooper and marrying the requirements of the two sections (47 and 143); which was the approach of the courts in Gosling v Howard the Divisional court have simplified the law on the "use" of a motor vehicle in this circumstances.

     

     

    When Elliott v Grey was reported in the Criminal Law Review, see [1960] Crim.L.R. 63 the learned commentator referred to the mischief the statute was aimed at. he said, inter alia, "A motor vehicle standing on a road clearly comes within the mischief aimed at by the Act..... The decision therefore achieves a desirable result from a social point of view".

     

     

    It is submitted that it also makes good law, inevitable when a car has no MOT it more often than not has no insurance, or vice versa. Proving one set of facts should aid prosecutions.

    A FRAME JEEP

    in I may be stupid, but......

    Posted

    I have always understood that it is illegal to A-frame a jeep unless it is broken down and being recovered or its braking system is linked to that of the towing vehicle.

    Maximum towing weight for an unbraked trailer is 750kg after which overrun brakes are permissible up to a maximum of 3500kg, above this weight the trailers brakes must be liked to the towing vehicle in such a way that they operate when the footbrake is applied. All these comments presuppose that the towing vehicle is plated for the appropriate weight.

     

     

    An A-frame or dolly can only be used to recover a broken down vehicle to a place of safety. Transporting a car is, therefore, illegal. A-frames may be offered with a braking system that applies the car's brakes. These do not conform to the law as the car then becomes a "braked trailer" and has to conform to European Directives contained within the Construction and Use Regulations. It does not conform to the European Directive 71/320/EEC and amendments regarding braking requirements in any way. The use of this A-frame for transportation is illegal. It is still OK for use to recover a vehicle to a place of safety.

    A FRAME JEEP

    in I may be stupid, but......

    Posted

    Tony,

     

    have a look here, about halfway down the page..

     

    http://www.ntta.co.uk/faq/default.htm

     

     

     

    I have a motor home and want to tow a Fiat Seicento behind it using an A-frame. This car has a kerb weight under 750 kg so am I legal with this outfit? Sorry no is the answer. The law regards this as an unbraked trailer and you are allowed to tow up to 750 kg Gross Trailer Weight, not a car’s kerb weight. The figure you have to use is the car’s Gross Vehicle Weight or Maximum Permitted Weight. This is usually at least 300 - 400 kg more than the kerb weight. We have no knowledge of any car sold in the UK that has a GVW under 750 kg. The only vehicle we know that is completely legal to tow with an A-frame is the French Aixam small "car". This is a full four seater and details can be obtained from Aixam UK on 01926 886100. An A-frame or dolly can only be used to recover a broken down vehicle to a place of safety. Transporting a car is, therefore, illegal. A-frames may be offered with a braking system that applies the car's brakes. These do not conform to the law as the car then becomes a "braked trailer" and has to conform to European Directives contained within the Construction and Use Regulations. It does not conform to the European Directive 71/320/EEC and amendments regarding braking requirements in any way. The use of this A-frame for transportation is illegal. It is still OK for use to recover a vehicle to a place of safety.

    Forum problems

    in Other Chatter

    Posted

    Anyone else been having problems with the forum? I keep getting the following..

     

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access / on this server.

     

    Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

     

     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Apache/1.3.37 Server at http://www.hmvf.co.uk Port 80

     

    it's been happening for the last couple of weeks on & off, the only way to get on to the site is to keep refreshing the page until it lets me in.. & instead of snowflakes I sometimes get little boxes falling :?

    wearing medals...my arse!

    in Other Chatter

    Posted

    ....and by the way, getting an MP to put the kit on was priceless - if you've got a snap post it EVERYWHERE...

     

     

    That's a bit like when I wrote to the Conservative MP for Ongar & Brentwood, Eric Pickles, about the VCR Bill. He didn't seem very interested until I pointed out a photo on his website of him at the Ongar Victory Parade & told him that if the VCR Bill went through in it's current form parades like these could be a thing of the past, I then got a letter from him saying he was going to bring the matter up at PM's Question Time, which he did.. incredibly he had no idea what the VCR Bill was all about as he asked me to provide him with as much detail as possible... :roll:

     

     

    Eric Pickles MP

    width=401 height=287http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e132/safariswing/pickles.jpg[/img]

×
×
  • Create New...