Defective Brake Light Bulb

Author
Discussion

tbc

3,017 posts

174 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
That video just show how many thugs there are in uniforms

I know not all coppers are aholes but the ones that are don't help improve public perception about the plod

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
When looking at YouTube clips like this always ask yourself why they have been posted and what does the poster want you to see.
Ask yourself what happened in the 5 or 10 minutes before the video started.
Or the hour before.
Or even consider how IR's been edited to cut bits our the middle.

If these drivers have been cruising round with loud engines, doing burnouts, loud stereos and generally acting like dicks then that's how the police will treat them.

The cops sidelight being out is mildly amusing.
But, from a legal perspective it's about as relevant as whether he's wearing his hat or not.

As for 'community polucing'; how many of these drivers live nearby?
How many of them are actually part of the local community?

grumpy52

5,553 posts

165 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Their used to be a regular monthly cruise in Guildford attended by mainly owners of american cars that had been well modified and had much money and time spent on them.
Nobody complained about this cruise .
On the coat tails of this were the hot hatch brigade with all their idiot followers who used the car park next door .
This crowd were hated by all.
This car park only had one exit /entrance , the police waited until the place was packed then blocked the place up and did the inspection process as cars left , everything illegal was ticketed , attitude failures were treated as public order offences, all modifications were noted and insurance companies were contacted .
The local courts were very busy , as were the police contracted recovery agents as many cars were deemed unsafe to be driven.
This action was also instigated by the deaths of some teenagers when their car left the road after the previous cruise, and found to be badly and illegally modified.

Bradley1500

Original Poster:

766 posts

145 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BonzoG said:
Bradley1500 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
Is there not a defence under Reg 23 ((3) (c) RV Lighting Regs 1969:

(c)a defective lamp, reflector, dim-dip device or headlamp levelling device on a vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and sunset, if any such lamp, reflector or device became defective during the journey which is in progress or if arrangements have been made to remedy the defect with all reasonable expedition

?
dvd
I'll look into this regulation and see if this could be used as a legitimate defence, thank you!
Are those videos from the same time? Looks pretty dark. (See bold)
I don't know the exact time the ticket was issued. I'll have to check with him to see.

Snowboy said:
The cops sidelight being out is mildly amusing.
But, from a legal perspective it's about as relevant as whether he's wearing his hat or not.
Is it really just mildly amusing though?

The officers sidelight out is the exact offence many people on the night received a £100 FPN for.

Is it possible to argue that as my friend had two stop lights working, one on his nearside and his high-level stop light that the offside stop light not working wasn't an offence?

I've been trying to find the regs on this but struggling. From what I've read so far it seems you can have a non-functioning high-level stop light but both stop lights on the longitudinal axis of the vehicle have to be working?

Can someone confirm?

rewc

2,187 posts

232 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I think you need both rear brake lights to work and the high level one if it is connected.
I was issued a VDRS for having a one of the two stop lamps out on a 4x3 trailer, despite the two rear and high level ones on the car being clearly visible. I think that in the end your friend will have to pay the fixed penalty as if it goes to court he has no defence.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I guess you could argue the cop should pay £100 too.
But it won't help your mate.

There is no way for your mate to get out of this.
He had a faulty brake light.

If it was a regular stop I'd say it was very mean to give a fine rather than a warning. But on a cruise like this then I don't have much sympathy.
Fix the car, pay the fine, stop attending disruptive events, move on. smile

Bradley1500

Original Poster:

766 posts

145 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
The brake light was fixed at the time the FPN was issued.

He had a spare bulb in the car which worked, just didn't know he had a bulb blown at the time.

rewc

2,187 posts

232 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Bradley1500 said:
The brake light was fixed at the time the FPN was issued.

He had a spare bulb in the car which worked, just didn't know he had a bulb blown at the time.
You know it was petty, I know it was petty, the Police Officer possibly knows it was petty but I am sure he/she was following orders. You have the option of paying the FP or having your day in court and arguing your case, possible using the statutory defence and using the replacement bulb as mitigation. It may not appear fair but that is life.

Bradley1500

Original Poster:

766 posts

145 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I'll let everyone know the outcome if he decides to fight the FPN or simply pays up for an easy life.

Thanks for all the replies.

testosterone2

8 posts

117 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I got stopped on a bright sunny day at midday by traffic police for a blown bulb. The difficult officer asked me why he should not fine me and give me 3 fixed penalty points as i should check my lights everyday. Biting my tongue i apologised and took the fine without the points. What i should have done is said it was working perfectly well before i started my journey and that it must have blown whilst i was driving and he would have not been able to issue a ticket. If you made no comment to the police i would contest it in court on the grounds it was working at the beginning of the day. Probably wont even go to court.
Another example of the police targeting the wrong people for petty issues when they claim they are so over stretched with limited resources.No wonder public confidence with the police is at an all time low.

Red Devil

13,048 posts

207 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
grumpy52 said:
Their used to be a regular monthly cruise in Guildford attended by mainly owners of american cars that had been well modified and had much money and time spent on them.
Nobody complained about this cruise .
On the coat tails of this were the hot hatch brigade with all their idiot followers who used the car park next door .
This crowd were hated by all.
This car park only had one exit /entrance , the police waited until the place was packed then blocked the place up and did the inspection process as cars left , everything illegal was ticketed , attitude failures were treated as public order offences, all modifications were noted and insurance companies were contacted .
The local courts were very busy , as were the police contracted recovery agents as many cars were deemed unsafe to be driven.
This action was also instigated by the deaths of some teenagers when their car left the road after the previous cruise, and found to be badly and illegally modified.
Spectrum perchance?

Gareth79

7,615 posts

245 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
Spectrum perchance?
The Guildford one used to be at Ladymead, next to the Burger King. Back in the day it got very busy and caused little problems because it kicked in as the retail park closed, but then as mentioned the hot hatch brigade took over later on after the American/classic cars left. I don't know if anything goes on there now but the car park has been reworked with barriers so it can be reduced to small size if required.


stewjohnst

2,441 posts

160 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
Doesn't anybody carry a spare bulb back in the boot anymore?

Suppose todays yoof don't drive knackered mk2 fiestas with leaky boots and dodgy earths that make bulbs blow every 5 mins.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
stewjohnst said:
Doesn't anybody carry a spare bulb back in the boot anymore?

Suppose todays yoof don't drive knackered mk2 fiestas with leaky boots and dodgy earths that make bulbs blow every 5 mins.
Even if they did have a spare bulb this is one of those times where the police would fine you anyway.
This was fairly obviously a police exercise to try and discourage people from attending these 'events' so they aren't going to be letting people off with warnings.

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
testosterone2 said:
I got stopped on a bright sunny day at midday by traffic police for a blown bulb. The difficult officer asked me why he should not fine me and give me 3 fixed penalty points as i should check my lights everyday. Biting my tongue i apologised and took the fine without the points. What i should have done is said it was working perfectly well before i started my journey and that it must have blown whilst i was driving and he would have not been able to issue a ticket. If you made no comment to the police i would contest it in court on the grounds it was working at the beginning of the day. Probably wont even go to court.
Another example of the police targeting the wrong people for petty issues when they claim they are so over stretched with limited resources.No wonder public confidence with the police is at an all time low.
Alternatively there will a lot of residents of that area whose confidence in the police will now be at an all time high.

Derek Smith

45,459 posts

247 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
There was a decision on appeal with regards mechanical faults which occur during driving. It was more serious than a blown bulb, something to do with steering if memory serves, and the decision was that if there was no warning and the driver could not reasonably expect the failure, then there could be no finding of guilt. This was year ago, before I joined the police as this was taught to me on initial training.

In theory a police officer should ask when as the last time the lighting was checked but this is superseded by the automatic checks by vehicle systems.

I was taught that if a bulb is defective during the time when lights were required then the opportunity to replace said bulb there and then should be offered. If they can't the driver then has a choice of either leaving the car in situ and completing their journey by other means or else taking the ticket.

If the vehicle was found to have a defective running light (which would not include a stoplight for instance) during the hours of daylight (failing to maintain) then pointing it out and making a note of the index number was felt appropriate. If seen again and checked and the light still defective then report.

The prosecution in the case felt that guilty knowledge of the fault was not required. However, the court decided differently - in that particular case.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

243 months

Wednesday 30th July 2014
quotequote all
Was this the case derek?
http://tinyurl.com/l5mbqj2

dvd