PistonHeads.com Forum

Bonnet mascots - legal or not?

Bonnet mascots - legal or not?

Author
Discussion

joebongo

Original Poster:

1,477 posts

77 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Got a 2001 vintage jag sov with a leaping cat on the bonnet - a mate's told me this is illegal - is this true?

At work now so sorry if I can't reply to replies til later tonight.

SSBB

610 posts

58 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
I don't know, but common sense says if fitted by manufacturer from new then legal, otherwise illegal these days as they wouldn't pass crash regs?

ajb85

1,062 posts

44 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Some snide garages who want to impress VOSA would fail the mot on it. Others wouldn't bat an eyelid!

The Crack Fox

10,963 posts

94 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Surely if it's factory fit, then it's OK ? Hopefully an MOT tester will turn a blind eye to something as cool as this:




Ari

11,869 posts

117 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage one of these would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...


Advertisement

C.A.R.

2,687 posts

90 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage it would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...
Exactly this. It would be cat-astrophic.

The Crack Fox

10,963 posts

94 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage one of these would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...
Yeah, because walking in front of a car is an otherwise completely painless experience, isn't it ? If some dope on foot doesn't know the highway code why should we legislate for their stupidity ? NCAP pedestrian crash regs are responsible for the largly BORING shape of new cars we currently see. Taking your argument to it's extreme, all cars would be made from sponge, and limited to zero mph, just in case...

/grumpy today.

CampDavid

8,902 posts

100 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage one of these would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...

Indeed.

Jaguar were prevented from fitting them due to crash test laws, however existing cars could keep them. Unsure how you'd fare fitting it yourself or if your insurance would be happy if you maimed someone with it.

I'd remove it because

A. It looks st

B. It's dangerous

SLCZ3

1,067 posts

107 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
This iirc is the reason,
"Jaguar stopped putting the leaping cat on their cars in 1978 due to the introduction of legislation which demanded that all mascots be spring-loaded to prevent injury. Spring-loading the cat proved too problematic and so was dropped".

Baryonyx

13,030 posts

61 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
OP, your friend must be thinking of the offence of using a vehicle with a dangerous mascot. In which case, yes, I would agree. Fixed Jaguar mascots are the very example I was given when I was told about that offence.

king arthur

2,739 posts

163 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
I think they look ridiculous on the Jags that aren't built with them anyway.

Rude-boy

20,421 posts

135 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
king arthur said:
I think they look ridiculous on the Jags that aren't built with them anyway.
Agreed, worse still are the horse mascots and so on you see Lady Likessmellypitsandstableboys you see on some RRS's and the like hurl

Bayerischer

148 posts

49 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
I think this has the makings of an excellent thread

Regiment

2,317 posts

61 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage one of these would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...

The car manufacturer or the driver can't be blamed for the clumsiness of pedestrians. If it impales them, it impales them.

Ari

11,869 posts

117 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Regiment said:
The car manufacturer or the driver can't be blamed for the clumsiness of pedestrians. If it impales them, it impales them.
What a stupid stupid comment.

GroundEffect

8,934 posts

58 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Regiment said:
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage one of these would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...

The car manufacturer or the driver can't be blamed for the clumsiness of pedestrians. If it impales them, it impales them.
wot.

ED209

3,768 posts

146 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
There is a specific offence of having a dangeours mascot, whether a mascot is dangerous will ultimately be for the court to decide.

Japveesix

2,767 posts

70 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
C.A.R. said:
Ari said:
Illegal or not, the thought of the damage it would do, even at low speed, to someone that accidentally walked in front of the car doesn't bear thinking about...
Exactly this. It would be cat-astrophic.
They'd definitely be feline a lot of pain, that's for sure.

mat205125

15,174 posts

115 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
Ari said:
Regiment said:
The car manufacturer or the driver can't be blamed for the clumsiness of pedestrians. If it impales them, it impales them.
What a stupid stupid comment.
Not to mention nieve, given that we live in the era of the "no win, no fee, ambulance chaser"

GoneAnon

1,437 posts

54 months

Wednesday 11th July 2012
quotequote all
mat205125 said:
Not to mention nieve, given that we live in the era of the "no win, no fee, ambulance chaser"
Think Evian, but backwards...