Unroadworthy vehicle?
Discussion
I reckon if he'd left the bonnet on and taken off the foglights he'd have gotten away with it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595931/Do...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595931/Do...
If that's his overall level of intelligence I pray he doesn't ever qualify as an "electrical engineer" that he's evidently studying as god knows what he'd do with wiring in people's houses / cars, etc 
On a side note, judging by recent advice given by some users on here to people with non roadworthy cars being driven to an MOT centre or just driven anywhere, no doubt if he'd logged on here & asked the question if he could drive the car in that condition, people would still have told him to "chance it mate as there's little chance you'll get done"
On a side note, judging by recent advice given by some users on here to people with non roadworthy cars being driven to an MOT centre or just driven anywhere, no doubt if he'd logged on here & asked the question if he could drive the car in that condition, people would still have told him to "chance it mate as there's little chance you'll get done"
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Thursday 3rd April 19:31
Maybe I'm thick, but having just recently reread the highway code for a bike licence, I'm not sure why he was done.
He can do arm signals, and as long as he is not traveling at in the dark when he needs lights why does he need lights.
A motorbike has no doors, nor a bonnet. I dont think a motorbike based trike requires a helmet, and certainly does not have a seatbelt, so it cannot be a driver safety issue.
Parts of the engine bay are moving, but so do a motors bikes chain, lorries driveshaft and all vehicles wheels.
Unless its an insurance issue, I don't see a problem. Mind you I worked in sub Saharan Africa for a while, so maybe ny sensibilities are warped.
Personally I'm disappointed in the CPS and the police for taking that forward.
He can do arm signals, and as long as he is not traveling at in the dark when he needs lights why does he need lights.
A motorbike has no doors, nor a bonnet. I dont think a motorbike based trike requires a helmet, and certainly does not have a seatbelt, so it cannot be a driver safety issue.
Parts of the engine bay are moving, but so do a motors bikes chain, lorries driveshaft and all vehicles wheels.
Unless its an insurance issue, I don't see a problem. Mind you I worked in sub Saharan Africa for a while, so maybe ny sensibilities are warped.
Personally I'm disappointed in the CPS and the police for taking that forward.
I don't think its as horrendous as the quotes in the dm article make out.
especially the piss poor comment by the AA, trying to make a spurious comparison with the dlrs fitted to new cars, as if that is at all relevant.
I think a 5 mile journey in the daylight is hardly the coming of the apocalypse either.
And its not even if the police tackle anyone for failing to signal.
If I was the chap, I would have taken a ruck sack and removed the lights at the yard ( my local scrappie has at least half a dozen guys ferretting around in the car park.
I would have left the bonnet on though.
Ian
especially the piss poor comment by the AA, trying to make a spurious comparison with the dlrs fitted to new cars, as if that is at all relevant.
I think a 5 mile journey in the daylight is hardly the coming of the apocalypse either.
And its not even if the police tackle anyone for failing to signal.
If I was the chap, I would have taken a ruck sack and removed the lights at the yard ( my local scrappie has at least half a dozen guys ferretting around in the car park.
I would have left the bonnet on though.
Ian
The AA said:
'Also, new cars have day time headlights that warn pedestrians a car is heading their way. If these are removed, then the pedestrian won't have that extra time to see the car coming towards them.
Is it my imagination, but I see less new cars with active DRL's than a year ago? But it's not really going to affect a 15 year old Peugeot.
tbc said:
Anyone remember the Ford Falcon race car they did on Fast n'Loud
It had no dash, no windows, no paint job, no lights, no bonnet etc etc
and the bearded bloke drove it back to Gas Monkey
Surely that was in the US......It had no dash, no windows, no paint job, no lights, no bonnet etc etc
and the bearded bloke drove it back to Gas Monkey
I do wonder how a car that combines this lack of dooriness:
And this missingness of engine coverage, can be so illegal?
I get the lights etc being an issue, but there are many cars out there without doors or bonnets etc that are apparently legal to drive? Had he left the lights in, would it have been so bad?
Mostly, it's the age of vehicle requiring higher standards. By the time the original car was made, they were required to basically present a smooth surface so tangling with a pedestrian would be less likely to kill/hurt them. As pictured, hurty bits and sharp edges galore.
The rat rod is illegal, but the chances of it being stopped when used responsibly is minimal. The police generally fight shy of construction and use issues as they are a minefield, and older vehicles can get away with lots. My vintage car has no indicators, no bonnet, no instrument lighting and much more besides. The rat rod though has no mudguards and that is illegal - but widely done and got away with.
It's a silly case though. He's a bit unlucky to have got done, but drive anything that sticks out like that and you'd best have all your ducks in a row.
Brake lights - needed post 1934 I think. My vintage car came without them, but as a 1930 car - not required.
The rat rod is illegal, but the chances of it being stopped when used responsibly is minimal. The police generally fight shy of construction and use issues as they are a minefield, and older vehicles can get away with lots. My vintage car has no indicators, no bonnet, no instrument lighting and much more besides. The rat rod though has no mudguards and that is illegal - but widely done and got away with.
It's a silly case though. He's a bit unlucky to have got done, but drive anything that sticks out like that and you'd best have all your ducks in a row.
Brake lights - needed post 1934 I think. My vintage car came without them, but as a 1930 car - not required.
The doors themselves aren't necessarily a C&U problem - but the lack of mirrors are.
The lack of headlights is one thing, but the lack of indicators and brake lights are a definite problem.
Then there's the sharp edges.
This isn't a car registered as 1930s, like I suspect that rod (which'd still need some form of wing/mudguard to be road legal) is, having to conform only to 1930s C&U standards. C&U changes aren't retrospective. This is a 1990s car, so has to conform to 1990s C&U standards.
Even without it being half-stripped, was it actually roadworthy in itself? He was scrapping it, after all, despite it still having (the shreds of) a current MOT.
The lack of headlights is one thing, but the lack of indicators and brake lights are a definite problem.
Then there's the sharp edges.
This isn't a car registered as 1930s, like I suspect that rod (which'd still need some form of wing/mudguard to be road legal) is, having to conform only to 1930s C&U standards. C&U changes aren't retrospective. This is a 1990s car, so has to conform to 1990s C&U standards.
Even without it being half-stripped, was it actually roadworthy in itself? He was scrapping it, after all, despite it still having (the shreds of) a current MOT.
My frogeye has no seatbelts or drls but is still legal as it was built like it, so I guess the is the issue, does a car still at least conform to its in period C & U regs . I once passed a police checkpoint in a one headlamped Morris Minor, they didn't bat an eyelid as I clearly wasn't on the shopping list that day.
k you, AA.Snowboy said:
It does make me wonder how much you can strip a car like that and still be legal.
My guess is the lack of break lights is what would have caused the biggest problem.
Doesn't need brake lights :-My guess is the lack of break lights is what would have caused the biggest problem.
Stop lamps are not required to be fitted to vehicles used only during the hours of daylight, which are fitted with neither front nor rear position lamps, etc. (See 1.1.A).
Which is why I reckon no fog lights and a bonnet would see him alright.
) that having a current MoT was the be all and end all 
.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff