Car altered after IVA involved in crash hypothetically

[singlecoil]

Does anyone know if the above scenario has occured? It's a bit of a stretch of the imagination, but it could happen. For instance, if someone fitted spinners to their period kit, and a pedestrian was injured in a collision, and it was felt that the spinners had made the injury worse, would the owner be likely to fare worse, legally, and/or financially, as a result of having altered his car after passing the test that said it was fit to be used on the road?

[qdos]

I think you're opening up a real hornets nest here but if you really want things to go the way of Belgium or Germany or Italy where you are not allowed to touch a car or even put a sticker on it without it being applied by a "Qualified Engineer" and with umpteen certificates for approval then carry on. All you are doing is giving reasons why no one should be allowed to touch anything other than the big corporates who've got billions to tie everyone up and make sure that there's no competition to what they feel is their business.

You could equally say this of a mass produced vehicle. Many of which wouldn't and don't pass IVA

[singlecoil]

qdos said:

I think you're opening up a real hornets nest here but if you really want things to go the way of Belgium or Germany or Italy where you are not allowed to touch a car or even put a sticker on it without it being applied by a "Qualified Engineer" and with umpteen certificates for approval then carry on. All you are doing is giving reasons why no one should be allowed to touch anything other than the big corporates who've got billions to tie everyone up and make sure that there's no competition to what they feel is their business.

You could equally say this of a mass produced vehicle. Many of which wouldn't and don't pass IVA

I think you are reading a great deal more into my question than is actually there. I take it, though, that you don't know of a situation such as I outline above?

[Steve_D]

The answer to your question is yes.

But it is nothing to do with it being a kitcar.

Someone, probably VOSA, will be asked if the condition of a vehicle contributed to the outcome of an accident. The answer will be the same if it were a kitcar, slammed Asta, modified 4x4 or perhaps any other vehicle which had not been correctly maintained.

I included the 4x4 as there is a gentleman in prison for that very reason.

Was there some reason for singling out kitcars?

Steve

[groomi]

Steve_D said:

Was there some reason for singling out kitcars?

Steve

Just a wild stab in the dark here, but could it be because there is a widespread occurrence of IVA specific parts being fitted to new kitcars which are then immediately replaced with non compliant parts once the test is completed.

Unlike most mods to mainstream cars, many of these post IVA changes affect the pedestrian impact areas - radius of edges to wishbones, headlights etc being a common one.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of it, just pointing out why the OP quite rightly sees it a bit differently to a slammed Polo.

[singlecoil]

groomi said:

Steve_D said:

Was there some reason for singling out kitcars?

Steve

Just a wild stab in the dark here, but could it be because there is a widespread occurrence of IVA specific parts being fitted to new kitcars which are then immediately replaced with non compliant parts once the test is completed.

Unlike most mods to mainstream cars, many of these post IVA changes affect the pedestrian impact areas - radius of edges to wishbones, headlights etc being a common one.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of it, just pointing out why the OP quite rightly sees it a bit differently to a slammed Polo.

You've pretty much got it there, thanks. My reason for raising the subject was that the question of post-IVA, pedestrian/other road user related modifications does crop up in kit cars and replicas (where built by a manufacturer) more than it does in any other motoring area that I am aware of.

It sometimes seems that some owners just don't get the idea of the IVA test as having any relevance to the actual use of the car after the test, that it's just a series of hoops, which, having been jumped through, can be forgotten about with impunity. I don't really have a position on the subject myself, but I do wonder about it sometimes.

[Sam_68]

Steve_D said:

Someone, probably VOSA, will be asked if the condition of a vehicle contributed to the outcome of an accident.

....I included the 4x4 as there is a gentleman in prison for that very reason.

But do you know what the gentleman was actually imprisoned for (ie. the offence for which he was convicted)?

As things stand at the moment, I would imagine that it is much, much easier to prosecute under Sections 40A or Section 76 of the Road Traffic Act than it would be to try to wade through the tangled web of EU directives that govern the process of type approval/Minister's approval?

[Steve_D]

Sam_68 said:

....But do you know what the gentleman was actually imprisoned for (ie. the offence for which he was convicted)?....

Yes I do but thought it inappropriate to go into detail here.
PM me if you wish.

Steve

[craig7l]

IVA sets the standard and gives the paperwork
type approval sets the standard and gives the paperwork

if you aftermarket a 8ft rear wing with a razor edge on a either an ultima or a vauxhall corsa and it chops a nuns head off then in both situations you would/could find yourself maybe on a manslaughter charge.

if youve added a post IVA switch with a 0.4mm sharpe edge instead of the IVA 3mm round edge in the event of a head on (when both types of switch are going through your skull anyway) the last thing through your mind will be "will i get sued"!

I could go on but i am just bungey strapping a wardrobe and matress to the top of the ford Ka as tomorrow i need to pop them down the M1 to london...

[Sam_68]

Steve_D said:

Yes I do but thought it inappropriate to go into detail here.

Surely it would be to the benefit of the forum?

Merely the charge for which the conviction was brought, of course, not the full details and the guy's name and address... I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to know what actual law (ie. which section of which Act of Parliament) is deemed to have been broken by modifying a car post IVA.

I'm aware of the EU directives governing type approval of vehicles, but as far as I understand them, they're more for the purposes of imposing uniformity (of registration standards) on EU governments than it's citizens. I'm not aware of any UK legislation that supercedes the Road Traffic Act in terms of defining an offence for the use of dangerous (or non-compliant) vehicles, but I'd be interested to learn if anything has been enacted?

Edited by Sam_68 on Thursday 19th January 23:00

[Furyblade_Lee]

Craig71, well said.

As far as I am concerned if my car passed an MOT test post-SVA then I don't give a monkeys. Until the EU outlaws our cars altogether I will just enjoy it until a big Belgian with a WW1 moustach takes it off me and crushes it :-)

[Steve_D]

Sam_68 said:

Surely it would be to the benefit of the forum?

Merely the charge for which the conviction was brought, of course, not the full details and the guy's name and address... I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to know what actual law (ie. which section of which Act of Parliament) is deemed to have been broken by modifying a car post IVA.

I'm aware of the EU directives governing type approval of vehicles, but as far as I understand them, they're more for the purposes of imposing uniformity (of registration standards) on EU governments than it's citizens. I'm not aware of any UK legislation that supercedes the Road Traffic Act in terms of defining an offence for the use of dangerous (or non-compliant) vehicles, but I'd be interested to learn if anything has been enacted?

All I will add is that I'm not aware of any specific act or legislation being used to support the case but then again I was not in the court. Again, PM me if you wish to know more.

Steve

[Sam_68]

Steve_D said:

All I will add is that I'm not aware of any specific act or legislation being used to support the case but then again I was not in the court.

There must have been a specific act or legislation to support the case. You can't (yet) send someone to prison in this country without good evidence that they are in breach of a written and enacted law.

For clarity: what was he charged and convicted of?

If I break into your house and steal your TV, I am charged and convicted of burglary under the Theft Act 1968.

If I deliberately and premeditatedly kill someone, I am charged and convicted of murder under the Murder Act 1751.

This guy killed or injured someone as a result of an accident related to a modified car (I assume: they don't usually send you to prison just for having poor judgement on engineering matters, otherwise the jails would be overflowing with R**** H*** owners?).

So:

He was charged and convicted of _ _ _ _ _ under the _ _ _ _ _ _ Act?

(fill in the blanks for us, if you would... at least on the first; I can probably fill in the second for you?).

---

The only legislation I am aware of (and I stress that I'd be genuinely interested in being put right if there has been subsequent legislation I'm not aware of) that can be used to prosecute someone for using a dangerous vehicle is the Road Traffic Act. Then there's obviously other legislation that can be used if the have sold or supplied a dangerously defective item to others.

... but whilst I can imagine that the IVA regulations might be cited as part of the evidence to support an assertion that the vehicle was dangerous, I'm equally certain that they wouldn't stand up on their own as the only evidence... otherwise all the pre-IVA/Type Approved vehicles, and all the exempt vehicles, that use the roads quite legally with 'non-compliant' features would instantly be rendered 'dangerous' and illegal in the eyes of the law.

[Steve_D]

Sam you have PM

Steve

[Sam_68]

Not received (at least not unless you're trying to persuade me I need a penis enlargement... I've just checked my spam folder and everything!).

ETA: just tried changing to a different e-mail address on my profile (which should have triggered an automatic confirmation e-mail from PistonHeads), and I didn't get anything there, either... maybe the PistonHeads e-mail system is playing up?
Edited again: PistonHeads confirmation e-mails received. Nothing from Steve_D though.

Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 20th January 20:42

[Arthur Jackson]

Sam_68 said:

otherwise the jails would be overflowing with R**** H*** owners?).

Is one eyed mick on holiday?

[1point7bar]

Isn't there a brush past test at MOT?

[Steve_D]

Sam_68 said:

Not received (at least not unless you're trying to persuade me I need a penis enlargement... I've just checked my spam folder and everything!).

ETA: just tried changing to a different e-mail address on my profile (which should have triggered an automatic confirmation e-mail from PistonHeads), and I didn't get anything there, either... maybe the PistonHeads e-mail system is playing up?
Edited again: PistonHeads confirmation e-mails received. Nothing from Steve_D though.

Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 20th January 20:42

I have confirmation it went out.
ping me at steve @ southwaysautomotive dot co dot uk
I'll mail you back

Steve

[ChrisJ.]

craig7l said:

if you aftermarket a 8ft rear wing with a razor edge on a either an ultima or a vauxhall corsa and it chops a nuns head off then in both situations you would/could find yourself maybe on a manslaughter charge.

In the case of the Ultima; How would it be proved that the wing wasn't fitted at the time of the test?
Would it just be down to the tester's memory?

Edited by ChrisJ. on Sunday 22 January 09:39

[craig7l]

ChrisJ. said:

craig7l said:

if you aftermarket a 8ft rear wing with a razor edge on a either an ultima or a vauxhall corsa and it chops a nuns head off then in both situations you would/could find yourself maybe on a manslaughter charge.

In the case of the Ultima; How would it be proved that wing wasn't fitted at the time of the test?
Would it just be down to the tester's memory?

so what you saying..... if the 8ft razor sharpe wing chops a nuns head off that you fitted after IVA you will just lie and blame someone else.....??? fooking charming!