Fixed Penalty for Carbon 3D Number Plates

[onboard]

Hi,
Long time since I have posted but have a bee in the proverbial with this one.
I know that Strathclyde's finest pretty much issue tickets left right and centre to young drivers and even when issued in error there can be a reluctance to accept they may have made a mistake.
So......
A friend of my son's gets stopped on Thursday night and Traffic Officer gives him a fixed penalty for 'illegal' number plates.
When asked to clarify the officer says, there is no BS mark or Postcode etc on the plate (there is) and also states they are illegal as they are 3D.
Then on Saturday, he gets stopped again for a routine check by other Traffic officers who find nothing wrong with his car and he specifically asks about the legality of his number plates and he is told they are fine. ? ??
Ok ............... why am I concerned, well first I think it is nonsense the way some deal with young drivers and secondly I have a set of the 3D plates on one of my cars.
So the plates were sold as road legal compliant plates with BS and identifier marks of postcode, reflective backgrounds etc
The gov.uk info website clearly states 'characters on a number plate can be 3D' and a check at an MOT station today shows they would pass an MOT.
A traffic Sgt I spoke to today gave me waffle that if a car is fitted with a number plate different from the one it was fitted with at manufacture then it was likely illegal - WTF? what about all the options you still have in Halfords etc re 3D, highline, carbon as well as many other companies offering carbon and black Gel 3D plates that are road legal.
Am I missing something here or should these officers get some retraining in what they are doing and trying to fob off to the public?

[Red Devil]

onboard said:

The gov.uk info website clearly states 'characters on a number plate can be 3D' and a check at an MOT station today shows they would pass an MOT.

The gov.uk website is notorious for being misleading or even wrong (although in this case it's not). Nor is passing an MOT definitive. What you need to do is to look at the the legislation. Print out Section 15 and ask the police where in those Regulations it prohibits 3D characters. Up to your son whether he wishes to decline to pay the FPN and have the matter put before the magistrates.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
A close up pic of one of the offending characters would be helpful.

[ging84]

That other thread didn't come to the clearest of conclusions, it seems to say that printed fonts with a 3rd or carbon effect are mostly legal, but stick on embossed raised letter are more of a grey area

[mph]

With 3D plates you are more likely to be pulled by the style police

[mph1977]

3dimensional characters on a registration plate ... surely that's the allow the old pin / screw on letters type or UK layout and font pressed plates not wky carbon look bazzaplates

[Elroy Blue]

I work on the premise that if my ANPR can read it ok, I don't worry about it.

[RSoovy4]

What's wrong with normal plates?

[GTIR]

RSoovy4 said:

What's wrong with normal plates?

Dey ain't cool bruv.

[Steffan]

GTIR said:

RSoovy4 said:

What's wrong with normal plates?

Dey ain't cool bruv.

They may not be cool but they are road legal. I have never been stopped in the last 20 years for the condition of any of the oddball cars I drive because I do try to make every effort to be reasonably road legal. Up to the individual I suspect the police will win in this case if disputed.

It may be petty and unnecessary but traffic officers can be officious and will generally win. I do try to avoid such fights by choice. That works for me. No doubt I will now be pulled for saying I never am puled over which will serve me right.

[Red Devil]

Steffan said:

Up to the individual I suspect the police will win in this case if disputed.

Why?

Steffan said:

It may be petty and unnecessary but traffic officers can be officious and will generally win.

Are you basing this on the premise that the bench always believes that the police can never be wrong? The magistrates are normally lay people: it is the job of the Clerk of the Court to advise them on the correct application of legislation. That will be the person in whose hands ones fate really lies.

In any case it is up to the CPS whether or not to prosecute. Even if a decision is made to do so (which I doubt) I reckon the prosecutor may well fold at the door of the court. Furthermore it is not an effective use of police time/resources to have an officer hanging about for half a day so that he/she can be called to give evidence over such a minor alleged offence.

Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 28th February 09:18

[Steffan]

Red Devil said:

Steffan said:

Up to the individual I suspect the police will win in this case if disputed.

Why?

Steffan said:

It may be petty and unnecessary but traffic officers can be officious and will generally win.

Are you basing this on the premise that the bench always believes that the police can never be wrong? The magistrates are normally lay people: it is the job of the Clerk of the Court to advise them on the correct application of legislation. That will be the person in whose hands ones fate really lies.

In any case it is up to the CPS to charge. Even if a decision is made to do so (which I doubt) I reckon the prosecutor may well fold at the door of the court. Furthermore it is not an effective use of police time/resources to have an officer hanging about for half a day so that he/she can be called to give evidence over such a minor alleged offence.

You may be right: I will be interested to hear the outcome.

Personally I would not wish to expend the time fighting the case. Too many projects to complete and Old Father Time is calling I fear!

[pitmansboots]

This type of plate character is not within the regulations.

and


The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001

Style of characters
15.—
(1) In the case of a registration mark displayed—
(a)on a registration plate fixed to a vehicle first registered on or after 1st September 2001, or
(b)on a new registration plate fixed to a vehicle on or after 1st September 2001 to replace a plate previously fixed thereto (except where the vehicle was first registered before 1st January 1973),
each of the characters of the mark must be in the prescribed font.
(2) Except in a case to which paragraph (1) applies, each of the characters of the registration mark must either be in the prescribed font or in a style which is substantially similar to the prescribed font so that the character is easily distinguishable and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of those requirements, characters must not be formed in any way described in paragraph (4) or in a manner which is similar to any of those ways.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), a character shall not be treated as being in a style which is not substantially similar to the prescribed font merely by virtue of the fact that it has, or does not have, serifs.
(4) The ways of forming characters referred to in paragraph (2) are their formation—
(a)in italic script,
(b)using a font, other than italic script, in which the characters are not vertical,
(c)using a font in which the curvature or alignment of the lines of the stroke is substantially different from the prescribed font,

(d) using multiple strokes,
(e) using a broken stroke,

(f)in such a way as to make a character or more than one character appear like a different character or characters.


...and...

Further requirements for registration plates
11.—
(1) No reflex-reflecting material may be applied to any part of a registration plate and the plate must not be treated in such a way that the characters of the registration mark become, or are caused to act as, retroreflective characters.
(2) A registration plate must not be treated in any other way which renders the characters of the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which would prevent or impair the making of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera and film or any other device.
(3) A registration plate must not be fixed to a vehicle—
(a)by means of a screw, bolt or other fixing device of any type or colour,
(b)by the placing of a screw, bolt or other fixing device in any position, or
(c)[b]in any other manner,
which has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of the characters of the registration mark, which renders the characters of the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which prevents or impairs the making of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera and film or any other device.[/b]
(4) Section 59(2)(a) of the Act (regulations the contravention of which attracts a level 3 fine) applies to paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this regulation.


The use of the type of carbon effect characters in the images and other types that have a criss-cross pattern all fail to pass the highlighted parts of the legislation. If you want 3D characters they can be raised from the surface but they must be the correct font and completely black. 3D means "bumpy" it does not mean having some form of pattern upon it using different colours from black that make it look 3D but is still flat.

Carbon fibre effects have the side-effect of making part of the character retro-reflective and the characters must be non-reflective. This is what makes them fail regulation 11 because cameras and ANPR devices cannot read them as easily as they do plates with totally non-reflecting characters.

The Government website is wrong as is the MOT manual. If the Government want their advice and the MOT manual to be correct they need to change the regulation.

To be lawful you need to have totally black non-reflective characters be they flat or raised from the surface; 3D effects are specifically legislated against as they always have multiple strokes of non-black colour.

Edited by pitmansboots on Wednesday 27th February 22:31

[Red Devil]

pitmansboots said:

The Government website is wrong as is the MOT manual.

That is a pretty serious allegation. By your reckoning, the government is putting false information in the public domain and an Agency of the Department of Transport is actively condoning law breaking by drivers.

pitmansboots said:

If the Government want their advice and the MOT manual to be correct they need to change the regulation.

I am minded to ask my MP to raise the matter with Patrick McLoughlin. A question in the HoC might be in order, then we can look in Hansard for his response.

[ging84]

The law in this case is quite literately not that black and white and is open to interpretation
you missed out the part where is says about the font "substantially similar to" which is presumably why a 3d or carbon pattern in the text using 2 dark shades is considered to be within the regulations by the government, who last time i checked were in charge. Having a slightly lighter shade can make it slightly more reflective, but that does not necessarily mean it is retro reflective.

To really clear up the issue of raised lettering you either need a lawyer who can quote some case law or possibly an engineer with access to the BS AU 145d standard, if there is anything in there that states something like it must have a flat surface, or single piece construction then you could probably say they are not within the regulations otherwise it's down to interpretation if it makes them less distinguishable or not.

It's fairly obvious that raised lettering was not meant to be allowed, as for one thing it completely undermines the attempt to regulate the market for number plates, as anyone can buy blank plates and stick what ever character they want to them. And in the section for the earlier plates it specifically allows for raised lettering but does not for later models

[pitmansboots]

ging84 said:

The law in this case is quite literately not that black and white and is open to interpretation
you missed out the part where is says about the font "substantially similar to" which is presumably why a 3d or carbon pattern in the text using 2 dark shades is considered to be within the regulations by the government, who last time i checked were in charge. Having a slightly lighter shade can make it slightly more reflective, but that does not necessarily mean it is retro reflective.

The interpretation of law is done in specific ways; judges do it by statutory interpretation. The first stage of statutory interpretation is "literal" interpretation. If there is no ambiguity no further interpretation stages are required.
You have made the mistake of picking only 3 words in a full sentence; that is not the correct way to interpret the law.
Sub-paragraph 2 says:
(2) Except in a case to which paragraph (1) applies, each of the characters of the registration mark must either be in the prescribed font or in a style which is substantially similar to the prescribed font so that the character is easily distinguishable and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of those requirements, characters must not be formed in any way described in paragraph (4) or in a manner which is similar to any of those ways.

I have highlighted the rest of the words that forms the law. You can't use just "substantially similar to" and say carbon fibre letters are "substantially similar to" the prescribed font without considering the operation of the words in the rest of that paragraph and indeed sub-paragraph 4 that it refers to. SO you see, I have not omitted "substantially similar to" I have included it but have done so in the correct literal and unambiguous way.

ging84 said:

To really clear up the issue of raised lettering you either need a lawyer who can quote some case law or possibly an engineer with access to the BS AU 145d standard, if there is anything in there that states something like it must have a flat surface, or single piece construction then you could probably say they are not within the regulations otherwise it's down to interpretation if it makes them less distinguishable or not.

It is my understanding that the BS refers to the reflectivity of the background. In any case the British Standards Institute publication does not form or trump the legislation.

ging84 said:

It's fairly obvious that raised lettering was not meant to be allowed, as for one thing it completely undermines the attempt to regulate the market for number plates, as anyone can buy blank plates and stick what ever character they want to them. And in the section for the earlier plates it specifically allows for raised lettering but does not for later models

It is fairly obvious raised lettering "is" allowed because the law says it is and is not ambiguous in that. It is also not ambiguous in saying that shadow text and carbon fibre lettering is not allowed in my opinion however being unambiguous does not prevent anyone from taking the law in front of a judge to see if the court agrees; in that respect you are of course correct.

[ging84]

well i don't know then, the part about it being substantially similar was my best guess at why the carbon and 3d patterns are deemed to be allowed, that might be the wrong reason, but this doesn't explain why the guidelines published based on this legislation are pretty clear that a subtle carbon or 3d effect is legal, and your suggestion that this is just wrong

I thought the whole point of this thread was more that they are raised stick on numbers rather than the carbon effect, i don't see anywhere that the law says it "is" allowed except for the pre 1970s ones

The BS AU 145d does made a difference here because it's in the legislation that the plate must be constructed in a way that complies with it
so if the standard is purely about reflectivity it may not effect anything, but without directly referencing it it's hard to tell. All you know is that if the back plate has the stamp on it, it was compliant before the letter were stuck to it, the plate as a whole may no longer be fully compliant.

[ging84]

Clearly Broken Strokes

Clearly Multiple Strokes


Broken strokes or a continuous stroke of dark grey texture?


Singe stroke with a varying shade, or multiple strokes ?


Last 2 are open to interpretation and are both apparently legal

[matchmaker]

Red Devil said:

Are you basing this on the premise that the bench always believes that the police can never be wrong? The magistrates are normally lay people: it is the job of the Clerk of the Court to advise them on the correct application of legislation. That will be the person in whose hands ones fate really lies.

In any case it is up to the CPS to charge. Even if a decision is made to do so (which I doubt) I reckon the prosecutor may well fold at the door of the court. Furthermore it is not an effective use of police time/resources to have an officer hanging about for half a day so that he/she can be called to give evidence over such a minor alleged offence.

It's not in the current case...

[Red Devil]

ging84 said:

I thought the whole point of this thread was more that they are raised stick on numbers rather than the carbon effect, i don't see anywhere that the law says it "is" allowed except for the pre 1970s ones

The main thrust of the OP's post was about his son's friend's 'offending' 3D plates. The question about suppliers' other offerings is a secondary issue. Nothing whatsoever was mentioned about raised or carbon effect in his case. So, as I said earlier, we need a picture of one of the characters. Without this it is all speculation.

matchmaker said:

Red Devil said:

Are you basing this on the premise that the bench always believes that the police can never be wrong? The magistrates are normally lay people: it is the job of the Clerk of the Court to advise them on the correct application of legislation. That will be the person in whose hands ones fate really lies.

In any case it is up to the CPS to charge. Even if a decision is made to do so (which I doubt) I reckon the prosecutor may well fold at the door of the court. Furthermore it is not an effective use of police time/resources to have an officer hanging about for half a day so that he/she can be called to give evidence over such a minor alleged offence.

It's not in the current case...

Fair enough. Police bring the charge. CPS look at the file and decide whether or not to prosecute. The distinction doesn't make any material difference to the rest of my post.

Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 28th February 09:29

[surveyor]

Red Devil said:

ging84 said:

I thought the whole point of this thread was more that they are raised stick on numbers rather than the carbon effect, i don't see anywhere that the law says it "is" allowed except for the pre 1970s ones

The main thrust of the OP's post was about his son's friend's 'offending' 3D plates. The question about suppliers' other offerings is a secondary issue. Nothing whatsoever was mentioned about raised or carbon effect in his case. So, as I said earlier, we need a picture of one of the characters. Without this it is all speculation.

matchmaker said:

Red Devil said:

Are you basing this on the premise that the bench always believes that the police can never be wrong? The magistrates are normally lay people: it is the job of the Clerk of the Court to advise them on the correct application of legislation. That will be the person in whose hands ones fate really lies.

In any case it is up to the CPS to charge. Even if a decision is made to do so (which I doubt) I reckon the prosecutor may well fold at the door of the court. Furthermore it is not an effective use of police time/resources to have an officer hanging about for half a day so that he/she can be called to give evidence over such a minor alleged offence.

It's not in the current case...

Fair enough. Police bring the charge. CPS look at the file and decide whether or not to prosecute. The distinction doesn't make any material difference to the rest of my post.

Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 28th February 09:29

Need to read the OP again I think...