Invalid insurance?

Author
Discussion

WillPeterson

Original Poster:

38 posts

238 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
While discussing the pros and cons of laser jammers/garage door openers and radar detectors at work today, a colleague directed me to an article he'd recently found on Hantsweb > www.hants.gov.uk/regulatory/busadvice/auto.html

I was a little disturbed when I read this piece “A vehicle user found operating with non-complaint equipment would technically be invalidating his insurance and could be prosecuted in the event of an accident” as I use both a jammer and a detector (maybe not for much longer), and neither of them appear to have an E-mark, does this mean that my insurance may be invalid?

Does anyone have knowledge of this European Directive 95/54/EC, and/or the implications?

parrot of doom

23,075 posts

235 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
Knowing insurance companies, they'd latch onto anything they could. However, first, they'd have to know about it.

Pigeon

18,535 posts

247 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
Reading that link, it looks like it's OK to design and build your own.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

245 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
>>>>>>A vehicle user found operating with non-complaint equipment would technically be invalidating his insurance and could be prosecuted in the event of an accident<<<<<<<

Well that bit IMHO is a load of dogs danglies. Section 148 (2) (b) Road Traffic Act 1988 says they have to pay out on third party risks. However there may well be a case for claiming back off the Insured under civil law.

DVD

Le TVR

3,092 posts

252 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
WillPeterson said:


Does anyone have knowledge of this European Directive 95/54/EC, and/or the implications?




It requires ANY electronic equipment fitted to vehicles is approved and given an 'e-mark'.
Effectively the whole vehicle type approval 'may' be considered invalid if installed equipment does not comply.

As you say, give insurance companies an edge and they will use it.......

maxf

8,409 posts

242 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
Fact of the matter is - ive you are in a bad way and the accident was really bad you will have other things on your mind - but if it wasn't and you are old aside from dented pride - just rip the unit out!

Cooperman

4,428 posts

251 months

Wednesday 10th November 2004
quotequote all
Currently I'm involved with a company developing an interactive vehicle tracking system, and for this we need 'E'-marking/type approval.
From the legislation, it seems as though a passive GPS unit, like a Road Angel,is probably exempt, especiallt if its power comes from an adaptor plugged into the cig lighter socket, so long as the adaptor is itself 'E'-marked.
There is no reason why a laser jamer cannot be type approved. The approval organisation is not concerned with its actual use, only its electro-magnetic output and the potential for that output to interfere with other electronic-based systems in the vehicle, like the ABS or auto gearbox, for example (does anyone remember the incidents with the Motorola car-installed phones in the late 80's which caused an Audi auto to change from 4th to 3rd when the phone was used?).
All the test-house has to do is to test the unit in an EMC chamber as a witnessed test and so long as the emissions are within the required tolerance, a certificate of compliance will be issued.
I'm sure the devices being discussed will already have been certificated by the manufacturers as the manufacturers have a 'duty of care' towards their customers and should not sell an item unless it is 'fit for purpose' (i.e. legal, which means type-approved, to be installed as the installation instructions describe for the purpose for which the item was sold).