run a race car on the road loophole?

[ben789]

During a bit of dead time I was surfing the net when I stumbled upon a usenet post where burgerman seems to think your not breaking any laws by running a race car/any other form of transport on the road & w/o insurance/tax/mot as long as it hasn’t been designed to run on the road.

Anyone care to comment? (I’m particularly interested to hear from the bib)


a different post
>Meaning of "motor vehicle" and other expressions relating to vehicles.
>
> 185.—(1) In this Act—

SNIP

>"motor vehicle" means, subject to section 20 of the [1970 c. 44.]
>Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which makes special
>provision about invalid carriages, within the meaning of that Act), a
>mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads,
>and
>"trailer" means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle.




>>> Edited by ben789 on Monday 19th January 18:05

[Dwight VanDriver]

Gopeds?

Look at one - a vehicle not intended to go on a road? A fun vehicle?

Wrong.

High Court stated it is a motor vehicle and you need DL, Insurance etc etc.

One run on a road maybe with an iffy defined vehicle, start using it and it then can be classed as intended for use.

DVD

[ben789]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Gopeds?

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to run my kart up and down my road without being bothered by the bib (just to check it occasionally after I've been at it with a spanner).

[xxplod]

Definate no no. Wot if the unsupervised toddler came running out in to your path? I appreciate that the result would be no different than if you'd been in a car, but with no insurance to fend off any potential claim, you could be seriously in the p00 and out of pocket.

[thruster]

Nice try but our friendly government has that one covered as any offence is now defined as using a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' and no longer 'motor vehicle'. This gives plod powers to seize the vehicle, so beware ! I think the relevent act is the Road Traffic Act 1968 ammendment section 34a but the more knowledgeable will correct me.

This popped out of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to make it illegal for 'erberts to use unregistered vehicles on footpaths and bridleways and is the only sensible bit in the whole shambles.

T

>> Edited by thruster on Tuesday 20th January 12:52

>> Edited by thruster on Tuesday 20th January 12:54

[Dwight VanDriver]

Ben

A motor go-cart was held not to be a motor vehicle where there was no evidence of regular use on a road but it might be otherwise if there was such evidence. The test is whether a reasonable man looking at it would say that one of its uses would be road use.
(Burns v Currell 1963)

DVD

[ben789]

Dwight VanDriver said:

The test is whether a reasonable man looking at it would say that one of its uses would be road use. (Burns v Currell 1963)

Thanks all for the replies.

I doubt anyone would think the kart is intended for road use, considering it has slicks & a big rear wing on it , but I don’t think it'll risk it anyway :_(