£60 fine for failing roadside emission test
Discussion
there is a current proposal to fine motorists £60 in scottish cities if they fail a roadside emissions test.
article in www.thescotsman.co.uk
my question, if you have a valid MOT, what act or legislation are you charged under for failing the roadside test?
and could you challenge it because you have a valid MOT at which time the emissions had been tested?
i hope for some clarification from the great body of PH.
article in www.thescotsman.co.uk
my question, if you have a valid MOT, what act or legislation are you charged under for failing the roadside test?
and could you challenge it because you have a valid MOT at which time the emissions had been tested?
i hope for some clarification from the great body of PH.
ian d said:
there is a current proposal to fine motorists £60 in scottish cities if they fail a roadside emissions test.
article in www.thescotsman.co.uk
my question, if you have a valid MOT, what act or legislation are you charged under for failing the roadside test?
and could you challenge it because you have a valid MOT at which time the emissions had been tested?
i hope for some clarification from the great body of PH.
you'll probably find that your emission tests are only valid (as is an MOT) at the moment of test, not later...thus they have grounds any time to retest. You fail and it costs a fine........IMHO of course...
now when are they going to test Stinker BUSSES and trucks????
the whole thing just pi##es me off, it is just another ££ raising scam by the councils and stuff all to do with reducing city pollution.
if they wanted to reduce city pollution they would re-instate electric trams or trolley buses, but oh no, that is FAR TOO FAR sighted for any myopic city council.
if they wanted to reduce city pollution they would re-instate electric trams or trolley buses, but oh no, that is FAR TOO FAR sighted for any myopic city council.
Just another tax.
There's no way for the motorist to tell if their vehicle is over this limit or not. It's like an even better version of speeding!
There's no defence against this one. How's a poor student supposed to know if their 13 yr old banger still complies 11 months after its last MOT?
The driver isn't doing ANYTHING wrong, but they're still liable for a fine.
Disgusting.
There's no way for the motorist to tell if their vehicle is over this limit or not. It's like an even better version of speeding!
There's no defence against this one. How's a poor student supposed to know if their 13 yr old banger still complies 11 months after its last MOT?
The driver isn't doing ANYTHING wrong, but they're still liable for a fine.
Disgusting.
I thought it was already possible for a driver to be stopped and their car to be tested for emissions at a local test centre? Plus this should only apply to cars made after 1993 and it became law to fit cats to reduce emissions.
The simple fact is the current and previous Governments don't want us driving cars yet they know that on the whole us law abiding british citizens will just take the taxes in the pocket. Its just an underhanded way of trying to get us all to use buses trains and bikes.
The simple fact is the current and previous Governments don't want us driving cars yet they know that on the whole us law abiding british citizens will just take the taxes in the pocket. Its just an underhanded way of trying to get us all to use buses trains and bikes.
Presumably, the commonly applied procedure for failures under C&U Regs (which cover emissions?) is that if the vehicle is not dangerous the driver is given a fixed time to rectify and represent; whilst serious cases are taken off the road there and then. This looks like a "gotcha!" tax dressed up as "saving the environment" (slogan : "Think of the unconceived children"?) - Streaky
The AA geezer seemed to be talking sense in the article,
It seems that as this is a council enforced fine that the option to repair and test may not apply. So the driver will be forced to appeal to some adjudicator.
So what if you're tested with a clock cold engine? Even the MOT the engine has to be warmed up.
Neil Greig a spokesman for the Automobile Association Motoring Trust in Scotland said:
"our view is that the real problem in Aberdeen city centre is actually caused by old buses, lorries and taxis - diesel-engined vehicles in particular.
"The trouble with these sort of measures is that they often seem to end up persecuting those people sitting in a modern car which is a lot cleaner than the dirty old bus going past it.
"If this is enforced fairly, and they target buses sitting at bus stops, that is going to have a much bigger effect on the air quality than booking the odd car driver."
Mr Greig added that the problem was down to a minority of badly maintained vehicles.
He said: "We have statistics which show that 10 per cent of the vehicles on the road cause 50 per cent of the pollution."
It seems that as this is a council enforced fine that the option to repair and test may not apply. So the driver will be forced to appeal to some adjudicator.
So what if you're tested with a clock cold engine? Even the MOT the engine has to be warmed up.
If it was aimed squarely at making city life more bareable then it would obviously target the smog generators i.e. Buses/Lorries and knackered 3000000 mile old diesel taxis. However we know it won't 
it'll be used as yet another revenue earner 
.
Being a legal numptie, amongst other things, I understand that 'ignorance' is not a defence. However, I always understood that 'intent' also had to be proved in someway before being found guilty. I wonder how far you would go expaining to 'me lud' that "no, I am not a vehicle mechanic. It wasn't explain to me at the MOT station that I had to get this checked out every day, twice a day, on the half hour, to ensure that I don't break the law. Even then there could be no garantees, that, at that or any precise moment in time, it would pass".
What would you be guilty of
.
I only stress this point, as I also understand that 'reasonable' is a key point in law.
Any legal eagles want to chip in with some substance to my rambling
.
Harry
it'll be used as yet another revenue earner . Being a legal numptie, amongst other things
, I understand that 'ignorance' is not a defence. However, I always understood that 'intent' also had to be proved in someway before being found guilty. I wonder how far you would go expaining to 'me lud' that "no, I am not a vehicle mechanic. It wasn't explain to me at the MOT station that I had to get this checked out every day, twice a day, on the half hour, to ensure that I don't break the law. Even then there could be no garantees, that, at that or any precise moment in time, it would pass". What would you be guilty of
. I only stress this point, as I also understand that 'reasonable' is a key point in law.
Any legal eagles want to chip in with some substance to my rambling
. Harry
HarryW said:
However, I always understood that 'intent' also had to be proved in someway before being found guilty.
Only if you kill or rape someone. Motoring offences are far more serious, so there is no burden on the prosecution to prove 'Mens Rea' or 'Guilty mind' in order to convict.
n.b. mens rea almost certainly spelt wrong.
DennisTheMenace said:
There are emmisions cameras in certain parts of London that take a photo if your car doesnt comply.
Seem to remember them at one of the exits of the A40.
So how do they work
Could be self defeating... Lots of pictures of clouds of smoke!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff