Hello All, I am hoping you can shed some light on this.
Earlier today Mrs Angry had to take some ladders for a friend, well she has an open backed pickup truck .. so put the ladders in and secured them, just in case the friend said she would sit in the rear (open backed) bit - they didnt need additional securing, but she panicks.

Well its only about 2miles away and a lovely afternoon, I followed in my car and Mrs Angry and friend drove off.

Then comes plod, pulls us over and gives Mrs Angry a fixed penalty with offence code 950 with the wording "Passenger STOOD on rear of vehicle holding load".

I have searched for code 950 and cant find anything - In addition the friend was seated in the open back .. after signing for and receiving the fixed penalty mrs Angry then saw this but about "Stood" .. the plod said he would be making a statement anyway and he only saw the friend sit.

Well, then another police car came and started taking photos of the car.


My questions are:
What does offence code 950 mean ?
As the form said STOOD, is this invalid as she was seated ?
There is no mention of the load being unsafe (in fact plod pics will show it was secured) .. We accept the ladder was sticking ouver the back.
I thought people can sit in the back of a pickup.

They took Mrs driving license off her, said she could continue but with friend inside car !!!!!

Then, as it was now starting to get dusky they said we needed to put something at the end of the ladders, we put a coat (for the half mile left) .. and we then drove back.

I am really annoyed at this, the load was secure ... we were doing a favour foe someone and now we get this.

Do you think we have a good chance .. I am just worried if we plead not guilty then can make other offences up (although at no stage did they say we were being considered for reporting, and I have read they have to say that).

Thanks for any help and advice !

its def an offence not to have a proper seat and aseat belt, though im not sure if its endorsable( seat belt isnt)A no seat belt FPN is payable by the person with out the belt not the driver

did he say anything about points,


If you want to get your own back go to the local carnaval where they have floats with people on the back take picies and make a formal complaint about them traveling a the back of a vehicle with out seats and belts

Thats a good point about carnivals ... people are walking around on the back of lorries etc..

Yes, the ticket he has given is endorsable with the code 950 (which I cant see relates to anything)

I also wonder about quad bikes ... they are insured as cars, taxed as cars and treated as cars (ie, no seatbelts / crash helmet etc... have to be worn) - True they have no belts fitted but neither does the back of my pickup.

What about passengers on a quad bike ... I would class them the same as a passenger sitting in the back of my pickup.

They operate under a carnival licence and the roads are closed to the public. From memory they also have a speed limit placed on them of 4 mph.

Just pay the fine and move on. Pete D

You'll have to ask the force in question what 950 means; police forces can use codes special to themselves for FPNs rather than the usuall AA10 style endorsement offence codes..

I'm not 100% sure about the carnival thing, but I presume that, as they are of a fixed route, known time and the vehicles typically do not exceed walking pace they will have an exemption to any regulation that prohibits riding in the bed of a pickup. I did a brief google, but only turned up american sites..



AFAIWA most quad bikes need Single Vehicle Approval for carrying passengers because they are NOT by default approved for such use. You should check with the manufacturer of your Quad, whether it has been approved for carrying passengers. If it has not, then youre committing an offence

Reg 100 Road Vehicles (Cons & Use) Regulations 1986 - Dangerous Vehicles

A motor vehicle, every trailer drawn thereby and all parts and accessories shall at all times be such

that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person

in or on the vehicle or trailer, or on a road by reason of:

condition or unsuitable purpose
number of passengers
MANNER PASSENGER CARRIED
weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of load

As an ex village and road traffic pc, dispensation is given by an officer to all vehicles involved in carnival, parade etc. as long as walking pace is not exceeded (4mph).

Charybdis

just been through the construction and use regs , cant see anywhere where a LA carnaval licience over rides t , cant see any ref to where dispensation can be given by police?

do you meen they turn a blind eye to breech of statute, thats not the same as having power to issue dispensations

I have been at this for hours and there does not seem to be any rules that state people are not allowed to sit in the back of a pickup.

However, the police think the passenger was potentally put in danger and if it goes to court we will say "we were driving slow, good road conditions, adult sat not moving around" - The police will say in their view it was not safe for the person to be there and probarly show some stats on the amount of people killed/hurt for no seatbelt etc...

The court will have to decide ... Therefore I have to decide who they will beleive.

The offence on license will be a CU50 .. which speaking with insurance company is a very minor one (for premium basing) .. The points are 3 (fixed) .. so we risk, if we lose a potentially larger fine than the £60.

The police would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the passenger was in danger (well, I understand thats the theory) ...

The police will have to admit we were driving fine, single roads in town, never exceeding 20mph, the passegner was a mature adult, seated and not moving around.

What do you guys think of our chances of the magistrates saying the police had not proved he was in danger ?? (this is apparantly an objective test) .. the insurance company legal people referred to to this:

------------
G carried his seven-year old son through central London in the open back of a Jeep. The boy sat on a flat piece of metal covering the wheel arch and held on to a roll bar and, from time to time, he stood up. G was convicted of carrying passengers in such a way that there was a danger of injury contrary to section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. G appealed against his conviction.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.

Section 40A the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses . . . a motor vehicle . . . on a road when . . . the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which there carried . . . is such that the use of the motor vehicle involves a danger of injury to any person.

The test for this offence was not a subjective one. (The driver put forward the defence that he had the genuine belief of the driver that the boy was safe.)

It was an objective test, and, looking at the evidence, the magistrates had to be satisfied there was a danger of injury to any person having regard to the way in which the passenger in question was being transported. The court had correctly concentrated on the individual circumstances of what the boy was doing and the way in which he was being carried
---------------

Comments / advice would be useful ... Thanks

We wouldnt had minded a ticket under the Reg 100 Road Vehicles (Cons & Use) Regulations 1986 - Dangerous Vehicles as it would have been a non endorseable ..

They seem to have issued under s40 RTA 1991 ... which makes the same offence endorseable...

"Passenger STOOD on rear of vehicle holding load".??

Appalling grammar - means the passenger stood [on one occasion only, then did something else] not 'was standing' [continuously] which is presumably what plod meant to say.?!

Hi Jobo

any person "acting on instruction of a police officer" may be allowed to ignore certain Cons & Use and RTA regs. eg. carnival floats, charity santa floats, 'driver "follow that vehicle and ignore that no entry sign" etc. In effect, the officer gives his own dispensation to the driver AND takes the risk if it goes wrong.

Cheers Charybdis

hi char

think we should take this to the flame pit as were getting well of topic

but a carnaval float is not acting under the direction of a police officer?

plus the dispensation of acting on the instructions of a police officer apllies only to the RTA not the CUR

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993 Reg.6