Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Advice? dangerous use of a motor vehicle
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
Gray
Hi folks, been looking for a site to get some advice and this seems to be the best one smile.gif

I was stopped in my escort van at Shap on the M6 last thursday night at 12.15 am. The officer told me he had stopped the van for a routine check as "these sort of vans are used for allsorts" fair enough I thought and let him carry on. He knew from my name the van wasnt registered to me but to one my friends although it is insured by me and was fully legal. He then asked me to rotate the steering and checked my tyres which were fine.
This is when it gets complicated.....
He asked what was in the van, I explained my other half is undergoing chemotherapy at the moment and she was asleep in the back (airbed and quilts) and that she was very unwell, no excuse i know but perfectly true, I opened the rear doors, he shone his torch in to check on her and seemed satisfied I was telling the truth then asked me to accompany me to his car. After I got the lecture about the obvious dangers (which in hindsight I completely accept) he gave me a ticket for dangerous use and a 7 day producer. Then he said he wanted to search the van as he had smelt cannabis. My good humour was weaning by now as I dont smoke it and no-one has ever smoked it in that van, i protested and he seemed to think he was sure so I told him he would find morphine and several cancer drugs in the van, all prescribed but if he was going to get my other half (given her condition) out of the van and make her stand in the rain on the hardshoulder while he searched the van then he had better be sure he found something as I would make a complaint. This seemed to satisfy him and he decided not to bother so he then escorted me to a slip road and told me to sort it out before continuing.
Today I went into the police station with my documents, I couldnt find my licence so took my mot and insurance documents in. the girl behind the desk explained I would get a summons etc but to order a new licence from the dvla and when it came they would sort it out. She then went into the backroom to sort the paperwork out and came back out to tell me the registration number on my documents didnt match my ticket, we went outside and she verified my reg and that the motorway police had recorded the registration down wrong. she made note of this and that was that.
I have since been told this may be unenforcable for this reason and I was hoping one of the knowledgable here could shed some light on it?

Thanks for reading
Gray
mrh3369
What does it say on the ticket?
mickR
maybe the ticket for "dangerous use" ?

oh mrh you beat me to it tongue.gif
roadrunner 163
I assume you were given a CoFPN but regardless the answer is yes it is enforceable. The myth that a mistake on the ticket invalidates it is just that and minor errors (even reg numbers and car types) can be corrected very easily if the case was contested and went to court. Better you take the ticket than try your luck in court assuming you accept the facts you describe.
Gray
It was a yellow ticket with my details and the vehicle details on it (with the wrong reg) and some boxes ticked to say which documents I had to produce within seven days.
It also had dangerous use of a motor vehicle on it.
The girl in the police station kept that one but gave me another form today that mentions i hadnt been able to produce my licence and that the recorded reg number of the van was wrong, I'll run out and get it (its in my glovebox) smile.gif
jobo
go back to the beginning, there isnt( as far as i know) an offense of dangerous use, sounds like section 40 carring passengers in a dangerous position and or a C&U of carrying passengers with out a seat

have you been given a FPN ?

I wonder If the dispensation that the van was being used as an ambulance might apply, SP ???
Gray
It says the offence is an FPT?
I dont know much about these things so have no idea what that means lol
jobo
allowing that you cant accept the FPN coz of you not having your DL, though you can if there arnt complications get one in 24 hours, it will end up with a summons where the charge will be spelt out in detail, then we will know more
Gray
Ive got onto the DVLA about my licence so its just a wait now for the summons then?

Thanks for all the replies so far, I never expected such a fast response

Gray
jobo
we are good at fast, its finding a good defence for you thats difficult, i have in the back of my mind you can claim dispensation to some traffic laws if the vehicle is being used as an ambulance, and thats all i can think off as a way out,

others will say if they think this is a daft idea or not
uk_mike
There are no ambulance emptions that apply to the offence of using a motor vehicle whilst carrying passengers or a load in a manner likely to cause danger (which I assume is the allegation here).

In any case those ambulance exemptions that do exist only apply to vehicles adapted to be used as ambulances.
jobo
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:38) *
There are no ambulance emptions that apply to the offence of using a motor vehicle whilst carrying passengers or a load in a manner likely to cause danger (which I assume is the allegation here).

In any case those ambulance exemptions that do exist only apply to vehicles adapted to be used as ambulances.


so how do ambulances get away with having people lying down then ?

adapted how ? you mean putting a bed in the back ? a bit like the OP

and no they dont an ambulance is defined by its use not its design
uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:28) *
so how do ambulances get away with having people lying down then ?


Because the vehicle has been specifically adapted to carry passengers in that manner. The stretcher is is clamped to mountings provided for that purpose, and the passenger is strapped into the stretcher (with straps that comply with the seat belt rules).

There is very little risk of a patient being flung about the inside of an ambulance like a rag doll in the event of an collision, unless that collision is very severe. This is in sharp contrast to the fate that someone lying unrestrained on the floor of a van designed to carry goods would suffer (no offence to the OP!).
captain swoop
Someone having a kip on a matress in the back of a van isn't an ambulance. If it was on the way to a hospital and life or death then maybe.
jobo
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:46) *
Someone having a kip on a matress in the back of a van isn't an ambulance. If it was on the way to a hospital and life or death then maybe.


do you know what the definition of ambulance is, look up ambulant

QUOTE (uk_mike @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:45) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:28) *
so how do ambulances get away with having people lying down then ?


Because the vehicle has been specifically adapted to carry passengers in that manner. The stretcher is is clamped to mountings provided for that purpose, and the passenger is strapped into the stretcher (with straps that comply with the seat belt rules).

There is very little risk of a patient being flung about the inside of an ambulance like a rag doll in the event of an collision, unless that collision is very severe. This is in sharp contrast to the fate that someone lying unrestrained on the floor of a van designed to carry goods would suffer (no offence to the OP!).



and where have you got this from ?
mickR
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:46) *
Someone having a kip on a matress in the back of a van isn't an ambulance. If it was on the way to a hospital and life or death then maybe.


and the ambulance that ferries old dears around at 20mph?

QUOTE
There is very little risk of a patient being flung about the inside of an ambulance like a rag doll in the event of an collision, unless that collision is very severe. This is in sharp contrast to the fate that someone lying unrestrained on the floor of a van designed to carry goods would suffer (no offence to the OP!).




or a bus with no seat belts? would they not get flung around in an accident?
uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:49) *
and where have you got this from ?


Which bit? The adaptations inside the back of an ambulance? Well I have been in quite a few, thankfully in a position where I have been able to observe such things.

Or the results of being in a collision whilst unrestrained in the back of a van? As someone who spends much of my working life analysing collision reports - I have seen photographs of a few... The results are not very nice.

But this does not help the OP, so back on topic.

For the offence of dangerous use there is no menu of what is right or wrong - the individual circumstances of each allegation is considered. The test would be was the manner in which the passenger was carried in this particular case such that it was likely to be dangerous? In terms of carrying passengers the court would, in making it's decision consider if the vehicle was designed or adapted to carry passengers in the manner in question.
jobo
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 22:04) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 21:49) *
and where have you got this from ?


Which bit? The adaptations inside the back of an ambulance? Well I have been in quite a few, thankfully in a position where I have been able to observe such things.

Or the results of being in a collision whilst unrestrained in the back of a van? As someone who spends much of my working life analysing collision reports - I have seen photographs of a few... The results are not very nice.

But this does not help the OP, so back on topic.

For the offence of dangerous use there is no menu of what is right or wrong - the individual circumstances of each allegation is considered. The test would be was the manner in which the passenger was carried in this particular case such that it was likely to be dangerous? In terms of carrying passengers the court would, in making it's decision consider if the vehicle was designed or adapted to carry passengers in the manner in question.


No the bit about that being the criteria for safe use of an ambulance,, where the law your quoting
lowie
My first post, so hello all.
the OP also said "The officer told me he had stopped the van for a routine check as "these sort of vans are used for allsorts"
Do the police not need a reason for pulling one over now?
Just for driving an escort van seems a little silly to me.
They'll be shooting people for having a rucksack on next! rolleyes.gif
uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 22:08) *
No the bit about that being the criteria for safe use of an ambulance,, where the law your quoting


I am not quoting any law. I am expressing the opinion that carrying a passenger laying on a stretcher in a vehicle specifically designed to carry passengers in that matter would not constitute carrying them in a manner that is likely to cause danger, contrary to Regulation 100(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

There regulation can be found here. I would draw your attention to absence of any mention of any exemption for an ambulance, but also the the lack of any mention of any requirement that the passengers be seated.
jobo
Thats good, so if the van in question was adapted, ie had a bed fitted it would comply ? seatbelt not withstanding
southpaw82
QUOTE (lowie @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 22:20) *
Do the police not need a reason for pulling one over now?


No. Please don't use someone else's thread to ask your own questions.
uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 22:24) *
Thats good, so if the van in question was adapted, ie had a bed fitted it would comply ? seatbelt not withstanding


Well it would be for a court to decide if the arrangement complied. Hypothetically for the purposes of Reg 100, then I would imagine that any passenger using said bed might need to be restrained (using restraints designed for such a purpose), otherwise I would expect a hypothetical prosecutor might use the thrown about in the back argument, to convince a court that it contravened the Reg.

Somehow I don't think being in the bed in the back of a mobile home would pass muster, even if well tucked in, but you never know - perhaps Mr Freedman could get it past an inattentive magistrate. wink.gif

jobo
you throwing things that dont exist, restraints( if needed at all) would need to be suitable and sufficient, not sold as being ambulance restraints, no type approval requirement would exist
mickR
i think the point here is that the vehicle had been adapted albeit non profesionally, the OPs wife was not laying on top of his cement mixer and tools. as he wasnt doing an emergency dash i doubt he would have been driving in a manner to cause injury to his wife and aparently wasnt driving in a manner to cause his being stopped by Bib

as for being strapped to a stretcher in an ambulance, well not always the case, i recenty was unfortunate enough to have experienced the inside of an ambulance on blues and twos into central london, not exactly a straight route! however i was not strapped to any stretcher.
southpaw82
Was the van being used as an ambulance? You can't just go with the "conveyance of sick or injured". Otherwise every vehicle that happened to have a sick person in it could be classed as an ambulance - clearly an absurd proposition. If you were to run this line of argument (which I don't recommend) you'd have to look at how carrying her in the passenger seat belted up would have been detrimental to her health, preferably with medical evidence.
jobo
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:02) *
i think the point here is that the vehicle had been adapted albeit non profesionally, the OPs wife was not laying on top of his cement mixer and tools. as he wasnt doing an emergency dash i doubt he would have been driving in a manner to cause injury to his wife and aparently wasnt driving in a manner to cause his being stopped by Bib

as for being strapped to a stretcher in an ambulance, well not always the case, i recenty was unfortunate enough to have experienced the inside of an ambulance on blues and twos into central london, not exactly a straight route! however i was not strapped to any stretcher.


indeed and the ops OH might have a seat belt exemption,, dont the seat belt laws exemption ambulances ?, they must do, coz they dont use try point belts and there certainly is no a requirement to fit them if they wernt fitted as standard

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:06) *
Was the van being used as an ambulance? You can't just go with the "conveyance of sick or injured". Otherwise every vehicle that happened to have a sick person in it could be classed as an ambulance - clearly an absurd proposition. If you were to run this line of argument (which I don't recommend) you'd have to look at how carrying her in the passenger seat belted up would have been detrimental to her health, preferably with medical evidence.


no i think adapted for the transportation of a person with a disability is the was to go ?
uk_mike
I think thinks have drifted a little off topic.

Grey, as things have moved onto summons you have a little time as the prosecution have up to 6 months to put things in motion. In the meantime the first decision for you is to go with a guilty or not guilty plea.

To help you decide here is my veiw of things.

Firstly the error on the FPN won't help you as that won't form part of the evidence. That will come from the constables notes and memories, it may well be he has the correct reg in his notes, but even if he does not it will only help you if it could be used to cast doubt on his evidence. As is is likely to remember this incident (they are not very common), I suspect he will be able to convince the court that he has not mixed you up with someone else.

With regard to the charge, the prosecution would need to satisfy the court that you were driving the vehicle, whilst carrying a passenger and that the manner in which that passenger was carried was likely to cause danger. You will no doubt be aware of my view of that point by now, and as you mention you now accept that it may be dangerous. The question to ask yourself is how do you think it will look when described to a court (given that a prosecutor who is on the ball will work to get some of the arguments I have made about how it is dangerous into the evidence presented.

Once you have made a decision about which way you want to go come back and let us know and folks will be able to guide you through the process and advise you what your next steps should be once the summons arrive. In the meantime if you have further questions you need to ask to help you decide do ask them, and folks will endeavour to answer them.

QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:14) *
dont the seat belt laws exemption ambulances ?, they must do, coz they dont use try point belts and there certainly is no a requirement to fit them if they wernt fitted as standard


They do in fact. Reg 46 states that in ambulances only the drivers and front passenger seats must have seat belts. But the ambulances used up here (Scotland) certainly do have point belts in the back. The right hand stretcher is designed to double up as a seat for 3 people with seat backs mounted on the wall of the ambulance which are all fitted with 3 point belts. My experience is that the crew make a point of ensuring that seated passengers are belted in (although they sometimes have to travel unbelted if treating the patient), but I would imagine that if the situation warranted that their attention was better spent concentrating on the patient they might decide not to check that able bodied passengers were secured.
southpaw82
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:14) *
no i think adapted for the transportation of a person with a disability is the was to go ?


Do you have an authority for the proposition that would provide a defence to the charge contemplated?
mickR
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:02) *
i think the point here is that the vehicle had been adapted albeit non profesionally, the OPs wife was not laying on top of his cement mixer and tools. as he wasnt doing an emergency dash i doubt he would have been driving in a manner to cause injury to his wife and aparently wasnt driving in a manner to cause his being stopped by Bib

as for being strapped to a stretcher in an ambulance, well not always the case, i recenty was unfortunate enough to have experienced the inside of an ambulance on blues and twos into central london, not exactly a straight route! however i was not strapped to any stretcher.


indeed and the ops OH might have a seat belt exemption,, dont the seat belt laws exemption ambulances ?, they must do, coz they dont use try point belts and there certainly is no a requirement to fit them if they wernt fitted as standard


and.. regadless of it being or not being an ambulance i suspect there may be a consession due to the OPs OH health factor,
i cant see the diference between this situation and say a bus with someone laying on the back seat which in all probability would be far more dangerous, i dont see bus drivers being summoned and niether the bus seat nor the back of the van require seat belts.
or am i missing something here?
jobo
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:16) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:14) *
no i think adapted for the transportation of a person with a disability is the was to go ?


Do you have an authority for the proposition that would provide a defence to the charge contemplated?


from some of the adaptation ive done/seen done for the Disabled motorcylists

there are three primacacia facts
1) the Ops OH has a disability
2 The vehicle was adapted to meet that disability
3) the construction and use regs allow everything they dont specifically outlaw

if being in a prone position on a mattress isnt against the C&U regs then that isnt dangerous on its own, there are subsidiary issues like seat-belts and if the mattress was securely fixed, but seems as the copper didnt inspect and the op hasnt conform or dennied, its hard to say
southpaw82
I don't think a court would agree - but that's just my opinion.
uk_mike
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:19) *
and.. regadless of it being or not being an ambulance i suspect there may be a consession due to the OPs OH health factor,
i cant see the diference between this situation and say a bus with someone laying on the back seat which in all probability would be far more dangerous, i dont see bus drivers being summoned and niether the bus seat nor the back of the van require seat belts.
or am i missing something here?


Passenger carrying vehicles are specifically exempted from Reg 100 with relation to passengers via the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. Buses are also excluded from Reg 46. Goods vehicles though are not, although Reg 46 only applies to forwards facing seats, side and rear facing seats do not require seat belts.

Regs 46 - 48

I would point out that the OP was not charged in relation to any seat belt offences.


mickR
uk_mike, you said this was going off topic a little, but i contend it is exactly the topic as this is the bassis of the OPs ticket,

just had a thought, what about a car/van adapted to carry a wheel chair with the occupant seated? does that person have to be belted in? is there a requirement for the chair to be restrained? will the earth explode tommorrow? howhigh is a Chinaman
sorry its getting late wacko.gif
jobo
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:19) *
and.. regadless of it being or not being an ambulance i suspect there may be a consession due to the OPs OH health factor,
i cant see the diference between this situation and say a bus with someone laying on the back seat which in all probability would be far more dangerous, i dont see bus drivers being summoned and niether the bus seat nor the back of the van require seat belts.
or am i missing something here?


Passenger carrying vehicles are specifically exempted from Reg 100 with relation to passengers via the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. Buses are also excluded from Reg 46. Goods vehicles though are not, although Reg 46 only applies to forwards facing seats, side and rear facing seats do not require seat belts.

Regs 46 - 48

I would point out that the OP was not charged in relation to any seat belt offences.






no but assuming the Ops oh was rear facing, it takes the, she should have had a seatbelt thing out of the equation

QUOTE (mickR @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:39) *
uk_mike, you said this was going off topic a little, but i contend it is exactly the topic as this is the bassis of the OPs ticket,

just had a thought, what about a car/van adapted to carry a wheel chair with the occupant seated? does that person have to be belted in? is there a requirement for the chair to be restrained? will the earth explode tommorrow? howhigh is a Chinaman
sorry its getting late wacko.gif


no wheel chair just have use the friction brakes fitted to them, it wouldnt be a C&U issues if those brakes were dodgy and no seat belt is required, though most wheel chars have a lap belt fitted
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 8 Jun 2011 - 23:28) *
there are subsidiary issues like seat-belts and if the mattress was securely fixed, but seems as the copper didnt inspect and the op hasnt conform or dennied, its hard to say
The OP said it was an airbed. He also said he accepts the danger with hindsight, which I think would suggest there was nothing other than an airbed + quilts.

I'm not entirely sure how you'd securely fix an airbed in the back of a van. I don't believe just placing one in the back of a van is going to be enough to be seen as adapting the van.

The officer did look in the back of the van. He may well have seen it was an airbed.

Why would a court accept that lying on an airbed in the back is safer than lying on the floor or on the rear seats of a saloon, if the OP can't stand up and say that the airbed was secured and that there were suitable restraints?

The Rookie
The one argument I would look at is the fact that the seatbelt regulations don't require seatbelts to be retrofitted to older cars, so if I was still driving my X-reg (1981 not 2000!) car and had a passenger seated correctly in the back, would that make it dangerous, and would a court convict? I think not.

If the charge were carrying someone who was unbelted (as the front seat was available) that would be hard to fight, but was the person laying in the back of a van in any more danger (or create any more danger) than travelling in the rear of a car with no belts? Arguably they were almost certainly safer.

Simon
jobo
[quote name='CuriousOrange' date='Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 08:25' post='597738']
ts.

I'm not entirely sure how you'd securely fix an airbed in the back of a van. I don't believe just placing one in the back of a van is going to be enough to be seen as adapting the van.

/quote]


velcro ? ratchet straps, alradite

The issue is the one Simon touched upon, where we have had many cases of the police taking a potentially non endorsable set of circumstances and making it a mutch more serious offence by tagging dangerous on to it, leaving the OP with the reverse burden of proof to counter the PCs assertion that he thinks it is

we had it with the CV boot and again in the last few days with the child being carried on the mother knee. The difference between that one and this, is that there is a clear line of lodgic that a child strapped within the mother seatbelt is far more at risk of injury than one outside the seat belt or one free sitting with out a child seat

the question id pose9 to (paraphrase simon) was there any greater danger to the passenger than any number of alternative ( incontestably legal) scenarios like carrying an unbelted passenger on a bench seat in the back of a tranny or carrying an unsecured wheel chair bound person in the back of a people carrier

the think both of those have in common,is they dont breach the C&U regs and neither i would suggest would a number of scenarios around the OPs circumstances

I agree that presenting this in court might be problematic against an absolute deceleration by a PC that it was dangerous, but thats not to say it isnt a viable defence available to the OP, as long as he understands this limitation

I have know and been involved with not totally dissimilar cases around (home) adapted motorbikes, one in particular where we took the foot brake lever and stuck it ( replaced it) with handle bar lever on the same side as the clutch, the copper contention was this was dangerous, as he couldnt operate the clutch and the rear brake simultaneously the court disagreed as there was no requirement for this under the C&U regs

A good ( but rather expensive ) way of the op making his point would be to ''formally'' make the adaptation and get a SVA on it

based on past experience the OP will, when he realizes how mutch time trouble and expenses is involved in trying to defend this and the fact he may well end up with the points and fine anyway, decied to take the FPN, and who would blame him, that how they get away with it, more often than not
roadrunner 163
#this is one of the most insane mutilations of topics I have seen in ages.

Its a car derived van, its not made or adapted for use as an ambulance nor was the use an emergency.
Head out of books and regulations and look at it in the real world. OP was caught bang to rights, the obvious question is why if the OH needs to lay down as she was poorly after chemotherapy did they not make relevant arrangements with an ambulance to transport or she remain in hospital, rhetorical questions here but some the Magistrates will not be scared to ask.
also why not get in the front seat and crank the back down nice and flat.

For what its worth, an adaptation to transport people with disabilities (including ambulances) tend to use floor restraints to prevent the bed or chair moving and keeps the passenger restrained and not bounced around the cab in a collision of heavy braking,

keeping a spade a spade and not a mechanical aid controlled by manual manipulation of the biological link to assist in the excavation, of biological or otherwise substances as a means to achieve an increased efficiency in producing voids to receive alternative materials or for aesthetic purposes" this was and always will be a mattress in the back of a van to lay on.

Practical and comfortable for the lady YES legal NO.
jobo
your making a number of claims there which arnt supported by law

show me, where its says being reclined to the point of being prone is an offense

show me where the requirements for wheel chairs to be fixed ion a particular way arises from

show me where there is a general over ridding require for seatbelts 'restraints to be used for all passengers

your doing what the copper has done and just conclude that because its unconventional it must be illegal, with out being able to tell us why it is or more so than similare arrangments

there is no reason why i couldnt build a motorised bed, if id i mind to and be legal
roadrunner 163
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 17:33) *
your making a number of claims there which arnt supported by law

show me, where its says being reclined to the point of being prone is an offense

show me where the requirements for wheel chairs to be fixed ion a particular way arises from

show me where there is a general over ridding require for seatbelts 'restraints to be used for all passengers

your doing what the copper has done and just conclude that because its unconventional it must be illegal, with out being able to tell us why it is or more so than similare arrangments

there is no reason why i could build a motorised bed, if id i mind to and be legal


tongue.gif here we go again.

I did not say being relined was an offence, i suggested to avoid the offence sit in the seat and recline it. seat belt on job done..

Reg 100 of con and use 1986 probably covers it sufficiently:
QUOTE
Maintenance and use of vehicle so as not to be a danger, etc

100.—(1) A motor vehicle, every trailer drawn thereby and all parts and accessories of such vehicle and trailer shall at all times be in such condition, and the number of passengers carried by such vehicle or trailer, the manner in which any passengers are carried in or on such vehicle or trailer, and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load of such vehicle or trailer 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.

Provided that the provisions of this regulation with regard to the number of passengers carried shall not apply to a vehicle to which the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 apply.

(2) The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times be so secured, if necessary by physical restraint other than its own weight, and be in such a position, that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person or property by reason of the load or any part thereof falling or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the vehicle.

(3) No motor vehicle or trailer shall be used for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or be likely to cause danger or nuisance to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on a road.


I made no definite statements just common sense and experience, the presence of danger is question of fact and the test of the relevance of the potential danger caused is objective, DPP v POTTS (2000) RTR 1 and the objective test is highligted in Gary v DPP (1999) RTR 339.

Incidentally the police officer issued the FPN because he believes the offence to be committed and suspects the OP to be guilty of the offence, its for the courts decide if the OP was guilty if the OP wishes it to be put to the test.

As for making a road legal bed, by a Rover instead. laugh.gif
jobo
classing people as a load, is problematic in fact it would help the op no end, as a person as a load could quite easily be thrown in the back of a van or in the boot of a car, on the roof rack for that matter subject to strapping, but it would seem that unsecured load is not going to be the charge ? and passengers are clearly delineate in the C&U regs from loads

As ive tried to explain above, you can do anything you want, car beds house beds, canal boats as cars, provided you meet the C&U regulations, but you make a good point, can a vehicle which meets its obligations under C&U still be considered dangerous, or more to the point, could the use of that vehicle with in its design criteria be considered dangerous use, allowing your not breaking any other rta requirements

youve made a point about the scale of adaptation, id class that as an intended change to a vehicle to allow another or extend the use, it could be a very minimal, putting a seatbelt extension on to allow a fat person to belt up would be such, as i would suggest would be fitting a baby seat, the fact it is easily removable isnt really the point

so, is carrying a passenger in a manner for which the car has been adapted, IF both the car and the adaptation meet the C&U regs, prima facia dangerous ? id say not, is it possible to for a court to make a finding that a car meet the C&U is in a dangerous condition/use, im struggling to see how ?

101 wouldnt count as its not the part that causing the danger, the accusation is its a lack of parts, ie a seat ET AL, unless you can support a claim that a mattress is going to injure his OH

im confident that i could build a similar arrangement to the OPs and meet all legal requirements (and get a SVA), thats not to say he has, just that it might have done

The Rookie
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 18:56) *
id say not, is it possible to for a court to make a finding that a car meet the C&U is in a dangerous condition/use, im struggling to see how ?

In fact it is not, I was found a case (didn't bookmark it - but with some effort you'd find it) where a tractor driver was convicted of driving a dangerous vehicle after a motorcyclist impalled himself on bale lifting tines on the front, this was overturned at appeal as the vehicle was permitted by C&U to be driven in such a condition (exposed tines to the front) and therefore it could not be classed as dangerous.

Simon
mickR
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 21:11) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 18:56) *
id say not, is it possible to for a court to make a finding that a car meet the C&U is in a dangerous condition/use, im struggling to see how ?

In fact it is not, I was found a case (didn't bookmark it - but with some effort you'd find it) where a tractor driver was convicted of driving a dangerous vehicle after a motorcyclist impalled himself on bale lifting tines on the front, this was overturned at appeal as the vehicle was permitted by C&U to be driven in such a condition (exposed tines to the front) and therefore it could not be classed as dangerous.

Simon


good find simon, a clear case of when commom sense goes out of the window.
mickR
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 17:33) *
there is no reason why i couldnt build a motorised bed, if id i mind to and be legal


to late mate http://www.bbc.co.uk/blackcountry/features...rised_bed.shtml
and http://www.robertprice.co.uk/robblog/archi...rised_Bed.shtml

also roadrunners comment
QUOTE
also why not get in the front seat and crank the back down nice and flat.

not that you could do that in a van anyway as the load floor would not allow that much recining, but....
would that not be exactly the same as being in the back? the seatbelt (if worn) would be rendered completly usless, therefore the occupant would be in danger. whats the difference?
Gray
things have moved on a little....
I got a fine in my absence at court of £450
the dvla have revoked my license and marsdons are after me! (bailiffs)

I need to get moving on this so...
I need to send a letter to court to ask either time to pay or appeal the fine..
I will send my licence off to dvla for the 3 points.
marstons can go away....

I need help with a letter for court......urgently..

thanks in advance

gray
jobo
you may need to give a bit more info

you didnt enter a plea,

you did enter a plea

you didnt pay the4 fine

why
Gan
If you send your licence away it's game over

OPs only find themselves in this situation if they either didn't receive the summons or ignored it. If you didn't know about it you only have 21 days to go to the local court and make a Statutory Declaration that you knew nothing about the proceedings and get the conviction set aside.

What's the story ?
Gray
story.....
got a ticket...£60 and 3 points

couldn't produce because licence was destroyed in a fire and was waiting for it back.

went to police station with other docs and explained situation

they kept the ticket.

didn't hear anything and forgot about it.
next thing was fine from court of £450..and 3 points....WTF?

I now have my licence back...ready to send for points...

dvla revocked it...that has been sorted out and am ready to send it..


I'm not happy that the fine was that much over the £60 ticket.
I am happy to pay the £60 if I could appeal to the court..

the police have the ticket so I couldn't enter a plea and I didn't want to go to lakes to the court there.

now Marston bailiff wants £75 + the fine...

I need help with a letter asking court to re open my case.

I am reg disabled, I have little or no spare cash so paying the fine in one go is a no no.

help......lol
Aretnap
There is a summons missing from that account. It sounds like a summons was issued and never reached you for some reason - have you changed address recently? As you didn't turn up at the hearing you were convicted in your absence.

When did you first become aware that you had been convicted in your absence? Did you receive anything from the court before the bailiffs letter? If it was less than 21 days ago you should contact your local magistrates' court asap and make a statutory declaration to have the conviction set aside.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.