And politicians - the group I meant (you as a CS would've no doubt noted that type of phraseology in political posturing, if not literally then in principle).
I understand and agree, and note particularly your last adjective above.
That was pretty much my initial thought.
That's their challenge, and, if his defence IS adequate, the CPS have a job on.
It doesn't however prevent it being another horrible ordeal for the Gresham family, and of questionable necessity. Unless, of course, there is another agenda.
In was wondering when the conspiracy theorists would emerge.
And the 100 bhp limit, another favourite of Bangemann. None of which ever came to pass, of course (the leg protector issue went away when it was clearly demonstrated that they increased, rather than prevented, injury - a victory for rationality and evidence-based legislation). So much for the grand conspiracy.
The above throws a little more light on the case for the prosecution.
"The basis of the case relates to the state this vehicle was in. It was totally unroadworthy. "It was found to be comprised of major components from five different vehicles. It had a faulty braking system and no handbrake. "It is claimed he altered the vehicle himself, even though he has no qualifications in vehicle maintenance - although he is a welder."
No mention of faulty suspension as I have hear from other quarters.!!!!
On or around Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:21:13 +0100, "David J. Button" enlightened us thusly:
Seems odd to me that with the amount of stuff that's been done to it (wheels, tyres, rollcage, harnesses etc., that he'd neglect to have brakes.
Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could assemble parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal motor - and that without any formal qualifications as an automotive engineer.
Of course. That's why we have the MoT test - whatever your skills, if it's passed as safe by a qualified tester, then it should be safe. I hate this idea that the only people we trust to do things are people with a "formal qualification". Often, all a qualification means is that you have ticked the right boxes in some modular multiple-choice question paper, with unlimited re-sits of the bits you got wrong.
Anyone who goes onto the roads with an unroadworthy vehicle is reckless at best, and deserves everything he gets. But there are many ways to make and keep a vehicle roadworthy without going anywhere near some artificial qualification. Long live the skilled amateur. My fear is that the "5 vehicles" angle will ensure that he is tried and found guilty by the media and the ignorant public, whatever the quality of the work.
I suppose now is the time to drag out the old chestnut about professionals (or "people with formal qualifications") building the Titanic, and amateurs building the Ark.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find many "qualified in vehicle maintance" saying a Land Rover has no hand brake, after all there are no cables to the rear wheels are there.
As you are surely well aware in this day and age unless you have done a "training" course you are not allowed to do anything. Certainly not if what ever you are doing could be considered the remotest bit technical.
My DII could be considerd as being made from several "different vehicals", it's had a replacement gearbox, the wheels are not those that came with it when I bought it, niether are the tyres, nor are any of the brake discs or pads, or clutch or two of the wheel hubs, or the rear air bags and compressor or the radiator...
More salt required.
And even more "The scene of the tragic accident last September, with the Land Rover *in which* the four children died being hauled out of the River Witham."
The body of the article clearly says that all four children died some hours or days later *in hospital*.
If they can't get basic facts right what else have they got wrong or misinterpreted for the sake of a "good story".
Think in this case your selection of that acronym is both incorrect, inappropriate and unfortunate. SUV, Sports Utility Vehicle!!! I think you mean SVA, Single Vehicle Approval.
On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:20:32 +0100, "GbH" enlightened us thusly:
AFAIK SVA applies only to one-offs of non-standard type. I don't think it applies to rebuilding a 110 using parts from other 110s.
I didn't have to do it for putting an RR V8 and auto box into the 110. I think it may apply if you do major modification to the chassis or suspension, such as for example converting a leaf-sprung chassis to coils.
You and many others here who have a few clues would probably make a better job of it than many 'properly' qualified people (I've worked with some shocking automotive engineers who should never have been let loose on a wheelbarrow let alone a road going vehicle).
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.