Gresham Family tragedy takes a twist

In message , David J. Button writes

What is "totally" unroadworthy? No handbrake? - well not on the rear wheels where you would normally find one. Made from 5 different vehicles? - well in the "normal" world being made from 2 vehicles would be enough to cause outrage amongst the great unwashed, but this IS a Land Rover we're talking about. I hope Mr Gresham's team can get that across to any jury. Personally I think this leaking of prosecution information is disgraceful and prejudicial to a fair hearing.

Now I must stop immediately as I've just realised I have no formal qualification in typing - or scratching my arse come to think of it.

ISTR that on the MOT cert notes, there's some disclaimer about it not being a guarantee that the vehicle is fit to drive, I can't check now as I'm away from home with only limited net access (no web) and my home network machines only have the front of my MOT certificates scanned in, not the rear with the notes.

However, due to the limited checks done, it's no guarantee that the vehicle is safe to drive and I'm fairly sure it says so.

There's not enough checks done to be sure the vehicle is safe, and I'm pretty sure it states that somewhere on the cert, but I can't check right now.

At any rate, it should be pretty obvious that it's not possible to be sure a vehicle is safe just by checking it, you can get close to it by exhaustive checking but never 100% sure, and an MOT is far from an exhaustive check.

Quote from the new style certificate:-

"Warning: A test certificate is *not* evidence that the vehicle is in a satisfactory condition."

Also, on the back:

"An MOT Test Pass confirms that, when the vehicle was examined in accordance with Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it met the legal minimum standards for those items prescribed under the the Act.

*It does not mean that the vehicle fully meets all legal requirements* or that it will continue to be roadworthy for the next year"

So, it can pass an MOT, & still be illegal to drive. I added the emphasis.

Maybe I should start worrying, mine is made up of major parts from *at least* five vehicles that I know about, plus (when the work's finished) a new chassis not made by Land Rover Ltd. In fact, the only part I'll guarantee to be as it came from the factory is the bulkhead. In fact, to be exact, I'll only guarantee the maker's plate on the bulkhead as original, because goodness only know what the Army did to it before I bought it.

The latest - Nigel Gresham's appearance at Lincoln Crown Court today 29th July

> >

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

That's not what the government web site says.

It says there's a points system that applies to all vehicles.

I have a suspicion we're about to find out...

Hmm, 12 seater? Is it a 130" then?

On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:04:30 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

There are enough checks to state that *at the time of the test* it's roadworthy. They certainly check the state of brakes, even brake pad wear if they're visible, also condition of brake pipes and hoses. Certainly they test brake function and brake efficiency and brake balance, ditto quite comprehensive checks of steering.

Now, nothing in the MOT says that it will stay roadworthy after it's left the test station. For example, a tyre can have the legal minimum tread and it passes the test, yet in 100 miles could be below legal minimum, or for example a brake hose or pipe could function correctly at the time of the test and have no visible fault, yet could fail thereafter.

However, if a brake hose were to fail or other component break unexpectedly, that would not be grounds for prosecution. To prove DBDD, they have to prove that he was knowingly driving an unroadworthy vehicle, and to prove that, AFAICS, they need to show beyond reasonable doubt that there was a serious fault, pre-existing, that he knew about yet had not fixed and drove the vehicle anyway.

I, like most of us, have no doubt driven vehicles with minor brake faults. However, I've not driven one where I've known that there was a good chance of total brake failure. I've even driven them with leaky hydraulics, but only after satisfying myself that the leak was sufficiently small as not to cause total failure and also I keep the fluid well topped up. Naturally, it gets repaired ASAP. If I do have one with seriously lacking brakes (e.g. one circuit failed in a twin-circuit system), it doesn't go on the road 'til they're fixed. If it happens on the road, and it's not viable to fix it, I'll drive well within the limits of the available braking 'til I get home.

Same applies when driving it though: you can check the vehicle before driving (fluid levels etc.) but you have no way to predict that, for example, a component may fail en route.

So you really believe that a vehicle can be said to be 100% safe just on the basis of the tests that are performed at an MOT? Even restricting yourself to the time of the test? There's nothing dangerous that could escape the eye of the tester in the short time it's there?

On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:33:01 +0100, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

the points system applies to mixing and matching different vehicles though. You're allowed to replace like-with-like. so, for example, using the chassis from 1 110, axles from another, engine from a third, and so on, to assemble 1 working vehicle, is OK.

Using a totally different engine, box, axles, suspension etc. may run you into trouble.

OK, been looking:

------------------------ Vehicles that have been rebuilt using a mix of new or used parts

In order to retain the original registration mark:

• cars and car-derived vans must use:

The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque); or a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original supported by evidence from the dealer or manufacturer (e.g. receipt).

And two other major components from the original vehicle - ie suspension (front & back); steering assembly; axles (both); transmission or engine.

If a second-hand chassis or monocoque bodyshell is used, the vehicle must pass a an enhanced single vehicle approval (ESVA) or single vehicle approval (SVA) test after which a "Q" prefix registration number will be allocated.

--------------------------

So, if you use a new chassis or original chassis (or repair the original chassis) you don't have SVA and don't have a Q plate.

Then there's this, in "radically altered but not kit", which I guess would cover making a soft-top rangie or a pickup or suchlike.

--------------------------- Allocating a vehicle registration mark

The vehicle must score eight or more points to retain the original registration mark. If less than eight points are scored or a second-hand or modified chassis or altered monocoque bodyshell is used, an enhanced single vehicle approval (ESVA), single vehicle approval (SVA) or motorcycle single vehicle approval (MSVA) certificate will be required to register the vehicle. A 'Q' prefix registration number will be allocated. Scoring components

The following values will be allocated to the major components used:

• chassis or body shell (body and chassis as one unit - monocoque ie direct replacement from the manufacturer) (original or new) = 5 points * suspension = 2 points * axles = 2 points * transmission = 2 points * steering assembly = 2 points * engine = 1 point

Where there is evidence that two vehicles have been welded together to form one (ie 'cut and shut') a 'Q' mark will be allocated. ESVA, SVA or MSVA will be required.

-----------------------------

Which I read to say that (in LR terms) if you've welded 2 chassis together, you've got to do SVA, otherwise, it's points system. Since the registration is linked to the chassis number (I think) the fact that all the other components add up to 9 is moot. Boils down to chassis and 2 other bits, as with the rebuilt standard vehicle thing.

If you go outside the requirements, you need SVA (or ESVA).

as for SVA, I find this:

------------------------- Your vehicle will be subject to the SVA scheme if it is one of the following:

• Commercial Import * Personal Import * Amateur Built Vehicle * Very Low Volume (VLV) Vehicles * A vehicle manufactured using parts from a previously registered vehicle * Hearse * Armoured Vehicle * Rebuilt Vehicle * Left Hand Drive Vehicle (imported)

---------------------

ESVA covers the following points from the dates given:

---------------------- Key Areas

• Seat Belt Anchorage's (1/7/1991) (Passenger) * Protective Steering (1/7/1991) (Passenger) * Noise and Silencers (1/7/1991) (Passenger and Goods) * Exhaust Emissions (1/1/1993) (Passenger and Goods) * Brakes (1/4/1995) (Passenger and Goods) * Seat Belt Installations (1/7/1997) (Passenger) * CO2/Fuel Consumption (1/1/1997) (Passenger) * Anti-Theft Device (1/10/1998) (Passenger) * Frontal Impact Protection (1/10/2003) (Passenger) * Side Impact Protection (1/10/2003) (Passenger)

-------------------------

and there are various ways to prove compliance.

On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:50:05 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

If I drove it out of the test station and suffered a major brake failure, I'd be complaining about the competence of the testers.

nothing *major* should escape. Although, as we all know, it can.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:50:46 +0100, "GbH" wrote this gibberish:

110 seats 12 (well mine did), three in the front, three in the middle and three on each of the bench seats in the back, cam with standards (mostly lap) belts for 12 bodies.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:21:13 +0100, "David J. Button" wrote this gibberish:

faulty braking system - that could be bad news in this case.

no handbrake - thats like saying it landed in the drink due to a defective headlight, plain irrelevant, cant possible have contributed.

altered the vehicle himself - most people do that, is that not legal somehow?

all a sad tale.

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

That's my reading as well, but as I said, you could 'go over' with a big 'engine, gearbox, diffs and suspension change', like the people who were putting Hummer style 6 litre V8 diesels and three speed auto gearboxes and new diffs and suspensions in about ten years or so ago...

Reading the rules these days they'd need to get SVA or whatever.

I'm not sure if people are still doing stuff like that with diesel at just under £6 a gallon...

Basically smacks of CPS trying to justify bringing the prosecution and going for trial by media to boot, which as far as I recall is not a valid method under law in the UK!

Right, so what was all that whopping great big post of yours all about then? Bored or something? ;-)

So how is this case different from others, where some small amount of information is released about a trial? Or are you just spitting your incorehent thoughts out and seeing who treads in them as they pass by?

*sigh* incoherent...

Ah well.