That isn't really very fair though is it? I would say that most people wouldn't even realise that their emmissions were high. Some people don't even know why you have oil and water in a car, or how to top it up. I recently helped a lady at the garage up the road who had a slow puncture to put some air in the tyre. She hadn't a clue and managed to deflate it completely.
The last car that went for an MOT was the Discovery and if it hadn't been stuck on a machine first to check it, and if it hadn't been adjusted, then it would have failed. I had no idea that they were wrong, neither did Bruce. A much fairer thing to do would be to have to produce one of those vehicle defect things to the police station to say the fault has been repaired as Austin suggested. If you then don't comply, a fine would be fair.
Yeah, fine - make an exception for drivers if you like, however in every other area of UK Law ignorance is no defence.
I'm a little tetchy on this, and feel that anyone driving a tonne or more of motorised killing machine around has a personal - let alone legal responsibility to ensure that it's safe.
What about the brakes? If poor little old lady stepped on the anchor to find there was nothing there, and ran into a bus stop full of kids going to school would it be a case of 'poor old granny, didn't even know how to pump the tyres up, so how could she have been expected to know that brakes needed checking' - ?
Possibly so, however I'm more interested in encouraging people to act responsibly rather than relying upon 'spot checks' to identify dangerous, illegal or just plain stupid 'breaking of laws'.
My dad wouldn't let me drive his mouldy old van until I had learnt some car maintainace basics. Oil, water, where to put them and how to check them and why I needed them. He even taught me how to change a tyre - not that I'd be able to do it on any of our cars, as I don't think I'd be able to remove the wheel nuts let alone lift the wheel up, but I've done it on my sisters car. There are alot of people who think that all you have to do is put fuelin it, and go
It has always amazed me how little my Mum knows considering my Dad was always taking engines out of cars or rebuilding a gearbox. Since he died she has relied on my Uncle John or one of my brothers to fill up the window washer reservoir, or book it in for an MOT. She didn't even know where to put the oil in on her last car, didn't take any notice of the red light on the dashboard and wondered why her car broke down/siezed up.
My sister Becky's boyfriend is a mechanic, in the army, and since she met him Mum is apparently worse than she was before. At least this car should last her a little longer than the six months the last one did with Paul taking an interest in it every few weeks when he's home on leave!
I recently bumped into my sister and pointed out that her tyres looked flat. She clearly wasn't bothered, so I checked them. Between 8 and
15 psi all round, and the two fronts were, not surprisingly, smooth.
I gave her a serious shouting at and then rang her daily until she got them swapped. I doubt if she has checked them since. She pushes service intervals to the limit (and beyond) because she'd rather spend the money on a Burberry handbag or a weekend away.
Driving is a responsibility, not a right. If your car is not roadworthy because you can't be arsed to service it, pump the tyres up or have basic checks done then you are breaking the law. Likewise if you cannot afford the servicing and maintenance then you cannot afford to drive. Modern technology makes cars very safe and comfortable, and that can lull people into treating them like white goods - run them till they break and then call out the repair guy.
For example, the new tyre pressure monitors are, in some ways, a good advance (and have been a good little earner for me in several ways!). But the US legislation only requires a warning light when the tyre is way below pressure (far enough to be dangerous). So people won't bother checking their tyres (must be OK, 'cos the light aint on) and _more_ cars will drive around with underinflated tyres.
Tim Hobbs
'58 Series 2 '77 101FC Ambulance '95 Discovery V8i
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:38:00 +0100, Tim Hobbs woke me up from day-dreaming about allsorts of things and broke forth with the following words:
I personally think people who do not know the basic safety checks deserve to be fined, and I think they should have points put on the licence as well.
The thing is when I learnt to drive 1998, the thing i noticed was the instructor didn't even tell you what the weekly checks should be to make a car safe to drive (water, oil, tyres, fuel etc) I think it should be a part of the driving test to show the examiner that you know how to check the basics.....I had to when I took my PCV test a few months back, and that's a lot more involved, and if there is something wrong with the bus if stopped by the minsitry you can and will lose your licence.
Just my thoughts, but I think it gets the point across, that if the VI didn't do these spot checks then there would be a lot more dangarous cars/vans/lorries/buses on the roads.
On or around Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:57:25 +0100, Mother < "@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
in this case, perhaps a little too tetchy?
IMHO, it is: ["owner" may be substituted with "driver" or "keeper" as befits]
1) reasonable to expect the manufacturer to design the vehicle to keep working provided it's serviced at the specified service intervals.
2) reasonable to expect people who you pay to service the vehicle to actually do the required work, including checking brakes, and emissions, and all the other stuff. (thinking mainly of garages, here)
3) reasonable to expect the owner to take steps to carry out the required servicing, either themselves or by getting some competent person to do it; also to get the vehicle tested as required by the law (MoT)
4) reasonable to expect the owner to carry out visual checks of such things as tyres, lights which are easily and visually checked.
5) reasonable to expect the owner to take steps to rectify anything that he/she is advised will need attention (such as brakes or tyres which are worn near to the limit when it's serviced or MOT'd) before the next scheduled service or test.
6) reasonable to expect the owner to notice a sudden change in the performance of any aspect of the car, and to get it investigated.
None of those allow for emissions being out-of-spec. emissions, unless
*very* far out, will make no obvious symptoms or difference to the performance - the only real way to detect 'em is with a specialised bit of kit not available to most people. As such it's not reasonable to expect the owner to know whether or not the thing has got itself out of kilter, unless it's so far out that it doesn't run properly or belches smoke.
but by your system, how are responsible people to check vehicle emissions? Do they take it to be tested regularly (more than the annual MOT) and if so how often? every 6 months? every 2 months?
It's not something which you can readily check or notice, it IS checked annually in the MOT, and it's not reasonable to fine someone 60 quid for something they have no easy way of avoiding.
I;m all in favour of finning 'em for having bald tyres, or no brakes, or missing brake lights or any of a host of other things which *are* easy to detect and are also more safety-related.
although in many cases, a "get it fixed" will serve much better even so, with a fine to back it up if it's not fixed promptly. This system is already in place.
Is your vehicle at this precise moment in time complying with the emissions law?
If yes - how do you know? It could have gone out of synch since the last MOT
If no, how again do you know?
Now, a simpler question - are your tyres legal?
If yes, you clearly can see the tread is over 1.6 millimeters and there are no cuts etc.
If no - you can visually inspect them and decide to change them if they are illegal - if you decide not to, you know the result is a fine/endorsement if you get caught.
But with smoke emissions, particularly with diesels, you have no way of checking from day to day that your emissions have not shifted and become illegal. Now suppose you maintain your vehicle properly, and it is 11 months into the MOT and you get stopped for an emissions check and it fails - you are fined - no reduction for having an mot in the last 6 months!
Now, my land rover has passed an emissions check, but it does throw out black smoke on hard acelleration with a large trailer on the back - I think it would probably pass a roadside check - why should I be put in fear that it might not and get me a fine? They have made it an absolute offence like speeding.
I want to comply with the law - I have my vehicle serviced and take it to an mot station where they will not "overlook" defects - having done that, I think I have done my duty, paid my dues and I am damned if some tosspot from the local council is going to pull me over and levy a fine on me because his test equipment says my emissions are too high - whereas I would happily accept that if I neglect my tyres and they become bald, I deserve to be fined because that is something I can readily check.
These roadside checks were stopped some time ago because of the fact that they were levying fines on litle old ladies with almost brand new cars that had just set out to go shopping and whose cars were not properly warmed up resulting in a higher emissions check.
Apart from that, it remains to be seen as to whether the police use these stops to try and detect other offences, making us motorists an easy target once again.
A better system would be to hand out vehicle rectification tickets to insist the problem is recitified within say 21 days and the adjustment certified by an MOT station as now with the police system in some counties - a fine could then be imposed for non compliance - this is fairer and is more likely to be percieved as reasonable by most motorists.
They're allowed to do a visual inspection - no closer than 1m and they're not allowed to touch anything. If there is something they're then not happy about then they can issue you with a ticket to take the care for a more thorough inspection. I don't *think* they have the right to do anything more unless you agree to it but then I'm not a copper/lawyer.
I don't know where to begin explaining just how wrong you are.
Hydrogen sulphide, H2S, is a "reduced" sulphur compound produced when you burn sulphur-containing materials without having enough oxygen present. It's commonly produced by rich-running combustion processes, like you often see with a cold petrol engine or an accelerating diesel engine.
H2S has a characteristic "rotten eggs" smell. It dissolves to an extent in water but stays as hydrogen sulphide. It's produced naturally by sulphate-reducing bacteria, hence the rotten eggs connotation, and it's often found in littoral marine muds. It's fairly toxic; 0.05% in air will cause unconsciousness in 15 minutes, and will kill in 30. By comparison, hydrogen cyanide achieves a similar level of lethality at 0.015%.
There is no known simple environlmental process for converting hydrogen sulphide to sulphuric acid.
Sulphur dioxide, SO2, and sulphur trioxide, SO3, are "oxidised" sulphur compounds, produced when you burn sulphur-containing materials with an excess of oxygen. (SO3 is rarely formed; mostly, it's SO2.) It's commonly produced by lean-running combustion processes, like you often see with a hot petrol engine or a diesel on over-run.
SO2 and SO3 dissolve in water to produce sulphurous acid (H2SO3) and sulphuric acid (H2SO4), respectively. Sulphurous acid is ultimately oxidised further by natural processes to sulphuric acid. They are roughly half as toxic as hydrogen sulphide, with about 0.1% in air being lethal in 10 minutes or so. However, it's better known as a cause of asthma in those sensitive to it.
Being a gas, it's only present while the engine is running rich/cold. Once up to temperature, there's enough oxygen in the system that your sulphur ends up as SOx.
You can and will, but unless there's something really odd going on you won't get them both at the same time.
Brakes are a slightly different case. Drivers who drive the same vehicle regularly are expected to be able to notice significant problems with brakes (familiarity over time). Emissions are completely different because there's no obvious signs there's a problem.
Problem is that there are dozens of much more important areas of motoring regs to worry about. Banned drivers without tax, insurance or MOTs get little more than a slap on the wrist and another (pointless) ban.
I lived in Liverpool for several years. A knackered transit van never had any tax and collected about a dozen police warning stickers informing the owner to tax it or face the consequences, nothing happened. I drove a car I'd just bought less than 3 miles home, before I'd even got it home I'd been stopped for no tax disc and a check that I was insured (which I was). Had I been in that transit van in L'pool, I'd probably have been considered too awkward a target and left alone.
There's also talk somewhere of on the spot penalties for people who leave valuables on show in a parked 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.