Report those smoky lorries

zeon999

Nice to see everybody getting along so well. lol

Why are people so rude and act like the are so amazing on the internet?

Its a good idea being able to report vehicles that look like they are a bit to smokey, but my worry is people should be concentrating on the road not taking down vehicle details to snitch on them for something.

The other thing is just cos something is a bit smokey dont mean it will fail emmisions test.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

Well it wasn't coming from his trailer. Where else but the exhaust?

The engine if an injector pipe has split and is spraying diesel over the engine.

Wig wrote: »

Are you sure when you see those cars they don't have their front and rear position lamps painted or masked over? Because as we both now know that would be entirely legal during a clear daylight hours.

You mean the ones that wouldn't be legal as clearly stated in Table 1 of the RVLR which requires ALL vehicles with 3 or more wheels to be fitted with a front and rear position lamp regardless of age?

Wig

Conor wrote: »

The engine if an injector pipe has split and is spraying diesel over the engine.

Ok, so he'll get it fixed, nothing for you to worry about on his behalf then.

You mean the ones that wouldn't be legal as clearly stated in Table 1 of the RVLR which requires ALL vehicles with 3 or more wheels to be fitted with a front and rear position lamp regardless of age?

I see you still haven't asked someone who knows what they are talking about. Regs 18 & 4

cyclonebri1

Lol Conor, you're always worth a laugh,


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Wig

Conor wrote: »

And you're obviously thick as dog dirt.

:rotfl: I only hope when you finally find out which one of us is correct you have the courage to admit it.

I assume this is the part in Section 4 you refer to:

Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to-

• (a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp,

That in conjunction 4(4) (masked lights are not to be treated as lights for the purposes of these regulations). Notice there is no qualification in 4(3)(a) as to which vehicles it applies to, therefore it applies to ALL vehicles with no front or rear position lamps fitted.

Now the only slight problem to that is that in Section 1, vehicles with 3 or more wheels are REQUIRED to have a front and rear position lamp so this doesn't apply.

It's the second time you have mentioned 3 wheels or more, I can only assume it is your last dieing attempt to explain to yourself what 4(3)(a) is all about. :rotfl:, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad, you are so full of anger, at the suggestion that you have made a mistake - (actually you were full of anger when you saw my initial suggestion that no lights are legal) - but I digress - You appear to be making the point (not very well I might add) that because your quoted schedule 1 applies to vehicles 3 wheels or more, that 4(3)(a) applies to vehicles with 2 wheels or less. There are 2 things wrong with this arguement
1) 4(3)(a) does not specify any particular group of vehicle
2) Schedule 1 also applies to 2 wheeled vehicles :rotfl: just scroll down the page to table II :rotfl:

And I can't even work out what you think there is in Section 18 to support your argument.

Perhaps you ought to look in the mirror whilst reading the first line of your previous reply you directed at me then

But I will educate you on this, if I may be so bold. First of all it is not a section it is a regulation. Second, Reg.18 says something like (I do not have it to hand) "Save as to the previous provisions within these regulations.....bla bla bla all vehicles should bla bla bla with schedule 1"

"save as to previous provisions" translated into Conorish would be something like "Except where in regulations 1 to 17 of these regulations would allow"

I hope you can see now that it is saying "There are exceptions to this regulation"

Now I hope you can admit you were wrong. But in the event you can't I suggest an independent arbitrator. You should be familiar with Honestjohn backroom? And if so you should be familiar with DVD from "discussion" backroom "DwightVanDriver" a highly respected and knowlegeable member from Honestjohn in all things "Traffic".

Go there, start a thread titled
"attn DVD - RVLR 1986 vehicles can legally have no lights on the road?"
Lay out the relevant link to RVLR -1986, and reference the relevant regulations 4, 18 & Schedule 1.

See what response you get.

Conor_3

From what I've seen of the moronic content posted in HonestJohn, non of it is worth a toss. They all tell each other what they want to hear.

And I phoned VOSA. Guess what? You're talking bollox mate.

Wig

You mean you talked to a numpty at VOSA call centre.

I find numpties are a bit like government surveys, you get the answer you desire depending on how you word the question.

Well come on then, prove me wrong via logic using the legislation provided. How do you explain 4(3)(a) & 4(4)

I can also tell you (before you provided me with the RVLR 1986 which proved I was correct) that I have asked the MOT manual website host whether any car without lights would pass an MOT for daylight use only, he replied "yes".