I see why people want their own back. My friend was pulled by a WPC for having a tail light out, so he apologised and said he'd replaced it and opened the boot and got the spare one out and started to unclip the covers and he noticed she was still stood behind him and when he looked and asked her what she was doing, she said she was writing a ticket and he would need to have it tested my an MOT center. He explained he was replacing it and she said she didn't have time to stand there and wait until he had.
8< SNIP 8< Unecessary views removed. DD
|
I see why people want their own back. My friend was pulled by a WPC for having a tail light out, so he apologised and said he'd replaced it and opened the boot and got the spare one out and started to unclip the covers and he noticed she was still stood behind him and when he looked and asked her what she was doing, she said she was writing a ticket
I see the cop's point here. If the bulb could be fitted so easily, why hadn't he fitted it when he came out of the shop rather than leaving it in the boot?
|
read it again no wheels (i assume that means you dont drive)?
i sold a car to a 17 year old girl 2 weeks ago i was speaking to her dad on friday and he told me she had been fined £30 outside his house by a police motorbike that had followed her to the door for having her rear fogs on, she apologised to the officer but he still gave her a ticket ,to say i was dismayed was an understatement ,the poor lass did the best she could and was penalised .This will go with her forever now and if it was me at that age it would make me torn and twisted and bitter that a reprimand on a new driver couldnt be given.
|
read it again
Done that Old Man, and I still read it the same way.
Ishok wrote "said he'd replaced it and opened the boot and got the spare one out". I read that as meaning that a new bulb had been bought but not fitted -- otherwise why was the bulb dead with a spare one in the boot?
What do you think it means?
no wheels (i assume that means you dont drive)?
No, it means that I do not curently own a car. I drive about 3-5,000 miles a year in other vehicles.
|
|
|
|
nowheels, Bulbs do blow whilst you are driving and the fact the guy had a spare set shows a responsible driver and speaks volumes - many people do not carry spares. As usual totaly unfair policeing intent on raiseing goverment revenue.
Paul
|
nowheels, Bulbs do blow whilst you are driving and the fact the guy had a spare set shows a responsible driver and speaks volumes - many people do not carry spares.
As above, that's not how I read the account given.
As usual totaly unfair policeing intent on raiseing goverment revenue.
Come on, the bottom line is that the driver is responsible for having working lights, and that particular driver had one not working. Whenever I've had a bulb blow, I check it again regularly, because my experience is that when a bulb blows once it seems frustratingly likely to blow again (electrical fault or whatever, I duuno what causes these things).
I'm sure the cop has heard umpteen different excuses, and it's quite reasonable to say "pay the penalty" as a reminder to take care in the future. It's a bit paranoid and rather implausible to regard it as a revenue-raising exercise: I doubt there's much if any profit out of the £30 fine when you add up the officer's time and the cost of processing the payment.
I'm a bit growly about this one, because driving back across Ireland after the new year on a 5am start, I was horrified how many vehicles were missing headlight or tail light bulbs. It's not a complicated or expensive thing to get right, and I was delighted when I found a Garda roadblock checking everyone's bulbs. I hope they fined all those with broken bulbs, regardless of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
I see why people want their own back. My friend was pulled by a WPC for having a tail light out, so he apologised and said he'd replaced it and opened the boot and got the spare one out and started to unclip the covers and he noticed she was still stood behind him and when he looked and asked her what she was doing, she said she was writing a ticket and he would need to have it tested my an MOT center. He explained he was replacing it and she said she didn't have time to stand there and wait until he had.
The offence of driving without light(s) had been comitted, so she was correct in issuing a ticket. Otherwise it would be like shoplifting, being stopped and then offering to take the goods back.
It's too late.
|
The offence of driving without light(s) had been comitted, so she was correct in issuing a ticket. Otherwise it would be like shoplifting, being stopped and then offering to take the goods back. It's too late.
Santimonious claptrap. I can decide whether I shoplift, but not whether my bulb fails between inspections.
|
Santimonious claptrap. I can decide whether I shoplift, but not whether my bulb fails between inspections.
Whining claptrap ;)
You can't decide whether the bulb fails, but you can decide whether you bother to spend a moment checking whether your bulbs are working, which you know is a requirement for taking your vehicle out on the road.
|
no wheels (i assume that means you dont drive)?
No, it means that I do not curently own a car. I drive about 3-5,000 miles a year in other vehicles.
i suggest you get yourself a vehicle of your own and see how many times you will miss a bulb,because as said bulb lit now oh look its gone give me a ticket officer,thats why bulbs are sold at garages they are serviceable items with a finite life which cannot be measured,
|
i suggest you get yourself a vehicle of your own and see how many times you will miss a bulb,because as said bulb lit now oh look its gone give me a ticket officer,thats why bulbs are sold at garages they are serviceable items with a finite life which cannot be measured,
Been there. Of course they break unpredictably -- the question is simply how often you check them.
|
|
|
|
>> Santimonious claptrap. I can decide whether I shoplift, but not >> whether my bulb fails between inspections. Whining claptrap ;) You can't decide whether the bulb fails, but you can decide whether you bother to spend a moment checking whether your bulbs are working, which you know is a requirement for taking your vehicle out on the road.
OK I'll take the bait - unless you can guarantee that the bulb will never fail during a journey, and you inspect at the beginning of *every* trip (as I'm sure you do) then it could even happen to you, as perfect as you are ;-)
|
|
All I can say is thank heaven my car lets me know if a bulb has blown. Should be standard equipment on all vehicles, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
It's not easy to change some bulbs...
|
|
|
OK I'll take the bait - unless you can guarantee that the bulb will never fail during a journey, and you inspect at the beginning of *every* trip (as I'm sure you do) then it could even happen to you, as perfect as you are ;-)
No, I'm not claiming perfection, and it could happen to me. But if it does happen, it's my fault (through negligence) that my vehicle is unroadworthy -- not the police officer's fault for enforcing a rather sensible bit of the law.
|
some cars are designed in sutch a way as to prevent diy bulb changes an d this negtes a trip to the dealer to fix once the fault is identified. the ofence is nothing like shoplifting as sudgested. Remember also that some times the requerd bulb is out of stock.
|
Remember also that some times the requerd bulb is out of stock.
In which case the driver can choose whether to continue using a vehicle which they know to be unroadworthy. Fair enough to whine at the dealer, not fair to whine at the police oficer.
|
|
There has to be an element of judgment rather than a hitler like enforcement of rules regardless.
|
There is no revenue in Defect Rectification Notices. Only perhaps to the garage that stamps the chit. Certainly not to the government. Fixed Penalties cost as much, if not more, than the admin costs of issuing one.
Sorry to spoil your fun but having a defect occur in the course of a journey attracts a statutory defence, very rare but doesn't make it fiction.
For every nasty cop story, there is generally an attitude problem from an equally nasty driver. Hitler has a capital H, much as he is a hate figure of our times.
|
|
NW, surely you are winding us all up?
In any case, if the WPC can see that the bulb is being replaced and the driver is sensible enough to carry spares, then why have to send him to have it checked elsewhere, that's just pedantic, and my point was, that if the Pilice treated you like this, you would be cross when you see them zooming around with a headlamp out, elbow on the window sill, and no signals on a roundabout where they would be of use to other road users, and this is what we see every day.
|
|
I would explain that I was going to change it at the side of the road but couldn't. Then ask the nice Policeman to do it for me :-)
|
|
ooh I was stopped by a cop in North Wales last winter with a salted plate, he warned me about the offence and gave me a chance to clean it before setting off. I would have cheerfully cleaned itwith my best silk tie in those circumstances.
|
NW, surely you are winding us all up?
No.
In any case, if the WPC can see that the bulb is being replaced and the driver is sensible enough to carry spares, then why have to send him to have it checked elsewhere, that's just pedantic,
Not really. It's underlining the point that these things do need to be checked, and that a tail light is an important bit of equipment.
and my point was, that if the Pilice treated you like this, you would be cross when you see them zooming around with a headlamp out, elbow on the window sill, and no signals on a roundabout where they would be of use to other road users, and this is what we see every day.
You really see that every day? I can't really ever seeing that at all, and I think it sounds like you are exzaggerating.
I'd be annoyed about a police car with a headlamp out and I'd be inclined to report it if I could. But that rare failing doesn't mean that a motorist with a blown bulb shouldn't get a ticket.
|
|
'Every day' is a colloquial figure-of-speech for 'very regularly' - you really should get out more if you don't know that! ;)
|
|
The last time a bulb went in one of my cars was May 1994, I remember because it was an indicator bulb that seemed to blow weekly. I do carry a selection of bulbs but I have absolutely no idea whatsoever whether they would fit my current car.
|
Hitlerrite may be a bad expresion but in the circumstances the oficer is an oficouse jobs worth.
Paul
|
>>Hitlerrite may be a bad expresion but in the circumstances the oficer is an oficouse jobs worth.
I think considering the thread started on a dirty number plate,its gone to rediculous,fairly obvious a rear/front o/s bulb out will in bad or good conditions,will give going concern to police and has been mentioned should be checked really on a daily basis,otherwise your car could be mistaken as a bike in bad weather.though it should not happen,some drivers do try to overtake (not seeing unlit side of car)same applies to front bulbs and headlamps being out,if driver coming the other way sees you as bike (light only on N/s)it happens a lot though it shouldnt
--
Steve
|
'Every day' is a colloquial figure-of-speech for 'very regularly' - you really should get out more if you don't know that! ;)
so exactly how regularly is it then that you encounter a police car "zooming around with a headlamp out, elbow on the window sill, and no signals on a roundabout where they would be of use to other road users"?
|
|
|
NW,
I may be misunderstanding your post but,
If the driver checks their lights are OK before beginning a journey and one fails during the journey, I can't see how that makes the driver negligent, and in such circumstances a fine or penalty is not really justifiable.
If during the check a failed light is seen but not acted upon, and the vehicle is driven that is negligent and deserves a fine.
If no regular checks are undertaken, that is negligent and deserves a fine.
Number_Cruncher
|
The fact that the driver was not aware of the bulb faliure and was carying a spare and willing to change the faulty bulb at the roadside to me is not cause for a fine.
If the driver had no spare bulb then perhaps a fine but to fine someone willing to repair the fault there and then is unfair, a verbal warning would be ample.
Cases like the above show why the police are unpopular.
YES THEY DO A JOB BUT THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE CARIED OUT TO THE LETTER, SOME DEGREE OF JUDGMENT AND COMPASION SHOULD BE APLIED.
Paul
|
What ARE you people like? HOW MANY posts about a dirty plate?
Obviously, patrol cars shouldn't have very dirty plates - and I would guess that 99.9% don't! The following driver gets very shirty with the previous driver if they've left the car in a dirty state - UNLESS of course they've been too busy to clean it - late finish etc. Then, the following driver would normally clean it - but not if called straight out.
So - why not get a life, and just assume that most of us actually do a job we're (not very well) paid to do, reasonably efficiently despite eternal government meddling and micromanagement, and Daily Mail/Express hysteria?
And yes- most of us do use discretion on a daily basis, and we get just as annoyed as the rest of you when somebody is officious and makes a bad call - when we have both sides of the story, which is very rare indeed!
|
|
Not very well paid? Try being a nurse, which is also IMHO rather more demanding as to qualification and execution.
|
What ARE you people like? HOW MANY posts about a dirty plate?
You obviously never saw the infamous thread about car mats did you? :-)
I think it reached well over 100 posts before it was closed.
Oh, and I agree with what Number Cruncher said re the negligence.
Blue
|
Oh, and I agree with what Number Cruncher said re the negligence.
Yep - me too... and what was said about a statutory defence...!
I personally would never either ticket, or VDRS for ONE bulb out... but where there are several out, for me its obvious there's systematic neglect and a push in the direction of checking regularly is needed - usually VDRS.
And how often do I check mine? Constantly, both at work and in my own - every time I'm behind a car, alongside a shop window, reversing up to a wall... check what I can see, or see the reflection of, all the time. Just habit - and I would hate to be driving a car with a light out, especially a job one! And I carry a bulb kit!
As for trying being a nurse - hardly the point, I agree they have a hard job too, but a lot of us are well quialified, too. And no, I've never tried their job, but I've tried a few of them in my time!
|
"Qualified" would have been more convincing if I'd spelled it right, admittedly!
;-)
|
Some good points made here, however I would add the following....
The view that unroadworthy vehicles should not be on the road until they are rectified is a good one IMO and I doubt any other BR members would disagree with it.
However, a good idea has IMO been over enforced by the british police. As NW says, there is an aguement to say that a defective light that was on the car before setting off on a journey consitiutes negligence.
However, one that occurs during a journey is just bad luck. It is a shame that Police Officers in some cases don't give the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe a move to the French idea that a spare set of bulbs must be carried in case of a failure is a good idea. In which case I would see the law changed to effect this, and the police could only press the motorist to change the bulb for the mandatory spare should a defective light be noticed.
|
|
Hugo this is common sense! ... Sadly lacking to the present and past goverments.
|
|
Talking to a cop today between cases, I was bemoaning the copper of old (he was one), he told me that there are so many performance indicators now that there is little scope for a verbal warning. The caring copper of yore is history thanks to Home Office demands on performance (and measurable performance at that).
|
|
Pug - I honestly don't believe that's true... yes, there are so many PIs etc, but to be honest, do you think the average cop is bothered? Most certainly couldn't care less about one more, or less summons or ticket - a nice arrest for a good offence, different matter, but no-one's that desperate for 'chalks', surely??!
|
Pug - I honestly don't believe that's true... yes, there are so many PIs etc, but to be honest, do you think the average cop is bothered? Most certainly couldn't care less about one more, or less summons or ticket - a nice arrest for a good offence, different matter, but no-one's that desperate for 'chalks', surely??!
You're quite wrong. Ticket numbers figure very strongly in appraisals. The PIs are rammed down an average bobbies throat. Discretion has largely been removed. You can give 'warnings' all day long. Whe it comes to performance figures, you've got a big fat zero.
|
Maybe a move to the French idea that a spare set of bulbs must be carried in case of a failure is a good idea. In which case I would see the law changed to effect this, and the police could only press the motorist to change the bulb for the mandatory spare should a defective light be noticed.
I think the compulsory spares are a great idea, and would negate any "bulb out of stock" excuses (genuine or otherwise) ... but a lazy/skinflit driver could then drive around with lots of broken lights until a police officer stops them.
So there still needs to be a punishment available for not fitting the spare -- though I agree that it should be used with discretion.
|
It is suprising the number of hire vans and cars I have driven that have been suplied with duff bulbs at the start of hire and the atitude when pointed these are pointed out and the vehicle refused.
Paul
|
"French idea that a spare set of bulbs must be carried"
Good idea, and I always carry a set, but according to the AA not compulsory but "recommended" in France and most other European countries.
www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/compulsory_...l
--
Phil
|
I would be happy for the police to move on to zero-tolerance of blown bulbs, preferably starting with the one headlight brigade, when they have sorted out the uninsured, the reckless speeders, the tailgaters, etc.
Personally I wouldn't willingly drive with a tail light out for long, and I do check them - but as a candidate for enthusiastic policing it's about as deserving as not polishing your shoes and whistling out of tune isn't it?
Let's get back to mats!!
|
Some good points made here, however I would add the Maybe a move to the French idea that a spare set of bulbs must be carried in case of a failure is a good idea. In which case I would see the law changed to effect this, and the police could only press the motorist to change the bulb for the mandatory spare should a defective light be noticed.
Nice idea, but I'd imagine the WPC in question would stand and wait until you'd fitted the new bulb and then fine you for failing to carry a spare.
|
|
It's not the law that's not sensible, it's the police officer's rigid interpretation of the law. Whilst an offence had been committed, the fact that the driver was changing the offending bulb rather than ignoring the problem should have been sufficient for a warning.
I once failed a bike test because the brake light failed between leaving home and arriving at the test centre - I know it was working when I left because my father had insisted on checking everything. The examiner failed me on the spot even though I was a stone's throw from a car spares shop.
Didn't like his attitude either - did he think I'd done it deliberately because I liked waiting months for the test and paying good money to be told I'd failed without getting out of the carpark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
