Mr X
the thing had different size calipers at the front, it had been jacked up, and was appalingly badly maintained (one of the suspension hangers broke because it was rotten). More to the point he was driving too quickly when he hit the grass verge (he assumed his superior off road driving skills meant he could maintain momentum with two wheels in the verge)
Add to that he shows no remourse and blithley claimed on a timed blog after he was jailed that it was a miscarriage of justice that he killed his kids.
not defending him are you?
|
|
No, I am defending the practice of replacing chassis's , gearboxes, transfer boxes and axles on Land Rover Defenders. This is not ' cut and shut " as was suggested to the jury.
|
That was never the case MR X. The point was made in the reporting of the case earlier the parts from Wrong cars were used. He created a non standard model.
|
|
As an example ( not in this case ) it is perfectly possible to use a Range Rover P38 automatic box to replace a manual gearbox in a Land Rover Defender 90. Would that make it a wrong part ?
Edited by Mr X on 31/01/2009 at 10:24
|
|
Mr X, you seem to be claiming that in this case the modifications were acceptable. Perhaps you can direct us to the actual details? Given that the owner considered it acceptable to mess with his brakes in this way, I certainly would not be rushing to assume that his other modifications were done well and with correct parts.
|
|
I am claiming that chassis, gearbox, transfer box and axle modifications are quite acceptable on a Land Rover if done correctly. This does not make the vehicle a' cut and shut ', a point I believe the prosecution was trying to make.
|
I can see where Mr. X is coming from here, and putting aside the moral aspects of the case in question, he does raise valid concerns.
If such as this becomes enshrined in case law, it causes problems for those who install "non-standard" parts (ie parts not in the original build sheet) for any vehicles. That would be further ammunition for the Type Approval fanatics, backed of course by the manufacturers who would like nothing more than to see us legally forbidden to install so much as a different spark plug on pain of seeing us prosecuted, or at least our insurance invalidated in the event of an accident.
There is a world of difference between a properly engineered modification (ie different gearbox and axle) and the appalling bodges described, but we're all fully aware of the "one size fits all" policies of both this government and the EU, which once instigated are difficult to overturn.
Ask any trike builder.
|
This is a blind alley.
The vehicle was dangerous because it had been bodged, not because it had been modified.
Anyone who does the job right has nothing to fear from the law.
|
I too think the very abrasive Mr X was making a valid original point. Not only Land Rovers but any vehicles can be cobbled together out of components from several different examples and be perfectly all right. I have done such things myself and my present car is running on a second hand gearbox.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cars put together from 'butchered' examples. What may be wrong is the condition of some components or the quality of the work, which seems to have been poor in some crucial way in the reported case. The court and the media between them - not sure who is to blame, both probably - managed however to suggest that such repairs are dangerous by definition, when we all know they aren't.
|
|
My last car had none standard wheel trims, I phoned my insurance company up about that and they did have to be declared. Luckily it did not affect my premium but they did class the car as modified.
|
I've been following the case because I know the area in which the accident occurred.
Things which that particular newspaper article didn't mention, but others did, were that it had oversize wheels and tyres (which weren't road-going tyres) and the ground clearance had been increased considerably for off-roading competition purposes. The centre of gravity of the vehicle was considerably higher than a production model. Post-accident tests showed that it leaned alarmingly when being cornered.
Before the owner shut down his relevant website (he still has others), I saw photograps on it of the vehicle being off-roaded and one shot showed it dropping to the ground from a height of about two feet after having gone over a hump-backed rise. So in addition to the modifications it had been severely misused before the accident.
Edited by L'escargot on 31/01/2009 at 12:31
|
round us there are at least two Land Rovers and three Range Rovers modified for offroading but run on the roads.
At least two have broken exhausts. What other mechanical defects they may have I am unaware of, but they are raised up so cornering will be affected.
I would welcome the German TUV laws which would make such changes illegal.
What is worse, one owner - with the broken exhaust - drives like a maniac...
|
I would welcome the German TUV laws which would make such changes illegal.
That's not quite how it works in Germany.
Basically, changes to the vehicle original specification have to be checked by TUV (or one of the other testing organisations such as Dekra) and, if approved, entered into the registration document of the vehicle.
If the changes are not approved then the vehicle is illegal. This also includes off the shelf wheels and chav extras such as exhausts and body kits. Sadly, TUV only checks the vehicle for roadworthiness, not good taste.
|
A long time ago, I was involved in looking after a Land Rover which was used in off-road racing (in the Northern Off-Road Club). Having seen the sort of damage which can happen during an event, I would not be happy thinking that a vehicle abused in this way could also be used on the road.
For those who know about the layout Land Rovers, the chrome balls on the front axle of these vehicles would rapidly suffer from cracks in the fillet, which if un-noticed would lead to a complete loss of the front hub - a lethal defect.
From what I have read of this case, the modifications were spectacularly poor.
I hold a slightly difficult position on the subject of modifications. While I rejoice that the law permits modifications, and insurers will cover modified vehicles, I remain of the view that most modifications are ill advised, poorly engineered, and rarely lead to an improvement.
Perhaps, there's a case to be made that modified vehicles should become subject to SVA?
|
There is sufficient legislation around to procescute people that drive unroadworthy vechiles, more will not prevent the irresponsible fringe from doing what they always do.
Enforcement of existing laws enabled by greater police presence on the road would be of more use .
|
|
Can someone please explain what the point of a Landrover is if you have to modify it to go off road?
|
You don't! Apart from wind deflectors and a sticker, mine is as it left the factory. But if you want to do more extreme offroading, then you can make it more suited.
As far as I can tell, a weld failed (where a weld should not be) on a back axle tie rod removing most control. And that was the mechanical cause of the accident. Rest was irrelevant as although there were faults with the brakes I don't think they were contributory.
All in all though, a very sad event, children died.
|
Perhaps there's a case to be made that modified vehicles should become subject to SVA?
I sincerely hope not. Vehicles would include motorcycles and there's a sizeable "chopper" industry in the UK which would be decimated. Such bikes aren't always to my taste even as a Harley-Davidson devotee but I would not wish to see them legislated out of existence by a fanatical desire for national conformity.
It would also do a lot of damage to the custom car scene. Whilst I agree with Number Cruncher that modifications don't always lead to performance enhancement, restyling is also modification and to ban that would be positively Stalinist.
|
>> >> Perhaps there's a case to be made that modified vehicles should become subject to SVA? I sincerely hope not. Vehicles would include motorcycles and there's a sizeable "chopper" industry in the UK which would be decimated.
I fully agree.... just where would the line be drawn?
''Apart from wind deflectors and a sticker, mine is as it left the factory''
Will there be a time we get pulled over for having a non-standard sticker?.....
Those wind deflectors must affect the windflow over your vehicle......
'excuse me Sir, can you please prove you are using the factory standard fuel??'
'excuse me Sir, did your car leave the factory with that stonechip on the bonnet?'
|
Not really followed this story because I believe what the media prints is not always quite what was said or meant in the court.
However, whilst he may or may not have made alterations, of poor or worse standard; when was the car last mot'd?
I know its not a safety check, but should include vehicle condition, rot near suspension, unequal brakes etc.
More info neededbefore any conclusion made on my part. But there are 2 sides to the story!
|
This is what may be coming. When in Spain....or maybe the EU?
Remember what Bilboman posted.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=68...1
Now that is really serious stuff!!
|
Strange how it got brakes of different sizes on each side, I wonder if they were supplied wrongly? This might shift the blame a bit.
I also wonder why the imbalance wasn't picked up on the MoT?
|
This might shift the blame a bit.
If you take a part off and the replacement part is different you don't bodge it on!
I also wonder why the imbalance wasn't picked up on the MoT?
Did it have one? The pedal almost went to the floor before the brakes began to work!
He was driving like a lunatic with the most precious things in the world inside his contraption, his children!
He claimed to be a mechanic and welder........................................
|
If you take a part off and the replacement part is different you don't bodge it on!
Is that definitely what happened? Without a doubt? Fair enough. It's possible that (for example) a brake caliper looks the same but the cylinder bore is slightly different for a different model. Would everyone check?
Did it have one?
I don't know. Looks like you don't either?
He was driving like a lunatic with the most precious things in the world inside his contraption his children!
I don't understand this - why not drive the same whether you've got children on board or not?
He claimed to be a mechanic and welder........................................
See all the threads about bodges and unsatisfactory work from garages for details.... How many of us really know we don't have a car with some defect on? In fact, see all the posts about how new cars have faults so even the factory doesn't get it right all the time.
Edited by Garethj on 01/02/2009 at 09:55
|
I can't understand that there are some people seemingly trying to defend this character... it went to court and was discussed at length there... they found that the car was unfit to be driven on the road, let alone off it, and I'm sure that if we went through all the details of the case we'd find a whole truck load of things that were wrong with it... he was a bodger and even though he killed several of his kids seems to have shown little remorse... if I'd have done that to my kids I'd be heartbroken!
I agree, MrX, that certain mods are not a problem and combing bits from several cars isn't either, you should have seen the different bits that made up my F2 stocker, but the key point is that its only acceptable if its done properly and that's where your argument becomes a red herring... it wasn't the fact that the car was made up of several others that damned him, it was the way it was put together that was the issue... and the comparisson with a "cut and shut" is perfectly acceptable in my view in this case... both are bodge jobs that endanger life.
|
I can't understand that there are some people seemingly trying to defend this character... he was a bodger
I havent read any post here that I consider does 'defend' him, what they are doing is pointing out the generalisation of the terms used in the court case.
Im sure at one time or another, we have all travelled in a vehicle that has been modified or has has 2nd hand parts fitted - sometimes on one side only!
(as a slight aside - W203 Merc Classes had the lower front suspension arms modified early in their production run- MB stated both side MUST be changed together.
Insurance companys refused to pay for both sides - how many cars didnt get both changed due to that?)I agree MrX that certain mods are not a problem and combing bits from several cars isn't either.....the key point is that its only acceptable if its done properly
Exactly - we understand that, but does the great unwashed? - and the law makers?
generalisations like that have a habit of landing us with VERY tight and shortsighted laws!
.. and the comparisson with a "cut and shut" isperfectly acceptable in my view in this case... both are bodge jobs that endanger life.
''cut and shuts'' are not always bodge jobs, they are only illegal if done using stolen parts, or done badly - which could be the case using new parts, if the guy doing the repair doent know what he is doing.
That said I believe personally cut and shut should be totally illegal, as the 2 or more cars will have suffered from different stress patterns within the bodyshells thus creating a possible over stressed join.
|
I havent read any post here that I consider does 'defend' him
Then we have differing interpretations of some of the words used...
>>the key point is that its only acceptable if its done properlyExactly - we understand that but does the great unwashed? - and the law makers? generalisations like that have a habit of landing us with VERY tight and shortsighted laws!
We only have the newspaper/radio/TV reporting to go on, I'm sure that the "cut and shut" phrase WAS used correctly by the judge within an acceptable context... the problem is more the reporting of the case which removes it from the context it was used and "generalises" it... perhaps if we could see the whole of the summing up (which is where I suspect the phrase was used) we may see that it wasn't used out of context and was perfectly acceptable?
''cut and shuts'' are not always bodge jobs
I admit to a "generalisation" myself, there! You are quite right that it is possible to do a good c&s, but like you I'm not keen on them either - I'd have thought however good they are it would affect the structural integrety of the vehicle... And can a c&s be purely limited to just bodywork, in this case the press seem to be implying that the judge has widened that definition to cover other changes such as mechanical ones... or are earlier posters just assuming that he has based on short press reports of a detailed case?
Edited by b308 on 01/02/2009 at 12:51
|
Then we have differing interpretations of some of the words used...
im sure we do! I find the written word can often mean different things to different people, thats why I hate SMS! Id rather make a phone call!
We only have the newspaper/radio/TV reporting to go on I'm sure that the "cut and shut" phrase WAS used correctly by the judge within an acceptable context... the problem is more the reporting of the case which removes it from the context it was used and "generalises" it... perhaps if we could see the whole of the summing up (which is where I suspect the phrase was used) we may see that it wasn't used out of context and was perfectly acceptable?
Thats exactly what i meant! BUT its often the case that an 'off the cuff' or out of context remark, lands us with some law we dont need/makes life harder/makes things worse>> ''cut and shuts'' are not always bodge jobs
And can a c&s be purely limited to just bodywork in this case thepress seem to be implying that the judge has widened that definition to cover other changes such as mechanical ones... or are earlier posters just assuming that he has based on short press reports of a detailed case?
Again we agree, and again it possibly leads back to my 2nd point above.....
|
BUT its often the case that an 'off the cuff' or out of context remark lands us with some law we dont need/makes life harder/makes things worse
>>
Absolutely. I've no doubt the legislation on window tint was brought about by a SMIDSY pulling out on a motorcyclist and citing the window tint as a defence/excuse
|
Garethj
He was found guilty, if he'd had the work done by someone else why could he not provide a receipt or proof of payment?
You don't take risks with children.
Braking parts should be fitted in axle pairs.
Would slightly different size piston would have effect on braking effort providing the pad contact area and disk diameter remained the same? As previously stated the "new" and old parts should be compared before fitting, a no brainer!
Its a very poor write up technically, "a bigger calliper" does'nt tell the whole story.
He's gone to jail, good in my book!
|
About half-way through Saturday's Money Box on Radio 4, there's a feature on modifications and insurance -- people not realizing what constitutes a modification and the implications for their insurance cover:
tinyurl.com/bjgpp4
|
Our cars are insured as modified.
This case is'nt about modifications, its about incompetance, risk taking and bodging.
|
"This case is'nt about modifications, its about incompetance, risk taking and bodging."
Is it though? Have any of us got/seen/heard the exact full details?
i am not defending the guy; he has probably done genuine mechanics a very bad disservice; but... there is more to any case than meets the eye!
All I want to know, is purely, was it mot tetsed? if so, when? Who by? were the modifications to the brakes acceptable on test? was there rot near suspension components?
2nd hand parts alone are not enough to make any vehicle unfit to be on the road. In some cases 2nd hand parts fitted to both sides of the vehicle may be better than brand new fitted to just 1 side.
More details needed before any definitive results made (a la court case). But lets hope generalisations dont force a change the law in a knee jerk fashion for the rest of motorists?
|
In went through a full court case and he was found guilty... surely if there were any mitigating circumstances such as dodgy MOT or parts sold incorrectly (the odd brakes) it would have been used as evidence by his brief to help reduce the penalty?
As we haven't heard of any I tend to feel he was just a bodger... though I agree, and have already said, that more detail would make interesting reading...
Edited by b308 on 01/02/2009 at 16:23
|
Is it though? Have any of us got/seen/heard the exact full details?
We have to put trust in the police investigation, judge and jury and we don't have the gory details.
In another report its claimed the LR was MOTd, it was his excuse that he was'nt aware of the chassis corrosion before the failure.
I can't find a HSE report online, the reporting is the usual rubbish, spending more time discussing his private life than facts from the crash.............................
|
In another report its claimed the LR was MOTd ....>>
I suppose the question is 'were the bodgifications carried out before, or after, the MoT test?'
|
|
Dox. Why would you expect an HSE report? SFAIK, this was not a work activity, of no interest to HSE. The polis deal with RTAs. I may have misunderstood though....
|
I was trying to find any report TBH and only found press drivel
There's still people in the backroom who believe the judge and jury were doing brain training on their DSs through out the case
Edited by Dox on 01/02/2009 at 21:42
|
|
I suppose the coroners office would have a file with the expert witness input, or a transcript of the trial. Its a pity they, or a summary, are not made available routinely: perhaps some observers would then see the causation more clearly.
Edited by nortones2 on 01/02/2009 at 21:52
|
Garethj
Hello.
He was found guilty if he'd had the work done by someone else why could he not provide a receipt or proof of payment?
How about if he'd done the work himself but had the wrong parts supplied? Just a thought and showing that we don't know all the details.
You don't take risks with children.
Why not be as careful on your own??
Braking parts should be fitted in axle pairs.
Indeed, but they're always supplied in individual boxes so mistakes can happen.
He's gone to jail good in my book!
Evidently. I'll have a little more scepticism, thanks. And worry about how knee-jerk laws can be made. I've seen plenty of new laws made that don't make a difference for the better, there could be another one made on the back of this case.
|
Anyone with half a brain compares new with new before you start working on the brakes and new with old as you remove them.
He's killed 4 kids, his car was defective and in poor order.
Who says any new laws will be made over this one case, he's gone to jail, no loopholes need to be closed.
|
|
