Question for Tissey, Adidas, other Bib and maybe Milamber
16 September 2008, 03:42 PM
#1
Question for Tissey, Adidas, other Bib and maybe Milamber
Just a quick one and email me the answer if you prefer. I was wondering how drivers can be nicked and prosocuted for speeding and even speed limits imposed seeing as a speedo is not a requirement for an mot? Ok so a vehicle may have to have a speedo but i can't find anything that says it has to function.
I've not been pulled for speeding and i don't plan on it either but was just wondering what the answer was?
Ta muchly.
I've not been pulled for speeding and i don't plan on it either but was just wondering what the answer was?
Ta muchly.
16 September 2008, 03:46 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the top of my head, the only instrument that HAS to work on the dashboard is the speedo. I appreciate it doesn't get tested come MOT time, but under the Construction & Use Act one must be fitted and in good working order.
I shall hit the books and let you know
HTH
I shall hit the books and let you know
HTH
16 September 2008, 03:47 PM
#4
Track Day Organiser
Just because you don't have a speedo doesn't mean you can't be done for speeding
Its your own fault for not having a means of telling the speed your traveling
Goes back to ignorance is not a defence in law
Well thats my thoughts anyway
Its your own fault for not having a means of telling the speed your traveling
Goes back to ignorance is not a defence in law
Well thats my thoughts anyway
16 September 2008, 03:49 PM
#6
lol.
ta. just seems odd that it doesn't have to be tested come mot time. so therefore if it's not working or an mot requirement, surely that means that the reading it gives can't be taken as reliable and therefore the driver cannot adequately judge the speed they are doing in relation to the imposed speed limit. leading to the speeding offense being unfair.
should i train to become a barrister to fight for the motorist
ta. just seems odd that it doesn't have to be tested come mot time. so therefore if it's not working or an mot requirement, surely that means that the reading it gives can't be taken as reliable and therefore the driver cannot adequately judge the speed they are doing in relation to the imposed speed limit. leading to the speeding offense being unfair.
should i train to become a barrister to fight for the motorist
16 September 2008, 03:51 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In RS land......
Posts: 12,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny enough the tuscan one (yep TVR wonders never cease) would have fazes where it wouldn't work. 
luckily enough i had the Origin B2 at the time so had the speedo on the screen constantly 
luckily enough i had the Origin B2 at the time so had the speedo on the screen constantly
Trending Topics
16 September 2008, 03:53 PM
#8
might not always be ignorance as if it brakes on a car within warrantee (sp?) you could say that it's down to the manufactuer to supply an item of equipment that should perform for the period of the said warrantee (sp?) which would come into line with adidas original comment re Construction & Use Act one must be fitted and in good working order?
16 September 2008, 03:59 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, keep to washing the cars 
I can't find the exact bit of legislation at the moment, but it's hidden somewhere in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
If you're that bothered I'll dig it out when I'm at work next
I can't find the exact bit of legislation at the moment, but it's hidden somewhere in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
If you're that bothered I'll dig it out when I'm at work next
16 September 2008, 04:04 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In RS land......
Posts: 12,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still under warranty) i can hit vauxhall with that ah that reminds me must phone about my van......
16 September 2008, 04:19 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry specy but that is funny.
16 September 2008, 06:05 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In RS land......
Posts: 12,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
neither have been on a low loader tho my dad's one WAS fine until we think the LPG tank straps started to work loose. mine just wont run on LPG so is STILL awaiting a new wiring loom. 
been sitting in the corner of city vauxhall workshop since 29th july now. 
my dad's one WAS fine until we think the LPG tank straps started to work loose. mine just wont run on LPG so is STILL awaiting a new wiring loom. been sitting in the corner of city vauxhall workshop since 29th july now.
16 September 2008, 06:50 PM
#22
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 18,358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
might not always be ignorance as if it brakes on a car within warrantee (sp?) you could say that it's down to the manufactuer to supply an item of equipment that should perform for the period of the said warrantee (sp?) which would come into line with adidas original comment re Construction & Use Act one must be fitted and in good working order?
17 September 2008, 03:21 PM
#25
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 18,358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeding is a crime of "strict liability".
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?
17 September 2008, 03:25 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Going further than the station and back !!! ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posts: 11,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeding is a crime of "strict liability".
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?
stop ear wigging and get back to the tea duties!!! lol
oh and thanks for the bottle !!!
17 September 2008, 03:28 PM
#28
Speeding is a crime of "strict liability".
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?
You've probably heard the latin terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea on the television? They mean "Guilty Act & Guilty Mind"
Normally the law requires you to have both committed the crime (Guilty Act) AND to have meant to do it (Guilty mind). None of these apply to speeding offences as the liability is strict i.e you did, you are guilty.
Therefore in your example... if you had no speedo so therefore didn't KNOW you were over the limit then tough luck. The limit has been set, it's strict liability and you didnt make sure you were under it.
Is that any clearer?