bombx3 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I put this on devon 4x4 as well..i gave this man a lift home he was gutted I was pulled in on the Bath to M4 road at a transport lay by they were checking trucks etc but speaking to a chap with a lifted disco he said got his car impounded for having his bumper above 15" and they reckon its lift has affected its road handling .After speaking to the ministry chap he said they are clamping down on raised and lowered vehicles unless they have passed the same test all new cars go though to meet the safety standards required.He told the disco driver that his car wasn't as manufactured and his messing could cause injury or death ,to use this car he will have to prove it safe Question have we been waiting for this to happen in our no win no fee world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy511 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 what theyll make of the ibex i really dont know, and its standard hight! this country is doomed imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Interesting to hear the exact details of that - what mods were done, the state of the vehicle and exactly what their reasoning is for it / legal standing on it. Anyone in the business who can tell us more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderman Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 They are by the book in the Tormarton A46 Vosa checkpoint , I was pulled there a few years back in an eight legger grab lorry , Fortunatly I was well under the legal boundries , But it must of been a busy day up there , there was Scaffolding tubes and boards , boxes , trailers and the like dumped all around the approach lane , Cant complain though ,There was three barrels of Butcombe Bitter there unnatended , well two when I left . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landmannnn Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Correct, they are absolute nazi's there. Used to run a fleet of trucks not far away, had countless issues there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'd like to know the construction & use reg they pulled him for, can't find any heights for bumpers in my copy of the 1986 C&U regs, very much doubt any LR vehicle has a bumper height of 15 inches. just measured my 110 from ground to bottom face of bumper, best I stay well clear of that vosa check location, I wonder how they expect everyone to know these obscure regs, there is no check like that in the MOT or advice when you by different springs. unless they have passed the same test all new cars go though to meet the safety standards required doing that doesn't sound as though it's legal & impossible as the regs for new vehicles didn't exist when the vehicle concerned was made, didn't think they could apply laws/regs retrospectivly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 unless they have passed the same test all new cars go though to meet the safety standards required New cars have to go through crash tests don't they?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco_al Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 sounds to me like someone is trying to get there bonus up this month. although if IIRC a few years ago, wasn't there some european directive for new cars to do with pedestrian safety, and i stress the word new here. So in reality, any such law regarding the height of the bumper would not apply to any vehicle constructed before this date? edit:- found >THIS< on a quick internet trawl, and it looks like the regs the VoSA guy was quoting only apply to vehicles after 2005, as it was part of a new directive to cut pedestrian casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imspanners Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 May be more to do with saving face. The vehicle may have been in a very unsafe (mechanical) condition, and he didn't want to admit it! The fact it's modified, may have been the reason for the "pull in".... Being dangerous/unsafe, well that's a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombx3 Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 They picked him up on the 2"lift saying he had altered the handling ,also the winch and bumper and side exit exhaust some thing to do with pedestrains ,,,They had on a lorry two lowered saxo type cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmgemini Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This stinks. Nothing to do with what was right or wrong with any of the vehicles. GUILTY UNTIL YOU PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT....... mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrnick Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Hmmmmm what would of happen if they was in a Camel Disco?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 As Mr Spanners says, for all we know the thing could've been held together with string and they were using the 2" lift as an excuse to take it away for inspection. Done badly a suspension/body lift could be very dodgy - lack of castor correction, stretched brake lines, shocks hitting their limits... I wonder how that sits with things like the SVA - if for example you build/modify a truck and SVA it on a 2" lift, the SVA boys don't get a big book of springs out and look up whatever it should have been from the factory, or what the spring rates are you've fitted. It's possible you could run the Disco through an SVA and get a clean bill of health, then have this bunch of little Hitlers pull you over and take it away. If the truck is otherwise legit, I'd be talking to a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landmannnn Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The roadside examiners get points for the number of prohibitions. If they fail to reach that target they are likely to face disciplinary action. They can seize your vehicle if it fails a roadside emissions check. So if you took your cat off .... Other items that will end up with a prohibition notice - brake check window tint oil leaks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrnick Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The roadside examiners get points for the number of prohibitions. If they fail to reach that target they are likely to face disciplinary action.They can seize your vehicle if it fails a roadside emissions check. So if you took your cat off .... Other items that will end up with a prohibition notice - brake check window tint oil leaks that will see most landys taken off the road then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Oil leaks are already an advisory item on the MOT in certain circumstances. Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco_al Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 land rovers don't leak oil, they self underseal........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_warne Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'd like to know the construction & use reg they pulled him for, can't find any heights for bumpers in my copy of the 1986 C&U regs, very much doubt any LR vehicle has a bumper height of 15 inches.just measured my 110 from ground to bottom face of bumper, best I stay well clear of that vosa check location, I wonder how they expect everyone to know these obscure regs, there is no check like that in the MOT or advice when you by different springs. doing that doesn't sound as though it's legal & impossible as the regs for new vehicles didn't exist when the vehicle concerned was made, didn't think they could apply laws/regs retrospectivly. They can't apply laws retrospectivly - if they do you can land them in some very hot water. Also, they have to have some ground for impounding a vehicle - raising and lowering suspension IS NOT ILLEGAL! Look at the points system for requiring SVA/IVA/VOC - you loose points if you change from OEM spec parts. Stand your ground with these sort of people. They are bullies of the worst kind - they have to have reason to impound a vehicle (normally for being unroadworthy) but for minor issues they can require you recify the problem and present the vehicle to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazelle Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 land rovers don't leak oil, they self underseal........ Surely undersealing is the cause of leaks...... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landmannnn Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Oil leaks are already an advisory item on the MOT in certain circumstances.Les. Had to recover an hgv from Tormarton, they PGV9'd it due to an oil leak(diff). They said that if it had been leaking for a while the axle could fail and lots of children would die. The roadside checkers have the authority to prohibit any vehicle they feel is unroadworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T1G UP Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The roadside checkers have the authority to prohibit any vehicle they feel is unroadworthy. Fair point. Wouldn't like to here of an accident ue to poor maintenance. So it's now zero tollerence of offending vehicles....shame they couldn't have inspectors walking the streets sorting out the little sh!tes running around...oh hang they do....the police! not as thurough as these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoggyN Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Is there some kind of database that shows where these VOSA checkpoints are located? If not, maybe there should be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 As Mr Spanners says, for all we know the thing could've been held together with string and they were using the 2" lift as an excuse to take it away for inspection. Done badly a suspension/body lift could be very dodgy - lack of castor correction, stretched brake lines, shocks hitting their limits...I wonder how that sits with things like the SVA - if for example you build/modify a truck and SVA it on a 2" lift, the SVA boys don't get a big book of springs out and look up whatever it should have been from the factory, or what the spring rates are you've fitted. It's possible you could run the Disco through an SVA and get a clean bill of health, then have this bunch of little Hitlers pull you over and take it away. If the truck is otherwise legit, I'd be talking to a lawyer. Like mine. This is not a point of the SVA test, definately not the commercial SVA test. The VOSA man could be right about vehicles after 2005, however: IIRC, offroad vehicles (worded as vehicles with drive on all wheels) are exempted from this rule. How else could a tipper truck be any good at its job with only 15" of height from the front bumper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_warne Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The roadside checkers have the authority to prohibit any vehicle they feel is unroadworthy. They have to have a ground for believing it to be unroadworthy and I think you would have a strong case against VOSA if the actions were not proportionate. If the car's a death trap held together with cable ties and duct tape then I think no one could argue. However, having a vehicle impounded for a slightly weepy seal or 'incorrect' ride height is simply an abuse of power. What most of these people probably don't realise is that everyone can be held accountable for their actions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveRK Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Oil leaks sounds petty but i guess not if you are a motorcyclist - its all about degrees of leak - an HGV rear axle probably holds a gallon of oil so if the leak was significant that could cause a slippery patch? Window tints are a practicable feature but yep get the car off the road if they are too dark as that is plain dangerous when night driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.