Lutz said:
Surfer said:
From Protection of Freedom Act:- “vehicle” means a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically-propelled vehicle.
As it says, "a vehicle means ............ or a vehicle adapted for towing by a mechanically-propelled vehicle". A caravan obviously falls into the latter category.
sorry lutz,No it does not. a trailer is a vehicle,because it carries goods so falls under the "adapted for towing" a caravan cannot transport goods or people! and nobody can go changing the terminology of what a vehicle or vessel is! If there is any confusion its up to the law makers to add sub divisions to cover all aspects that could accur.clearly in this case either scottish law differs or their legal experts are asses and so would be the CPS. or others understanding of the term vehicle is wrong. Being as the scots have always been at the forefront where legal issues are concerned, i would be interested to know exactly what is what
Code for Crown Prosecutors - Public Interest Considerations
Top of pageDefinition of a Motor Vehicle
The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".
Although this is the legal definition, ultimately it is a matter of fact and degree for a court to interpret as to whether or not a vehicle is a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.
The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles.
Intended or adapted for use on roadsis also not defined by statute and again ultimately a matter for the court to decide based on the evidence before it.
There has, however, been extensive case law on the subject and the main point that emerges is what is known as the reasonable man test as per the following cases:
Burns v Currell [1963] 2 All ER 297
B was found sitting in a go-kart. The kart had a rear-mounted engine, a tubular frame, a single seat, silencer, steering wheel and column, but had no handbrake, horn, springs, driving mirror or wings. There was evidence that B had only used the go-kart on the unadopted road once. He was convicted and he appealed on the grounds that the go-kart was not intended or adapted for use on roads and was thus not a motor vehicle to which the regulations applied.
The Appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The test to be adopted was the 'reasonable man test'. There must be sufficient evidence before the justices to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such a 'reasonable man' looking at the go-kart would say that one of its uses would be a use on the road.
DPP v Saddington Times 1.11.2000S drove an unregistered motorised scooter called a 'Go-Ped' on a road whilst disqualified and uninsured. The vehicle had a 22.5cc engine and was definitely a mechanically propelled machine. However, to prove the two most serious offences, the machine also had to be a motor vehicle, i.e. a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.
At the hearing the magistrates found that the 'Go-Ped' fell far below statutory standards and would not satisfy road traffic legislation relating to motor vehicles. They decided that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle. The DPP appealed by way of case stated and also asked the Court to declare that the machine was a motor vehicle.
The courts held that the Go-Ped was a motor vehicle.
Facebook
Twitter