Towing Mirrors- The Law - E marks

[JasonR_374341560]

This has got rather boring, but Nigel's replies have me hooked sadly.

Nigel comparing having no mirrors to using perfectly useable mirrors with an older E mark is just a nonsense comparison.

Nigel says "don't shoot the messenger"

yet he's peddled "factual" reason for new mirror legislation that he's then failed to qualify or give facts and figures on it.

Nigel also fails to explain why what he peddles as serious breaches of driving law are hidden in Government and EC directive mumbo jumbo.

Surely such legislation would be made clear public knowledge and evident to all caravanner's who he says risk prosecution for breaking driving laws and also face breaking the law as they will be uninsured if they have an accident when breaking E mark regulations.

One should also ask if older caravan lights are legal, or do they not carry E marks that have changed

 

[rayc]

quote "If you vehicle is not roadworthy (because of illegal mirrors bald tyres or anything else) and you have an insurance claim, it is very likely the insurance company will not pay out"

Well we all know what a legal tyre is and it is well established in law and practice. An illegal mirror just because it hasn't got the latest E mark - I think not. How are the insurance company going to know what mirrors you have - do you have to produce them?

This all started out as a fairly sensible requirement for commercial vehicle mirrors and appears to have been highjacked. If I use my mirrors on my car today then all is well with the world but if I buy a new one tomorrow then somehow it is dangerous. I know rules is rules but I wonder who is enforcing them.

 

[Lutz]

Seems like an an extension of my reponses to the topic of "Suck-it & See" Mirrors further down.

 

[RogerL]

Are caravanners in the rest of Europe equally affected by this EC type approval regulation?

 

[BrianStAlbans]

Thanks Nigel your reply (and your patience).

Brian ;O)

 

[trucker]

I cannot believe some of the responses, given to Nigel on this subject. The law change may be stupid the e mark old/new may be pathetic. The insurance issue may be unrealistic, but please may I point out to you good folk poking fun and having a pop at Nigel he has only given us information which we would not have otherwise have had. Get off his back and bloody grow up. YOU choose what you want to do with the information, as it was just information giving.

I for one am very glad manufacters are getting interested in the forums, my caravan is being repaired as we speak swiftly( no pun intended) as Cath from Swift got involved off her own back. If you treat people like this I hope they wont join in and blow the lot of you.

Jumps back off his soap box

Kevin

 

[JasonR_374341560]

Factual information and advice from an informed source is fine.

Tales about death and serious injuries to be avoided with out any facts is uncalled for scaremongeing.

Quoting unrelated legal problems re inurance to back a story is a very poor behaviour from a manufacturer.

I'm sure many caravanner with a limited budget do not need the presure of spending money due to minor E mark changes when they work fine.

Prosecution and being uninsured is a very serious matter! If this is what we truly face lets have the facts and details on how and why!

 

[trucker]

Look the poor chap was pointing out a new law as i read it, he then was asked to justify the law which infact wasnt his law!!!! he did so by quoting what his industry has been told by my reckoning. If you dont like it tell brussels not the manufactuer who has to obay the new legeslation.

As I said Jason R do what you want with the info but some people on this forum want to make something of topics all the time.

If you dont want info from Manufactures let the mods know and see if the majority wants to ban them, otherwise I sugest we all treat them along with everyone else with a bit of respect.

Kevin

 

[RogerL]

Ministry for Transport (MfT) and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) have seen no need to publicise these "new" regulations to motorists and there's no information available about this issue on their websites. I can't find any information on this on other usually reliable motoring websites - Nigel's claims have justifiably been challenged.

 

[trucker]

Roger I didnt say we shouldnt challange but there is a way too and a way not too challange.

Is it Nigels fault that VOSA hasnt published these facts? If they werent facts I do not believe a manufacture would go onto a forum and lie.

Why dont you ask VOSA what the new legeslation is and why they have not published it, after all Nigel works for Melenco not VOSA or the EU

Kevin

 

[ProfJohnL]

When Nigel started posting, I did feel that it was perhaps a cynical attempt to frighten caravaners into purchasing more new mirrors. As the thread has developed I can see that whilst his company would benefit from any increased sales, it was an attempt to bring the issue of E marking to the attention of caravanners.

I have to agree with Truckers recent postings, and feel it is wrong to pillory Nigel for raising the matter, though perhaps it might have been better for him to remove the direct references to a particular manufacturer.

However, When it comes down to it, if a case is brought against a motorist for having illegal mirrors, past history clearly reminds us that ignorance is no defence in law.

Sadly that adage, whilst no doubt true, is increasingly difficult for the ordinary person to be fully conversant with all relevant regulations affecting every thing they do. It is perhaps time that some level of ignorance should be allowed for first minor infringements.

It is of course right that Insurance companies should be protecting themselves from fraudsters, but there is a current trend by Insurers in all areas of the business to be far more inquisitive, and proactive in seeking means of avoiding liability. Smaller infringements are being sited and used to reduce payouts, so perhaps non-conformance to 'E' markings may become a common feature of adjudications.

 

[Meister]

I would like to say thanks to NIGEL for giving us this info.

Also, I agree with TRUCKER and JOHN L ....... surely the intention of the original post was simply to give us some valuable info.

BUT

There will always be some people who will whinge, whine and argue no matter what is said.

Steve

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Like John L, I too thought this was another way to get us to spend money. As the thread developed I could see that maybe I was wrong and this was nothing to do with the manufacturers but more to do with our Eurocrats.

Kevin is right, if anyone disagrees with Nigel theres no need to be rude, it's possible to post and get ones point over without the sarcasm.

I do think it's right that Nigel posted that he was from Milenco because at least it gives the impression, as a manufacturer who has to comply with current legislation, he knows what he's talking about.

 

[JasonR_374341560]

I would assume that we all know that Governments make laws and are responsible for legislation re E marks and British Standards etc.

I also want to know that I am on the road safely and that I and others are insured when towing as it could hit my pocket hard.

Nigel could have said he was a "Manufacturers Representative" rather than take the opportunity to promote his companies name awareness (could just be habit of course)

In his first post he stated that older E marks are "obsolete" only legal on older vehicles, new vehicles need to have mirrors with the same latest E marks.

Simple enough, but he says this is from 2007 so that could make many caravanner's illegal unless they have changed their mirrors, now I'm sorry but with those sort of numbers and guessing that Nigel's company has a reasonable share of the market his further replies become questionable.

Forum members posted concerns after Nigel's first post and "OBSOLETE E marks" on older mirrors then became "DANGEROUS mirrors" in Nigels second post. They seem to have got labelled along with untested Chinese mirrors. I can see that it would be wrong to sell mirrors with an obsolete marking, but not that having and older E mark makes a mirror DANGEROUS. It may not be as good as the latest E mark standard but not dangerous as one would assume that it got an E mark to say it was safe to a relevant standard.

As a well informed manufacturer's representative handing out advice and quoting government data, surely Nigel would query the facts. New mirror E marks saving 20 lives and 102 serious accidents a year, after all our caravanning years and time on camp sites I'm sure we would have heard of one death or serious accident.

I started going to camp sites as a teenager and before E marks so would assume that accidents were far more prevalent in the past, as good and helpful as Nigel's information might be his back up to his argument does not stand up so far. He doesn't make the law but with the cost of conforming to new E mark regulations would you not question the figures given to you. May be not if you are using them for financial gain!

In Nigel's last post he uses a story about not having towing mirrors compared to using an older mirror. Much of the advice sought on this forum seems to be related to SAVING MONEY and I assume the majority of caravanner's in the UK have tow cars that are of a different age to their tow mirrors. If we have bought mirrors in good faith that are Chinese un-tested mirrors sporting a fake E mark how do we stand in the event of accident? Surely we are in the same position re older E marks on a new car.

I don't believe that caravanner's will be prosecuted or be classed as un-insured for using an older E marked mirror providing it is useable and in good condition.

Tens of thousands of caravanning motorists face being illegal on the road due to caravan E marks, if we truly face prosecution surely the Government, Manufacturers, Caravanning Press and Insurers are duty bound to inform and provide clarity on this matter.

 

[Lutz]

As may be expected, German authorities are usually pretty thorough and go by the letter of the law when it comes to technical modifications to a vehicle. They normally ask for documentation to prove that any non-standard component has been type approved. Theoretically this would include additional mirrors, but I have never heard of anyone being asked to demonstrate that the mirrors were displaying the correct E-markings. I could, however, envisage possible problems with the insurance company here in Germany in the case of an accident, if either the field of view through the mirror was too small or if the mirror caused injury to a pedestrian.

 

[nigel_374240528]

Thanks everyone for all the comments.

This will be my final post on the subject, so I will try to answer all the outstanding questions in an attempt to finish this subject.

Jason R

I did not provide links to all the parts of legislation, because 1,it is endless and 2, I expect it would probably cause more confusion. 2003/97 EC was a very important piece of legislation, for caravanners. This made it a requirement that you have two type approved external mirrors. Yet when I did post a link re. The impact assessment, You and others misunderstood it and thought it was for trucks.

The lives saved were indeed from trucks as a result of only 1 directive that applied to both cars and trucks. The link to lives saved from cars did not work.

Please understand these new regulations for mirrors, are designed to save lives.

More new mirror regulations have actually come out whilst we have discussed the topic!

Brian

You're welcome. For what it's worth it's taken me years to understand these regulations and we get lots of help from DOT, VCA, BSI and the EU.

RogerL

These regulations are primarily enforced by type approval. So when you buy a new car, any parts fitted at all, including mirrors, have to be to the original or subsequent type approval of the car. This is normal working practice throughout the garage trade.

Changes to type approval are not publicised because everything should be type approved to the current standards before they are sold. No motor manufacturer flouts these laws, but there is this problem in the Caravan aftermarket.

In theory towing mirrors with the old e-marks should only be sold as spares for old cars.

The law does not differentiate between, no towing mirrors, illegal mirror or incorrect e-mark mirror.

In reality I don't think, a Policeman would even notice if you had the old e marks on your towing mirrors. They are more aware on the problem of no towing mirrors.

Towing Mirrors without e-marks should not be available for sale, period.

In the rest of Europe they have to comply with UN and EC regulations.

In the UK we have as law, UN, EC and the UK Construction and use regulations. An example of this is why wider caravans are legal in Germany but not in the UK (unless you have a plated vehicle).

How this effect Towing Mirrors is with wing mounted mirrors. They are illegal in the UK but legal elsewhere in Europe.

Before you ask, UK Construction and use regulations specify the drivers mirror must be adjustable by the driver from the driving position.

Lutz

Compliance of the Mirrors has to be shown in a position on the mirror housing with the e-mark, certification number and manufacturers name.

My original posting was an attempt to stop caravanners being duped into buying sub standard products, proven dangerous when tested and some of which, are actually quite expensive.

Finally the problem of No towing mirrors is greater than no e-mark.

It is impossible to be legal with a Discovery and normal size caravan without towing mirrors.

Kind Regards

Nigel Milbank

Milenco Limited

 

[freddy2]

Jason. Do you work for the firm selling the illegal chinese mirrors? It looks like you do!

 

[JasonR_374341560]

No Silly Billy that would mean that I went to work.

I just come from the firm of "waste not, want not"

In these Eco friendly times throwing away good fit for service useable mirrors that have legal but older E marks seems to go against saving our resources as well as being a waste of caravanner's money.

Would you be happy to have to scrap your car if was not N Cap 5 rated, I think not! So why throw away yesterdays approved mirrors as soon as the rating changes slightly!

 

[Ewan_5130997]

I think it would be fair to say that Nigel's post was well meaning.

However, i have had a good look through the legislation, and although it is pretty confusing, the EEc directices and E marks refer to the manufacturing of the product. Nowhere in the legislation, can I find any mention of mirrors with the older E mark being illegal if fitted to newer cars. So long as the mirror complies with legislation,(ie, size, reflectivity, position, safety etc) it is legal. For an insurance company to not pay out due to the type of E mark on the mirror, surely they woyuld have to prove that the mirror did not comply with all the requirements. I can find no mention of any requirement relating to the type or age of E mark shown on the mirror.

From an enforcement point of view, so long as the mirror affords the correct view to the rear, it is not dangerous and is fitted correctly.......I cant see any enforcement agency giving it a second look. I have spoken to a collegue in VOSA who was totally unconcerned by which E mark was shown, so long as the criteria mentioned above were conformed too.

 

[emmerson2]

Thank you Ewan. Common sense prevails!!

 

[David_from_Ashby]

What a lot of fuss and bother. Lets get some perspective!

Price of new towcar =

 

[JasonR_374341560]

So no thought about the waste then !

This on forum where people are concerned about saving a few quid on toll charges, insurance and getting LCD

 

[BrianStAlbans]

I suppose spending

 

[JasonR_374341560]

I suppose spending

 

[Barry_374346492]

As a caravanner, serving police traffic officer and vehicle examiner can I add my bit to the debate about E marked towing mirrors.

It doesn't seem to be public knowledge but it appears that one force recently bought a new vehicle supplied with towing mirrors. Some weeks later it was noticed that the towing mirrors weren't E marked. Since the mirrors weren't being used at the time no offence had been committed. But if we police can accidentally break the Law, so can you.

Some correspondents have complained that the change in the Law wasn't publicised. Every time I go on duty my pigeon hole is stuffed with new rules, regulations and interpretation of laws from everybody from the County Council to the European Commission. I, and I'm sure my colleagues, do read every one but it simply isn't possible to take it all in. Eventually things like this mirror ruling will appear in Hughes' guide to traffic law for enforcement officers and then all officers will be aware of it.

I just don't see how the law makers can publicise all the changes and additions. I always assumed that Government Departments like the Department for Transport would notify newspapers and magazines so they could inform their readers, but I now understand that they generally don't. Unfortunately ignorance of the Law is no defence so I assume that the public are supposed to discover these Laws for themselves. Or in this instance thank Nigel for bringing this matter to our attention.

Since it is only a matter of time before the only mirrors you can buy are E marked, any financial advantage Nigel may gain is purely minimal.

As I understand it the E standard was developed from a United Nations Standard so we can reasonably assume that throughout the world there is a perceived need for safer vehicle mirrors. As this is a EC Law you can assume that it applies equally throughout the EC.

On all the messages on this site I can't find anything which points out that mirrors which conform to the current standard are much, much safer. I've kept my own records of fatal and serious injury accidents which I have attended. In 69% of these tyre failure was a factor, although not necessarily the cause of the accident, and in far too many of these tyre failure incidents I've found cuts in the tread and sidewall. Just the sort of thing you would expect if the tyre was cut by a bit of broken mirror lying on the carriageway.

The current E standard calls for some means to keep all the bits of glass together and within the housing if the glass gets broken. If all mirrors conformed to this ruling it would have some effect on road safety.

And finally I wasn't going to respond to the idiot who begrudged spending money on new mirrors. There was a time when people disliked the idea of cars being fitted with seat belts (because they had never seen anyone being thrown through a car windscreen) could see no purpose in cars having anti-lock brakes (they had never seen a car with locked wheels running into a child crossing the road), radial ply tyres because they had never seen a cross ply tyre explode and pedestrian friendly front ends because they have never had to recover a pensioner who was hit by a 4x4 with solid steel bull bars.

They've never had to witness at first hand what an accident can do to people, their family and friends; they've never had to break the news to relatives that a family member has been seriously injured or even killed.

It doesn't cost much to fit E marked mirrors. They may not make much difference to accident figures, but they certainly can't make them worse. So stop complaining guys and put your hand in your pocket and buy some safer mirrors.