Vehicle check strensham services

[Steve L]

Again today BBC midlands news has put on a clip about the bank holiday caravan check at Stensham services on the M5.

On the day it was being conducted, the news team showed a reporter talking to a policeman at the sceene who said that they had found one caravan 33% overweight and another with the wheels fitted reverse way round on the axle. At the time I got the impression that they found the vast majority of caravans to be roadworthy.

Now today the same program reports that there were several caravans 33% overweight and that some had their rear headlights not working !!??

For a start I do wish that first of all the news casters would get their facts right and actually describe the situation accurately. The police reported one vehicle for being 33% overloaded. They found some with rear lights not working and some with tyres that were not correct or in good enough condition for use.

What started out as a road safety campaign has now turned into a mis-reported saga that betrays caravanners as irresponsible people, which I'm quite sure 99% of are NOT.

As a caravanner, truck driver and tower of large trailers I have encouraged people to seek advice from the likes of VOSA and other reputable organisations, as it has been my experiance that on the whole, they would rather educate than prosecute.

I realy do wish that news programs would leave out the drama and stick to fact.

It would be most interesting to hear from any of you that were pulled into strensham. Your accounts of what went on would no doubt be enlightening to the novices out there.

Regards

Steve L.

 

[hgv dave]

hi steve

i might be controversial here but i think that there should be more vosa checks on caravans and solo cars,i know that the police patrol cars now have number plate recognition cameras fitted and when a car does not have tax,insurance and mot,a alarm is sounded,but what if a car has all of these and has faults on it?

i belive that there should be more vosa safety checks on every type of road going vehicle,not just once a year for the mot.i will give you an example,my brother-in-law has just bought a grand cherokee jeep,it was mot'ed 2 weeks ago....he has just ordered 2 new tyres for the back axle,when it passed its mot the tyres were just over the limit for tyre wear and were legal....only just though and yes there is an advisory on the mot about the tyres,but what is stopping him driving that car around for the next 12mths?..ok it would be stupid for him to do that,thats why he is putting new tyres on the car but the car has an mot for the next 12mths and for that reason i belive that there should be more vosa roadside checks for all road going vehicles

hgv dave

 

[WatsonJohnG]

Good journalism would have given the number of vehicles/outfits checked and the number of passes and fails

 

[602]

Hi HGV Dave,

The MOT certificate shows only that the vehicle was examined sometime within the last 12 (13) months. I think minibuses are required to be examined much more frequently.

Yes problems can develop and/or mature during the following twelve months, but where do you draw the line? A MOT failure does not mean a vehicle is unsafe, eg, you are required to have only one stop lamp, on centre or off-side, but will fail an MOT if your nearside stop lamp is not working.

When MOTs were introduced (late 1950s?) I read that it was estimated that only 2% of accidents were attributable to mechanical defects. (My first MOT was on a 1931 MG sports. The examiner told me that my tyres were OK, as he couldn't actually see canvas). But I don't think the same would be true today, too many drivers with little mechanical sympathy, and small cars are too zippy.

In France, the MOT lasts for two years ...... and costs less.

602

 

[Steve L]

Good journalisum and accuracey is precisely what led me to raise the subject.

I quite agree with Dave that there should be more inspectionsof caravans, but I would be more broad spectrum than that and include all trailers. But I would say that both VOSA and the police involved would need to be more educated and knowledgable.

I can speak with first hand experience on this.

First of all as most of you know, I am a qualified engineer who has spent many years in the motor manufacturing industry working on chassis production products and proto type testing.

Now to the incident.

I had borrowed a twin axle horse trailer from my son's partner to move furniature to Hereford. Now as it happened , it was a wednesday which is market day in Hereford. I was driving into the city from Leominster in our 1998 Laguna estate with the trailer, whe I was stopped on Holmer road by a policeman as VOSA don't have power to stop traffic. I wasn't too worried as I had checked the trailer before towing and made sure that all the road lights and tyres were in order etc. The only fault was that the front marker lights had been broken and were not working, which is a common fault on hhorse trailers.

The bobby was a very polite person who asked me to do a light check and sure enough he picked up on the marker light problem. But as I was not the owner of the trailer and I assured him that the trailer was not likely to be used at night, he let that slip with just a verbal request that I get the lights fixed. However the VOSA chappie was milling around the trailer at the wheels and muttering about the front wheel bearings being no good and the trailer shouldn't be roadworthy.

I asked, on what evidence did he come to that conclusion? Apparently that was based on the fat that the front hubs were running hotter than the rear ones. I then asked what the temperature difference was? He replied they felt hotter by hand. I then turned to the policeman and pointed out that as the trailer was pointing nose down as it's hitch height was higher than the car, the weight carried on the front wheels of the trailer would naturally be more and inherantly the wheels might feel hotter. I volenteered to jack up the trailer for the wheels to be assessed. But the VOSA chap didn't want to do that as he had already made his mind up by touch of hand!!

It didn't take long for the policeman to understand my point and over rule our VOSA "expert". Much to Mr Vossa, I was allowed to travel on my way.

What I wonder thoughis, if I had not been so "savvy" with vehicle construction and use regulations, or not been balshy enough to confront the situation, would common sense of prevailed. Or if the policeman had not got an understanding of what I was talking about, would he of believed a VOSA vehicle checker who didn't want to jack the trailer up and measure the play in the bearings, rather than go by the feel of his had on the wheel.

So I think that because there are an awfull lot of people out there who "know nothing" about the mechanics, let alone the rights and wrongs of towing law, there is a lot of training to be done before stepping into the relms of none MOT tested trailers and their roadworthyness.

Regards.

Steve L.

 

[colin(bridgend)]

I have been given to understand by a senior VOSA employee that the police can only undertake a visual inspection of a vehicle ie. lights, tyres. etc. They are not qualified to undertake detailed road worthy inspections. He was stopped by a police officer who wanted to carry out an inspection of his vehicle "routine roadside inspection" he called it. When asked for his proof of capability he could not produce any evidence. My friend produced his VOSA card and undertook an inspection of the police car, found faults on it and the police officer had to radio in for breakdown recovery as he was told if he drove off in it he would be reported for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

[hgv dave]

colin

i think thats what is called poetic justice

hgv dave

 

[DarrylFlynn]

Quote :-

I have been given to understand by a senior VOSA employee that the police can only undertake a visual inspection of a vehicle ie. lights, tyres. etc. They are not qualified to undertake detailed road worthy inspections.

This is TOTALLY INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have recently retired as a Police Officer having spent several years on The Fatal and Serious Accident Unit. I received the same detailed level of training as VOSA and in many cases exceeded theirs. I had the power to PROHIBIT a Vehicles use on the road if i deemed it unroadworthy. It is fair to say that many many officers do not have that level of Authority or Experience but do not assume that NO one has!

In the past when i have done Roadside checks with VOSA i have examined vehicles alongside them NOT needing them to assist me.

Lesser experienced/qualified/authorised officers were usually employed stopping the Traffic for examination.

Point 2

He was stopped by a police officer who wanted to carry out an inspection of his vehicle "routine roadside inspection" he called it. When asked for his proof of capability he could not produce any evidence. My friend produced his VOSA card and undertook an inspection of the police car, found faults on it and the police officer had to radio in for breakdown recovery as he was told if he drove off in it he would be reported for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

And the Band played " Believe it if you like"

Now then can someone help me check my tyre pressures please as im not sure how to do it?

Regards Darryl

 

[Steve L]

Well, I think I can see why the majority of people haven't got the time of day for authority, if it is dished out in such a balshy attitude.

I saw a classic example of this on a tv program about policing the motorways of the midlands.

A car had brokedown on the M42. The highways agencey had attended and taken the driver to hopwood services to get fuel as he had run out. On way they alerted the police about the fact they could smell alcohol on the drivers breath. The police attended but could not confront the driver because as yet he had not broken the law. They lay in wait a few hundred yards up the road. now as they followed the driver, who was taken back to his car by the highways agent, the driver after fueling his car then made two basic mistakes. 1/ failed to indicate when moving from lane 2 to lane 1. Then 2/ failed to indicate leaving lane 1 and entering the exit slip road.

They followed him to the service station and at that point the officer challenged the driver with the acusation that he was not wearing his seat belt, to which the driver replied "no, because if I wasn't wearing it, a BUZZER sounds in the car". The police officer then proceeded to arrest the driver and breathalise him. The breath test proved positive he was charged with drink driving and taken to Hopwood police station for a further test. At the police station the guy admitted he had been on a stag party at the weekend. However the tests at the station now showed the guy to be under thelimit all be it "only just". So now the police took him back to his car, but on the way the same officer then told the guy he would get a

 

[ProfJohnL]

Well, I think I can see why the majority of people haven't got the time of day for authority, if it is dished out in such a balshy attitude.

I saw a classic example of this on a tv program about policing the motorways of the midlands.

A car had brokedown on the M42. The highways agencey had attended and taken the driver to hopwood services to get fuel as he had run out. On way they alerted the police about the fact they could smell alcohol on the drivers breath. The police attended but could not confront the driver because as yet he had not broken the law. They lay in wait a few hundred yards up the road. now as they followed the driver, who was taken back to his car by the highways agent, the driver after fueling his car then made two basic mistakes. 1/ failed to indicate when moving from lane 2 to lane 1. Then 2/ failed to indicate leaving lane 1 and entering the exit slip road.

They followed him to the service station and at that point the officer challenged the driver with the acusation that he was not wearing his seat belt, to which the driver replied "no, because if I wasn't wearing it, a BUZZER sounds in the car". The police officer then proceeded to arrest the driver and breathalise him. The breath test proved positive he was charged with drink driving and taken to Hopwood police station for a further test. At the police station the guy admitted he had been on a stag party at the weekend. However the tests at the station now showed the guy to be under thelimit all be it "only just". So now the police took him back to his car, but on the way the same officer then told the guy he would get a

 

[DarrylFlynn]

Well, I think I can see why the majority of people haven't got the time of day for authority, if it is dished out in such a balshy attitude.

I saw a classic example of this on a tv program about policing the motorways of the midlands.

A car had brokedown on the M42. The highways agencey had attended and taken the driver to hopwood services to get fuel as he had run out. On way they alerted the police about the fact they could smell alcohol on the drivers breath. The police attended but could not confront the driver because as yet he had not broken the law. They lay in wait a few hundred yards up the road. now as they followed the driver, who was taken back to his car by the highways agent, the driver after fueling his car then made two basic mistakes. 1/ failed to indicate when moving from lane 2 to lane 1. Then 2/ failed to indicate leaving lane 1 and entering the exit slip road.

They followed him to the service station and at that point the officer challenged the driver with the acusation that he was not wearing his seat belt, to which the driver replied "no, because if I wasn't wearing it, a BUZZER sounds in the car". The police officer then proceeded to arrest the driver and breathalise him. The breath test proved positive he was charged with drink driving and taken to Hopwood police station for a further test. At the police station the guy admitted he had been on a stag party at the weekend. However the tests at the station now showed the guy to be under thelimit all be it "only just". So now the police took him back to his car, but on the way the same officer then told the guy he would get a

 

[Steve L]

John, I take your point, it is unlikely that a prosecution would succeed. But had the highways agencey not sowed the seeds of doubt then not even a

 

[xtrailman]

It would be a move in the right direction to remove the 1 million plus, uninsured,unlicensed drivers of the road.

Instead all we get is lip service, nothing gets done, and as a result OUR insurance costs are increased.

 

[SBS]

"I've heard a comment again thta was said to me by a police man who argued the use of white front poor visability lights being used when not foggy, and that was "it is a pet hate of mine". In this case it was his "pet hate" of drink drivers which I'm sure we all deplore anyway. But my point is I thought policemen were trained to be totally impartial and not have any "pet's"!!"

Steve, it may well be the Police Officer's pet hate (mine also) but it is also illegal. Fog lights can only be used in fog or falling snow or in poor visibility. They tend to dazzle, especially when used in heavy rain.

Mike

 

[Steve L]

Hi SBS.

You might want to check the highway code and vehicle construction and use regulations for the true definition of poor visability lights and fog lights as they are two very different types.

Front fog lights are yellow in colour and as such are designed specifically for use in that circunstance.

Poor visability lights are white in colour and can be used in situations where there is reduced visability caused by rain, twilight sun dazzle, snow and fog for example.

I don't advocate people using these lights in addition to headlights just for the hell of it, and would certainly refer them to spec savers for an eyesight test. However, I do think that for certain cirumstances there is a common sense reson for using these alternative lights.

For example, my car (1998 LAGUNA ESTATE)has the direction indicators located right next to the dipped beam head lights. I noticed that in the short spells of dawn and dusk twilight that with the head lights on, it is hard to see the indicators flashing. Now before you start, I've recently had my eyes checked and I have 20/20 vision. What I have noted however is that if I use the poor visability lights instead, the indicators stand out much better and the visability of the car is not reduced either.

This particular weather situation occurs every sunny day just as the sun is setting. I'm quite sure you along with many others have driven into the sunlight and have only just spotted the oncoming car that was obliterated by the glaring sun. Now just imagine that same car with poor visability lights on and indicating to turn into a side road. I suggest that you will see that car upto 30% earlier and be able to react to that situation with clearer knowledge.

The point I'm trying to get across is that any light usage that improve's safety on the roads has to be seen as a posative contribution and therefore a modecome of common sense should prevail.

Let's be honest with our selves on this particular subject before plod run's alongside a hearse in wooton bassett driving down the high street with their fog lights on. May be a bit crass I know and I do profoundly and unreservedly appologise for using the example, but I think that there was probably a HSE risk assessment done and it was deemed acceptable to use the poor visability lights for safety's sake.

Regards.

Steve L.

 

[Lutz]

Foglights and/or poor visibility lights are to be used for that purpose and that purpose only. If you wish to make yourself seen better in low sunlight then switch on your headlights, not anything else. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with always driving with your headlights on - as required in several European countries anyway.

 

[colin-yorkshire]

hi all

correct me if I am wrong, "no doubt someone will" but as I remember from my old motor sport days driving lights can only be used if their centres are above 2ft from the ground and be a max of 55w and should only be connected to the main beam (so they go out on dip beam) higher wattage blubs can be fitted "for use off road" but the lights must then have covers on while on the public highway.

I remember the old mini cooper once failing a mot because the lights were 1/4in too low (road tyres instead of studs)and the whole light bar had to be removed before it would pass. as far as I am aware the regs have never been changed.

colin

 

[Lutz]

You may well be right, Colin, but you are talking about spotlights rather than foglights and/or poor visibility lights which are normally fitted as low as reasonably possible.

 

[Steve L]

Colin, you are basically correct.

Basically all driving auxilary lamps have to be connected via an additional rely linked to the main beam circuit to ensure the extra lights go off when dipped beam is in use.

AS for 55watts, that is the maximum legal strength for dipped headlights. However at most car accessory shops you will find various light tint configurations and standard bulbs upto 65watts visably on sale. Then if like me, you require a little extra, just ask the salesman and out will pop an array of bulbs between 80 and 200 watts labelled "competition use only" but you can pick them up for around a fiver each. Now this is where I get everyones gander up!!

I run 100 watt main beam bulbs on my laguna which affords me a very bright view of the road ahead, but standard 55 watt bulbs in dip beam. Oh of coarse I also have 55 watt poor visability lights which I use responssibly, by that, I mean that I turn my poor visability lights off when behind traffic or when vehicles come the opposite way. Now to me, as I'm not dazzling folks and dipping down to the bare minimum and legal lighting to be considerate to all road users. Unfortunately not all people do this and they are the ones that need the rap on the knuckles.

In the modern world we live in you can now get Zeon lights on cars. These are ultra focused lights which have a very definative light range and if adjusted wrongly can be far more annoying and unsafe, also those gadget loaded motors with supposed automatic dipping lights.

Good old fashioned driver controlled motoring should be the norm rather than being lazy and trusting gadgets!!

I had a perfect example of badly adjusted zeon lights last night. I was travelling on the A417 from Gloucester back to Leominster. Following me was a BMW X5 (I can tell most makes of car by their headlight configureation), the lights on it were very badly adjusted and as it went over the bumpy 417, it not only dazzled me but also the lorry three cars infront of me. I know this because everytime the X5 lights appeared to flash the lorry hit the brakes, he was obviously a very unhappy trucker. It must of been blattently obvious to the driver of the X5 but they seemed obliviousand persisted in tail gateing us for sevaral miles until I was able to overtake the lorry leaving him to suffer the X5 idiot.

Now I expect he may say the bumpy road was at fault, but I suspect knackered suspension dampers were more like it. He'd probably bought the car with all his hard earned as his chelsea tractor, but then had the fright of his life when BMW quoted their price for a damper overall.

Regards

Steve L.

 

[Lutz]

Worn dampers or not, it sounds as though the headlamp beam self-levelling function, which is mandatory with xenon headlights, was either defective or incorrectly adjusted.