Land Rover Series One Club
If you can see this message, you're not getting to see all the wonderful content on this website... why not REGISTER for our forum and get access to so much more?

Author Topic: What do you tow with yours?  (Read 83913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 18, 2013 - 22:20
Reply #240

Offline Chris

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Something different, latest project, a Cobra kit, no not to build, not lost the faith, I have it to sell for a friend

December 25, 2013 - 13:50
Reply #241

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
First run out with the Roset, Christmas day trundle

You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

December 25, 2013 - 14:16
Reply #242

Offline RANDR

  • LRSOC & LR Register Member
  • Location: North Yorkshire/Kent
Christmas presents opened & the girls gone off to ride their horses,  so on my way back to the workshop for a couple of hours before christmas lunch! :D

December 25, 2013 - 14:23
Reply #243

Offline Monkeypin

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: South Devon, UK
First run out with the Roset, Christmas day trundle

Dry roads and blue skies?? Have you photo shopped that picture??
Is sarcasm a very deep sar??

December 25, 2013 - 14:37
Reply #244

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Dry roads and blue skies?? Have you photo shopped that picture??

No, WYSIWYG!! Sun was awfully low and it was hard keeping my shadow out of shot, I was on the longest focal length I could get with the only lens I had with me.....
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 09:50
Reply #245

Offline AntC

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: Chelmsford
I notice antarmike that you have no reflective triangles on your trailer.  I have them and hate them on my Brockhouse so, can I legally dispense with them?
Cheers

Ant

January 02, 2014 - 10:09
Reply #246

Offline fifty seven

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: West Highlands, Scotland
I notice antarmike that you have no reflective triangles on your trailer.  I have them and hate them on my Brockhouse so, can I legally dispense with them?


No...this sort of extra reflector remains the one thing that makes the rear of any  trailer   distinctive.


At the time the post war Brockhouse trailers were made they might have had a single or pair of  T shaped ones ...an arrangement of small round red reflectors against a white background. On a vintage display trailer you might get away with this. But I suspect that traffic police would be looking for the modern pair of regulation triangles if someone ran into the back of you.

January 02, 2014 - 10:45
Reply #247

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK

No...this sort of extra reflector remains the one thing that makes the rear of any  trailer   distinctive.


At the time the post war Brockhouse trailers were made they might have had a single or pair of  T shaped ones ...an arrangement of small round red reflectors against a white background. On a vintage display trailer you might get away with this. But I suspect that traffic police would be looking for the modern pair of regulation triangles if someone ran into the back of you.
I am sorry but I have to argue against that popular misconception.  What you say is true only of trailers built on or after 1st July 1970.

Road vehicle lighting regulations say that any trailer needs two rear retro reflectors. That I do not dispute.

Reg 18 and Schedule 1 states all vehicle and trailers must have rear retro reflectors, without any exceptions.

Schedule 18 of the 1989 act and Reg 3 EEC directive 76/757 require that any trailer (other than a broken down motor vehicle being towed) manufactured on or after 1.7.70 must have a pair rear retro reflectors that show certain approval marks. (The reflectors can only have the approval mark if they are triangles, the size and shape being part of their design that allows them to carry that mark, ie they will a triangle  Length of side 150 to 200mm etc or they cannot gain that mark).

Slightly different requirements apply to trailers manufactured between 1.7.70 and 1.10.89, to the requirements that apply to those manufactured after that date but that doesn't concern my trailer or an early  Brockhouse. (Requirement relate to approval markings the retro reflectors must carry.)

There is a requirement for a pre 1.1.70 to be fitted with rear retro reflective makers (schedule 1) but there is no requirement as to the shape, size or any markings they must carry (schedule 18 5. (b) (iii))

The Roset trailer I am towing is 1953 hence pre 1.7.70, so the only requirement is that it has two rear retro reflectors, which it has.  They are round, which is acceptable since there is no requirement for them to be triangular or to have any markings or for them to be in any particular position on a trailer of this date.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made
1 Thank you.
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 11:50
Reply #248

Offline AntC

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: Chelmsford
Thank you for that,

Not quite sure what a 'retro reflector' is. but I'm more than happy to change my triangles for something more like your round ones.
Cheers

Ant

January 02, 2014 - 11:55
Reply #249

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Thank you for that,

Not quite sure what a 'retro reflector' is. but I'm more than happy to change my triangles for something more like your round ones.

If you look under "interpretations" in the act I gave a link to you get

“Rear retro reflector” -  "A retro reflector used to indicate the presence and width of a vehicle when viewed from the rear."

interpret it just as a reflector if you like.

Be aware that only courts of law can interpret the law, I am happy enough to run mine with round red reflectors.  However I advise you to fully study the 1989 act and if you are not sure, seek proper legal advice since what I have posted is my own personal interpretation of that act.

Having said that it also appears to be Gordon Wilson's view as expressed in Jane's "The Traffic Officers Companion" a quick guide for Officers involved in roads policing.

Also under interpretation find this (8) "A reference in a Schedule to there being no requirement in relation to a lamp, reflector, rear marking or device is without prejudice to any other provision in these Regulations affecting same."

You will have to decide how this applies to  my interpretation given earlier that "There is a requirement for a pre 1.1.70 to be fitted with rear retro reflective makers (schedule 1) but there is "no requirement" as to the shape, size or any markings they must carry (schedule 18 5. (b) (iii)).  I myself can find nothing that over-rides Schedule 18 5. (b) (iii).
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 12:28
Reply #250

Offline fifty seven

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: West Highlands, Scotland
Whether the lighting regulations apply in full or in part will not get you past a keen eyed constable. From both a moral and legal perspective - being properly lit on  a public highway is a requirement of all transport acts ( As amended)  Any towed rig must be recognisable to the average motorist . A Triangle makes perfect sense. Having one will not open you to accusations that the way your trailer appeared from behind caused confusion to other drivers.


I well remember in the 1950's the latest lighting regulations act becoming law. The lighting regulations for trucks and trailers was retrospective. In particular after a string of collisions between cars and farm trailers parked or driven in poor light along the highway, the rules applied to all farm trailers in use on public roads the late 1950's. There was no excuse about the date of manufacture. All farm towed equipment had to show the round type of rear reflector Mike mentions I still have boxes that came with a couple of the spare round reflectors that were never fitted .


It may appear that later transport acts were less specific . An  assumption that very old towed equipment had ceased to be used...and would seldom appear on public highways is another aspect. The retrospective nature of earlier regulations might appear to have been overlooked when later acts were encoded. But experience of these Acts - and the frequency of  double negatives within many of them-  a 'catch all' phrase may be present  in small print . A Specialist Transport lawyer might argue the point. I would not dare.


If anyone wants to see how the trailer law will soon be encoded all over Europe you need only look to the Dutch regulations which reflect the tougher end of the latest ? 2008 ? EU consensus. A Dutch vehicle may not tow any trailer over 750kg  GW unless it meets stringent NL type approval, build, inspection /testing standards. You will hardly see any small vintage Trailers here anymore.


If towing a vintage trailer in the UK after dark, a separate demountable  lighting board with its triangles , that can be removed for show,  is well worth considering.

January 02, 2014 - 12:38
Reply #251

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Whether the lighting regulations apply in full or in part will not get you past a keen eyed constable.

A constable is duty bound apply the law and their acts in their entirety . He will not act unless what you are doing breaks the regulations.  Lighting regs apply in full in all cases. There is no question of them only applying in parts.  The full weight of the regs however is that there is "no requirement" for pre 1.7.70 trailers to have rear retro reflectors of the triangular variety.

Most keen eyed constables tend to carry "the Traffic Officer's Companion" and it is there first port of call if a motorist challenges if what they say is correct actually is correct.  It is their handy "glove box" reference tool. The attached pdf is most than likely to be the page they will look at.

I do not argue that having a pair of triangles isn't common sense,  but I prefer an original look to common sense. 
 I am noted for my ability to run at the extremes of what is legal, and to my mind round reflectors on a 1953 trailer is perfectly legal, if maybe not common sense.

I also question whether all motorists associate triangles with trailers.  There are enough out there with no triangles on trailers or triangles on motor vehicles! The average persons grasp on the realities of C and U regs and lighting regs seems tenuous at best.

From .... a.... legal perspective - being properly lit on  a public highway is a requirement of all transport acts ( As amended) 
For those of use in the UK that legislation is the Road Vehicles Lighting regulations 1989.  The lights and reflectors to be shown on a trailer are only to be found within this one act.  I believe that round retro reflectors do comply fully with the current lighting regulations, as amended, if on a pre 1.7.70 trailer.

No other act relates to trailer reflectors. (except C and U which says that "the required" reflectors must be kept clean, without going into any detail as to what the requirements for the reflectors actually are.)

Satisfy the lighting regs, and the C&U regs about keeping them clean and and you are legal.  My only moral duty is surely to comply with these laws?  In a democracy, parliament, for the people, has said this is what I need to do. Parliament, for the people,  has set the standard  of lighting I should achieve.  I see no moral reason to go one step beyond.
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 13:53
Reply #252

Offline fifty seven

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: West Highlands, Scotland
I will only repond to say this is a public forum. Frequently people come here for advice. The advice they receive may contain personal opinions. It is for each person on the forum to make up their own mind whether what they read here applies to their situation or not.

January 02, 2014 - 14:30
Reply #253

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
I will only repond to say this is a public forum. Frequently people come here for advice. The advice they receive may contain personal opinions. It is for each person on the forum to make up their own mind whether what they read here applies to their situation or not.
A point I clearly made in my posts.
Be aware that only courts of law can interpret the law, I am happy enough to run mine with round red reflectors.  However I advise you to fully study the 1989 act and if you are not sure, seek proper legal advice since what I have posted is my own personal interpretation of that act.

Your interpretation of the act may well be that I need triangles, for you earlier posted that one cannot dispense with the triangles fitted to a pre 1.1.70 Brockhouse.  That was a pretty categorical statement of your interpretation.

The logical follow on is that you are saying I am breaking the law by not having triangles fitted.  Nowhere, so far at least, have you retracted the statement that you cannot dispense with triangles or the implied fact that I am breaking the law by not having them.

Nowhere have you argued by Schedule 18 5 (b) (iii) "No Requirement" does not apply to a 1953 built trailer, or shown any other over-riding legislation.

 I feel it would be polite if you could confirm whether you now still think I am a law breaker or not.  If that is what you feel,  at least make it clear that is also only your personal opinion.

I am noted for my ability to run at the extremes of what is legal,
I like to feel I stay inside the law.  I have out argued traffic cops regarding this rig I used to run, (68 tons gross. 25.86m overall 10' 9" wide) I am sure a piddling little Roset won't get me in trouble. Traffic coppers are often fairly ignorant of the fine detail of traffic law, anything not "run of the mill", and generally back down when corrected.  62 year old trailers are not "run of the mill" stuff.




Apologies re an earlier mistake,  The stipulation regarding keeping retro reflectors clean is within the Lighting regs (Reg 23) not C and U regs as I mistakenly stated,  I tried to correct it but was timed out on the editing function.
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 16:09
Reply #254

Offline AntC

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: Chelmsford
Didn't realise my question was going to be so controversial.

I have just consulted a near neighbour who used to be with Essex traffic police and is still a copper but got bored with sitting in a car!

He said that, in his opinion, all traffic police would be aware of the need for trailers to have triangular reflectors.  He said that, ordinarily, one would not be pulled for the absence of them as long as the trailer and towing vehicle "looked right" and there were two reflectors on the rear of the trailer.  If there was a light out, or no mudguards, the absence of reflectors would be added to the list of contraventions to the RTA.  If you were hit by a vehicle from behind and had no reflectors, it would not help your claim that the fault lay with the following vehicle.

It's all common sense really I suppose and, in spite of what I have said earlier, I shall probably keep them.
Cheers

Ant

January 02, 2014 - 17:11
Reply #255

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Didn't realise my question was going to be so controversial.

I have just consulted a near neighbour who used to be with Essex traffic police and is still a copper but got bored with sitting in a car!

He said that, in his opinion, all traffic police would be aware of the need for trailers to have triangular reflectors.  He said that, ordinarily, one would not be pulled for the absence of them as long as the trailer and towing vehicle "looked right" and there were two reflectors on the rear of the trailer.  If there was a light out, or no mudguards, the absence of reflectors would be added to the list of contraventions to the RTA.  If you were hit by a vehicle from behind and had no reflectors, it would not help your claim that the fault lay with the following vehicle.

It's all common sense really I suppose and, in spite of what I have said earlier, I shall probably keep them.
As I said earlier the average traffic copper has a poor understanding of traffic law when it applies to non run of the mill stuff.

Your have just quoted a retired copper as saying all trailers need triangles when there is pretty clear evidence that Schedule 18 5. (b) (ii) of the road vehicle lighting acts shows he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Fortunately the CPS would have to decide whether there are grounds  to prosecute, and they are far more clued up than retired traffic cops.  Again to make it clear what a traffic cop says is only an opinion and only the courts can decide whether an offence has been commuted, and that will only happen if CPS decides that there are grounds for a prosecution.

Print out Schedule 18. show it to the copper and ask him whether he remembers that bit, and ask him how it should be applied to a pre 1971 trailer.  He might change his mind when he is reminded of something he has forgotten, or educated with a fact he never knew,

As I recommended seek legal advice.  Copper are not trained to give legal advice.  You need to be talking to a lawyer specialising in road traffic law.  If feel you would get a better answer from them.

Insurance companies are obliged to apply the law,  If the law says a pre 1. 9. 1971 vehicle only needs reflectors but there is "no requirement" as to the shape or markings they carry, they cannot base any decision on whether your reflectors were round, triangular or a heptagon.  If you have the reflectors as determined by the 89 act, you are complying with the law.

If it bothers you consult a specialist lawyer.

Global Moderator Comment Polite reminder to keep to Topic ' what do you tow ? ' Suggest you start a new Topic about Legislation / law if required.
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 17:52
Reply #256

Offline naturebell

  • Non-Member
  • Location: Norfolk, UK
In my experience ,only a few coppers actually know the law which they are supposed to enforce.You seem to be well up on the traffic regulations Mike,so am I right in thinking that the front indicators on your Minerva should be on the outermost part of the wing,ie where the sidelight is,or am I way off on this?

January 02, 2014 - 18:11
Reply #257

Online antarmike

  • LRSOC Member
  • Minerva & Bantam Trailer / 101" & Sankey / 55 86"
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Mike,so am I right in thinking that the front indicators on your Minerva should be on the outermost part of the wing,ie where the sidelight is,or am I way off on this?

Re Minerva covered by "A motor vehicle first used on or after 1st January 1936 and before 1st April 1986, a trailer manufactured on or after 1st January 1936 and before 1st October 1985, a pedal cycle with or without a sidecar or a trailer, a horse-drawn vehicle and a vehicle drawn or propelled by hand:" and the requirement is "Any arrangement of indicators so as to satisfy the requirements for angles of visibility in paragraph 3."

Regarding Markings on Indicator lamps Minerva covered by 2A motor vehicle first used before 1st April 1986 and a trailer manufactured before 1st October 1985:"  where the requirement is " No requirement"

For the age of the vehicle there is "no requirement" regarding for wattage and the colour can be white or amber.

There is no requirement whether the front position lamps (side lights) are outside the indicators or whether the indicators are outside the front position lamps.

So it is "my own personal opinion" that you are indeed "way off" on this one. 

The link to the regs is here

Why don't you read it and see what you think it says?
 
I am getting a bit fed up with defending my position.  Please will everyone read the regulations for themselves instead of asking for my interpretation.

Before anyone asks the lower front wing mounting position of both front marker lights and indicators is legal  For this age of vehicle the minimum height for indicators is 350mm ( they are actually 600mm) and there is "no Requirement" regarding minimum height of front marker lights.

I have nothing to add to that, any further enquiries by PM please.

Sorry Mods this is merely to answer a specific question that was posted.  I do not see it as related to the topic, but neither was the very first question to me, I have only been trying to clarify why I have chosen to fit round reflectors.


Global Moderator Comment Antarmike, some of your comments within this thread have been reported, please keep to topic or it will become locked or deleted as required, thank you.
You are never too old to have a happy childhood.

January 02, 2014 - 18:29
Reply #258

Offline John C

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: West Yorkshire, UK
When I lived in Lincs and used my 80in as a daily - I fitted a red triangle reflector to the tailgate because a lot of motorists there drive like idiots (insert stronger ruder word) and used to discover I was doing 50mph when they were six feet behind me! I figured I'd rather live than die even though life was in the spin cycle at the time.


Recently a French guy on a WWII Harley was killed (in France) when he was hit from behind and a slow-moving '40s Scammell Pioneer on the motorway (in England) was hit from behind by a Polish wagon.


We're dead a long time - that focuses my mind on visibility these days; 'I was right' isn't much of an epitaph

January 02, 2014 - 18:37
Reply #259

Offline Landie Les Moderator

  • LRSOC Member
  • Location: Sussex, UK
Global Moderator Comment Antarmike, you have no need to defend your position. You have made your point well enough, others are also entitled to there own. You have added links to documents so others can see it for themselves. This forum is a discussion forum, not some sort of court. It is at the end of the day for the readers to make up their own mind - rightly or wrongly.You need not labour this point any more