What do you tow with yours?

[fifty seven]

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.

[antarmike]

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.

[fifty seven]

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.

[antarmike]

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.

[AntC]

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.

[antarmike]

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.

[naturebell]

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?

[antarmike]

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.

[John C]

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

[Landie Les]

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

[gertie]

JC i understand your concern about visibility and being a long time dead but it is against the law to have a triangular reflector on a vehicle as i understand it.

[John C]

I don't give a ! Too many near misses with BMWs...

[Old ORO]

All

This is an interesting thread about what we tow. Perhaps a new thread on the finer points of the law etc could be started?

A Happy New Year to all

Martyn

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

[John C]

This is what I tow - the Sankey is almost the same age as the 80in

[John C]

Here it is with a more recent approach to lights and triangles (and reinstated original number plate)

[bumpy]

A bit late but raised a few hundred pounds for my daughter primary school.

[antarmike]

I tow a jeep trailer and decided that it is a pain to carry both a spare wheel for the Minerva and a spare for the trailer which is on five 1/2" studs on a 5 1/2" PCD  hub. (Willys Jeep / Bantam Trailer spec.)

So today I have been making an adaptor to mount on the jeep trailer hub, that will then carry The Minerva spare if needed. (five 9/16" studs on 6 1/2" PCD.)









Everything seems to line up properly but I am letting the thread lock fully cure before I do a trial mounting of the wheel.

[Andy80]

Nice solution :)

The chance of needing a spare is slim but you know if you didn't have one you would be sitting at the side of the road with a flat!!!!

[antarmike]

Nice solution :)

The chance of needing a spare is slim but you know if you didn't have one you would be sitting at the side of the road with a flat!!!!

Being happy to leave the Jeep standard spare at home also saves quite a few pounds of weight.......

[KAC 87]

And this is what I tow with KAC 87.


Both June 1950 (KAC registered and the Brockhouse manufactured.


Same spare and no adaptor or triangles.

[Andy80]

A bit late but raised a few hundred pounds for my daughter primary school.

Cute little 80" :)

[tankman]

I took FAP , and two Brockhouse trailers joined together.around Eastnor one year .

[daleradford]

All in a days work !
The hard life of a 107" station wagon, Edinburgh and back on Saturday and now this today my owner is taking the 

           

Dale

[philpjread]

I used to use my 2 litre diesel 88 to tow my Range Rover p38 to the main dealer l when it inevitably would not start.

[AntC]

All in a days work !
The hard life of a 107" station wagon, Edinburgh and back on Saturday and now this today my owner is taking the 

           

Dale

Nice hard frost makes the job easier until the lack of hydraulics forces you to shovel it all off - which at least warms you up!