From: Andy Hewitt on
Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> saying something like:
>
> >> It's always been the case - perhaps sensibly (unlike now) the Law back
> >> then didn't presume to do you for something you haven't done.
> >
> >Other way round surely? I can remember people getting points for
> >carrying an illegal spare at one time. Maybe the victim of an
> >over-zealous plod.
>
> Likely, but perhaps a case finally reached the High Court and got
> resolved in the defendant's favour. Which didn't help all the other poor
> saps before who'd been done and fined.

Quite so, but that's what 'case law' is all about, and to a great extent
why we don't need so many darned written laws.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: darsy on
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:41:01 +0100, Catman
<catman(a)rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> wrote:

>doetnietcomputeren wrote:
>> On 2010-03-31 15:59:23 +0200, "Vass" <mark(a)XXREMOVEXXdoubleyolk.co.uk>
>> said:

>> BTW: do you also carry a small compressor? Otherwise, the can of gunk
>> will be useless.
>>
>My GT has both in a neat little carry case and a filler for the spare
>wheel well, since they never supplied spares on the 3.2 V6

RX-8's are similar, insofar as they supply the gunk and a compressor,
but no model ever had a spare so there's no need for a "filler" 'cos
there's no "spare wheel well".


--
d.
From: darsy on
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:18:54 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original(a)ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:

>
>"darsy" <darsy(a)sticky.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:u8g6r5tvkvs4gdedake243lmi53rbmd1sq(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:24:46 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
>> <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>>drugs began to take hold. I remember thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt)
>>>saying something like:
>>>
>>>>it's illegal to have an illegal
>>>>spare,
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>
>> I'd hope so - my car has no spare at all, which is surely "worse" than
>> having an "illegal" one.
>
>No, coz with no spare, the car ain't moving, but if you fit an illegal one,
>then it would be able to be driven and you'd run the risk of getting 3
>points and a fine.

erm, no, that wasn't my point - see my reply to Catman.
--
d.
From: Beav on

"zymurgy" <zymurgy(a)technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3dee291c-209d-4002-8e37-2e0aff1fe107(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Apparently you can get nicked if plod asks for a look under the bonnet
>> > and
>> > finds a loose battery, so I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be a
>> > requirement of the MOT.
>>
>> That's one of the aforementioned various reasons, but it's still not an
>> MOT requirement.

>ITYF it is. Certainly for cages anyway. One of my cages failed on a
>dodgy (plastic) clamp

You're no doubt going to be told it failed because someone doesn't know the
rules and that it's perfectly acceptable to have a 30lb lump of lead and
acid held in place by gravity alone.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19







From: Pip on
zymurgy wrote:

> On Mar 31, 8:14�am, "Mungo \"Two Sheds\" Toadfoot"
> <eastREMOVEk...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[unsecured battery]

> > That's one of the aforementioned various reasons, but it's still
> > not an MOT requirement.
>
> ITYF it is. Certainly for cages anyway. One of my cages failed on a
> dodgy (plastic) clamp

I thought it was/is too. I've read down this thread with increasing
incredulity, as I'm sure I've had a fail for that in the past and I'm
equally sure that when assisting with testing it has been pointed out
as a point for failure.

Come to that, I've gone to some pretty esoteric lengths to ensure
batteries are secure when in non-standard positions in non-standard
vehicles, just to make sure the tester doesn't have anything to pick up
(I'd far rather dig out and fit the blown sidelight bulb to slake his
need to have something to bullshit about).

--
Pip: B12