Unimog legal running...

[njc110381]

It seems a trailer would fix the problem? Not perfect I know but a cheap solution?

[ABM]

I emailed VOSA about trailers and they replied with 1. No, Ag machines cannot tow trailers, then in the same email, 2. Yes if you do not travel over 20mph and not on motorways. they do not even know the rules themselves. It seems to me that if pc plod and mr vosa really want to do you they have so many rules and regulations they will find a way !

 

I have looked into the regs and they do have an exception for carrying wood chip if 'working on street trees or on land adjacent to the highway'. This could be a good one to legitamise running chip on the mog, hopefully they won't check which job you did that day....

 

Good luck !

[Stephen Blair]

i ran mogs for nearly 8 years on red full of chip and logs, towing trailers and never got stopped, passed plenty of vosa guys, even did a few jobs with the police and they loved the mog and never said a anything, just kept saying it looks like a Tonka, the peolpe that get their knickers in a knot the most are the guys that dont havt one and cant afford one so all they do is go on about how wrong it is:sneaky2:i still run a Hiab lorry on Ag:biggrin:

[Old WoodChip]

Good luck, mine field is right.

Years ago I had an old series 11a short wheel base Landrover (still in the shed) and had an MOT every year no problems, as soon as they made them (it is a 1968 one) road tax exempt it failed the MOT.

Why? for not having a seat belt, this was never made with them so never needed them or so they kept telling me, when it failed the nice guy who always done her said "the ministry said it must have them fitted" he showed my the book where it said refer to section a part 2 etc etc bullshit etc....

we phoned dvla, went to see police asked other garages??? they didnt know. in the end I got two s/h bolt on seat belts that wouldnt do sod all in a bump anyway but it passed, and has since had a retired life under cover.

I remember over 20 years ago a farmer friend towed a drot on a trailer with his tractor and got stopped by C&E he was advised by the NFU to pay the fine (2k then) or it would cost him more to take it on and he WOULD loose.

Mine field it certainly is and one we have no hope of making any sense of.

Good luck

[Treewolf]

Good luck, mine field is right.

Years ago I had an old series 11a short wheel base Landrover (still in the shed) and had an MOT every year no problems, as soon as they made them (it is a 1968 one) road tax exempt it failed the MOT.

Why? for not having a seat belt, this was never made with them so never needed them or so they kept telling me, when it failed the nice guy who always done her said "the ministry said it must have them fitted" he showed my the book where it said refer to section a part 2 etc etc bullshit etc....

we phoned dvla, went to see police asked other garages??? they didnt know. in the end I got two s/h bolt on seat belts that wouldnt do sod all in a bump anyway but it passed, and has since had a retired life under cover.

I remember over 20 years ago a farmer friend towed a drot on a trailer with his tractor and got stopped by C&E he was advised by the NFU to pay the fine (2k then) or it would cost him more to take it on and he WOULD loose.

Mine field it certainly is and one we have no hope of making any sense of.

Good luck

 

A 1968 Landrover is required by law to have seatbelts fitted in the two outermost front seat positions and the driver and passengers must wear them. In 1967 it became law in the UK for the front outermost seats to be fitted with three-point belts (although wearing them was voluntary then) and in 1968 UK law required that vehicles manufactured in or after 1965 (actually it was the 1965 model year, so some 1964 production was affected) were retrofitted with three-point belts in the front outermost seat positions, although their use was still optional. It was only much later that their use became a legal requirement.

 

If your L-R was built in 1968 and sold for use in the UK then it was required by law to have belts from new, and not only was it illegally sold but every MOT is passed without them was in fact wrongly passed! If it was manufacured prior to the end of 1964 (perhaps for the MOD and not civilian registered till 1968) then it did not and still does not require them, but if they are fitted, they are testable items at the MOT, and they must be worn by the driver and passenger. I have a 1955 Land-Rover to which I retrofitted lap straps (I used to trial it and this was the minimum requirement to pass scrutineering) and as a result these are now MOT-able items and I am required by law to wear them on the road.

 

Also be aware that it is now illegal to carry young children (or small children under a certain height) in any vehicle which does not have seatbelts, since the law for such children says that belts must be worn, rather than must be worn if available. So if you have a vintage or classic vehicle, tough luck on the sprogs. This of course also applies to private land to which the public has access (such as rally fields), since the Road Traffic Acts are now held to apply there as well. I think that the age is 12, but I am not sure as I don't have kids!

[ABM]

Very true, it's not wrong at all, it's the most right thing ever.

[rowan lee]

Sry to veer slightly off topic here, but always wondered - if say a 7.5 ton truck is agri. registered, does this mean i can legally drive it on just a tractor licence?

(or is the sole benefit non taxed fuel?)

[tommer9]

Of course all of this is totally irrelevant when one examines the difference between, and consequence of quoting in court, the Magna carta (which is LAW), and all the Statutes that have become known as laws ever since. It is interesting to note hat a summons to court is purely a request (which through hundreds of years of subservience and non-questioning on the part of the uninformed public has been forgotten) and things such as the fact that when in court, under constitutional (magna carta) law, you cannot be tried for civil offences (anything that isnt murder, rape, burglary etc) by a body of people (eg 'The Crown' or 'The police' etc), it MUST be a named person (John smith etc). Again- through hundreds of years of abuse and neglect of this system it has become rather null, although not inexistant.

 

The development of the magna carta and common law is all relevant to this, and essentially, if you are in court for something which is not 'natural law' (such as driving offences, or non payment of fines etc etc) then you may demand which person has a claim against you whilst you are in the dock (in the EXACT correct wordage, which i am not sure of, along with 3 other important questions, including asking the judge his name (!!)) and if the charge is not brought by an INDIVIDUAL who must have a personal complaint, then you can walk free.

 

That is all fairly random, and I dont remember the proper terminology, but let us not get bogged down in statutes by public SERVANTS such as the ignoramuses that are VOSA.

 

On top of that i feel that the more we all cowtow to these petty money making schemes (which is what the majority of the 11,500 statutes that were passed under the last government are) the more it will encourage the dictatorial state we are getting towards to flourish. What i am saying is this- until you get caught, drive on. You WILL only get a warning first time.

Edited August 11, 2010 by tommer9

[csservices]

Mate of mine ran a mog, mostly for moving stuff about for his small holding but would als occasionally use it to move a compressor for his sand blasting business, unfortunately for him he had taken it to a local quarry one day to do some sand blasting when they had an inspection and as he was there had his mog checked and as it was on ag and running on red it was impounded, £1000 fine and investigated for back tax on how long he'd been using it.

 

The law as I remember it regarding ag machines and diesel is that you can run red for forestry and ag work while you are actually going to or from or doing work ie mowing, winching etc, if you transport arisings for your own use, ie timber, hay etc you can transport it on red, however if you transport it for someone else ie as part of the contract you have to transport it to the customers yard, then that is hire and reward and you should drain tanks change filters and refill with white, although its not completely that clear cut as there are exceptions such as verge mowing which is not classed as ag so you should be running on white, confused? join the club