david lloyd Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 A suggestion for the moderator. AS with gas attacks - could the subject of A-Frames be placed as a premanent thread at the top of the forum. At least that way any newcomers can easily plough their way through it and, if necessary, add their thoughts, views, questions, answers to it? Regards, David Yaris on an A-Frame owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Brilliant idea. Why keep re-inventing the wheel?. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 If you look in the frequently asked questions thread stickied at the top of Motorhome matters you'll find links to a couple of threads on A frames. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Jen's Grumpy Git - 2007-09-27 9:53 PM I have to agree with enodreven on this one Mel E, there are people out there that need clarification on all subjects and A Frames and I just happen to be one of them, and if it's not to your liking then keep out of the discussion. . It's not compulsory It may also comes as some surprise to you but there are some of us, me especially, that knows next to nothing about A frames so these threads are invaluable, and finally why is it that in most threads I read there seems to be the same idiots that just have to put their tags on these threads with silly childish comments and take it completely off the subject. I really can see why you've chosen the "Grumpy Git" tag. This is a thread I started and if YOU don't like it, go and be grumpy elsewhere. You really are one mixed up grumpy git, aren't you? You declare you need clarification, but choose to ignore any that is provided - and there has been plenty - unless it tallies with what a somewhat biased salesman tells you. Have you read every relevant clause of the 1986 Contruction & Use Regulations, the 1989 Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, the Driver Licencing Regulations and Road Traffic Acts that apply to Trailers? I have. Several times. Of course, I could have misread them. But I would safely bet that your salesman and his company haven't. And nor have you. I'm not trying to be negative about A-Frames just to 'get my name in the papers' - I'm simply answering questions that are asked in good faith. So I really don't expect to be abused when I do so. I suggest that you take one of two courses from here: - either apologise for your outburst - or find another forum and stop disrupting this one as you have, not just with this thread, but with several others. Incidentally, I did not type and send this in haste but as a carefully considered response to your unnecessarily rude effort. Mel E ==== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 davenewell@home - 2007-09-28 5:57 PM If you look in the frequently asked questions thread stickied at the top of Motorhome matters you'll find links to a couple of threads on A frames. D. Yes that's true Dave BUT, as with the gas attacks issue, many people don't use either the frequently asked questions or the search function but if the thread on A-Frames were permanently at the top of the page they would have no excuse and, as far as I can see, no one has resurrected the gas attack question since that was put there. Regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Jen's Grumpy Git - 2007-09-27 9:53 PM I have to agree with enodreven on this one Mel E, there are people out there that need clarification on all subjects and A Frames and I just happen to be one of them, and if it's not to your liking then keep out of the discussion. . It's not compulsory It may also comes as some surprise to you but there are some of us, me especially, that knows next to nothing about A frames so these threads are invaluable, and finally why is it that in most threads I read there seems to be the same idiots that just have to put their tags on these threads with silly childish comments and take it completely off the subject. Hows that for Rudeness . This guy even tells the Authour who happens to be MELE to get off his own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Jen's Grumpy Git - 2007-09-27 10:09 PM The reason I chose not to use the search facility is my choice not your decision, and if eveyone followed your "suggestion" to search for the answer before posting you wouldn,t have a forum, would you ?,apart from the non topical - chit chat - sniping type posts. Another nice peice of writing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Mel E - 2007-09-28 7:03 PM Jen's Grumpy Git - 2007-09-27 9:53 PM I have to agree with enodreven on this one Mel E, there are people out there that need clarification on all subjects and A Frames and I just happen to be one of them, and if it's not to your liking then keep out of the discussion. . It's not compulsory It may also comes as some surprise to you but there are some of us, me especially, that knows next to nothing about A frames so these threads are invaluable, and finally why is it that in most threads I read there seems to be the same idiots that just have to put their tags on these threads with silly childish comments and take it completely off the subject. I really can see why you've chosen the "Grumpy Git" tag. This is a thread I started and if YOU don't like it, go and be grumpy elsewhere. You really are one mixed up grumpy git, aren't you? You declare you need clarification, but choose to ignore any that is provided - and there has been plenty - unless it tallies with what a somewhat biased salesman tells you. Have you read every relevant clause of the 1986 Contruction & Use Regulations, the 1989 Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, the Driver Licencing Regulations and Road Traffic Acts that apply to Trailers? I have. Several times. Of course, I could have misread them. But I would safely bet that your salesman and his company haven't. And nor have you. I'm not trying to be negative about A-Frames just to 'get my name in the papers' - I'm simply answering questions that are asked in good faith. So I really don't expect to be abused when I do so. I suggest that you take one of two courses from here: - either apologise for your outburst - or find another forum and stop disrupting this one as you have, not just with this thread, but with several others. Incidentally, I did not type and send this in haste but as a carefully considered response to your unnecessarily rude effort. Mel E ==== If you ask yourself honestly have you ever know Mel E to take such a stance with someone.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Why can't you leave this alone Michele? :-S Mel's a big boy now and, as he has demonstrated, is quite capable of standing up for himself. Let it die a natural death, please! D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I felt there were a couple of issues to address. pagey - 2007-09-27 1:55 PM michele - 2007-09-27 1:39 PM Pagey, You only have to read what the Police traffic Officer states *-) i did michele but as of yet he has only reported motor traders for using a frame designed for the purpose of recovery that piece of equipment does not have any brakes so the a frame used by motorhomes is a little different , only a judge can sort this out and fred grant - 2007-09-27 8:16 PM police officers are employed to uphold the law michelle, not make it. its down to the judge at court, and if a officer wastes a judges time and expense he/she/it will here about it. fred of the force A judge cannot alter the law. He can interpret it if there are any ambiguities, and he can make his judgement, which then can set a precedent. But in the case of an A frame the facts of the case would be presented to the magistrates, and if the facts showed that the A Frame trailer did not comply with the relevant regs, they would be compelled to convict. They cannot make a ‘public interest’ judgement in the way that CPS might do to prevent a case coming to court. Whether such a case was presented at court would be the decision of either CPS, or more likely police decision makers. They would make a decision based on the quality of evidence, the public interest and the other disposal options (written warnings etc). A decision maker (police or CPS) would have to look at the evidence available in the case. Firstly they would have to ensure that the towed vehicle is a ‘trailer’ as defined by the 1986 Construction and Use regs. These regs define a trailer as a “vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle, but does not apply to any part of an articulated bus.” So there is no doubt that an A-frame towed car will be classed as a trailer. If the trailer brakes are not capable of being used, or the trailer is displaying the wrong reg mark, or no reflective triangles, or no secondary coupling, the decision maker would need to ensure that these offences are evidenced. The statutory defence of towing a broken down vehicle to a place of safety would have to be excluded via questioning and/or examination. The practical difficulties (for an eager traffic cop) on a routine roadside check would start if the trailer had some kind of braking mechanism. He would know that the system is very unlikely to achieve the 50% efficiency required. He would know that the vehicle would be very unlikely to have a braking system that would auto-disengage when reversed, and would have only very limited practical reversing capability, but how does he put that evidence in front of a court? The only way to do this would be to take the combination to a VOSA test station to have the efficiencies checked. He may be able to get the VOSA engineers to check the brake drag when reversing, and finally it would be good evidence to take a video of the driver’s efforts at reversing the combination over a reasonable distance. Is any traffic cop likely to do this on a roadside check? Not on your life!! We usually do have better things to do! But… If you were involved in a collision which had serious consequences, even if the presence of your trailed car was absolutely non-contributory to the cause of the collision, your vehicles would be subject to very stringent checks. If the likely offences were discovered, CPS would then decide whether prosecution was appropriate. If it was discovered that the inefficient braking system caused your vehicle’s stopping distance to be greater than was expected, and this was relevant to the cause of the collision, then you could be considered for offences as serious as causing death by dangerous driving contrary to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, if you knew that your vehicle brakes were not up to required standard, yet continued to drive. A-frames are designed to be used for recovery of broken down vehicles to a place of safety. They are not designed to be part of a trailer for long distance journeys, and if so, I’d imagine they might be subject to a further approval checks before being deemed fit for sale (although I’m not sure about type approval requirements on these systems). If for whatever reason your towed vehicle separated from its A-Frame or a long drive caused one of the car tyres to rub and blow, and an accident resulted, the prosecuting authorities would look at the use for which the attachment was designed and constructed, and perhaps conclude that it was not fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.