Safe Speed Forums

a quicky quiz on the topic of licence and reg plates:

Q1
Joe Blogg's owns a car showroom. A small one so he puts some of his cars for sale onthe road. None are taxed or insured - but he puts them in his workshop around the back at night. He has a half dozen trade plates which he places on these cars whilst out on display


Is he entitled to keep these cars on the road under such circumstances? Explain your answer!
==============================

Q2. A young PC once saw an unattended vehicle parked on a road - not displaying VED. The young cop made enquiries to establich the owner's indentity, but drew a blank. Three months later the same young PC stops Mr B driving this same vehicle. The driver states that he bought the car from a local car dealer and was not the owner at teh time of the offence. The vehicle now has a VED licence.

So was a young and green police officer correct when he asked the driver for details of the previous driver at the time?



A - NO as the driver was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time

B - YES but the driver may have a defence if unable to provide details

C YES and the drver would have no defence if unbale to find the details

D NO - the young should have gone to ask the car dealer some questions

(The answer does lie in the Vehicle Registration/Licencing Act 1994 Act )

==================================

Q3 Who, if either would commit an oiffence under the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regs 2001 if their vehicle was used on a road?

1. Paul has a car registered on 1 Feb 2001. The vehicle is fitted with a reg plate in italic script.

2. Peter owns a motorbike - registered 2001. He has fixed a plate to front and rear of the bike.


A. Paul ONLY

B Peter ONLY

C Both

D Neither


=====================================

Q4 Darren owns a garage - body shop repairer specialist. He asked one his staff - Dave - to park a car on ther road whilst they waited for a delivery. The car had no reg plates as Darren had removed them prior to its re-spray Dave parks the car up and returns some 210 minutes later

Who, if anyone, would be guilty of an offence under s 42{i) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 of failing to display reg plates?

A- Darren ONLY as the keeper of the car in this circumstance?

B Dave ONLY as the driver of the car

C BOTH - Darren as the keeper and Dave as the driver

D Neither - as the car was only temporarily on the road


==================

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Without an intimate knowledge of the ACT referenced, I'll have a go

1. No he is not. Trade plates do not provide any sort of exemption from insurance requirements (he should probably be covered under his trader policy). This is not a prescribed use of trade paltes

2. B This is very similar to S172 of the RTA and Mr B has a duty to provide such information as is in his power to give as he was not the keeper at the time of the alleged offence

3.D As long as Paul's VRM is legible for a vehicle registered at that date, it is enough. Peter is not required to have a front number plate, but as long as it is not a dangerous hazard (the original reason for removing the side facing m/c front plates, I believe) then he is at liberty to fit a plate providing his m/c was registered prior to September 2001. After that date front plates on m/cs are proscribed.

4. B. Dave should have refused as he would be committing an offence. The vehicle is not exempt at a body shop, only going to/from MoT test or to/from repairs as a result of an MoT test.

Not bad - you got two right Well done!

I' won't give the answers yet though

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Q1 I would nick him in my capacity as an authorised officer of a local authority, for the offence of nuisance parking under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This makes it an offence to offer two or more vehicles for sale on the public highway within 500m of each other. Caught a bloke a while back who had actually taxed his cars but instead of For Sale signs in the window took photos and advertised them on line via his web site. Still offered for sale silly man!

I Would also suggest that he is in breach of the trade plate rules and would have to have a word with my friend at the DVLA.

Q2 I would go for D.

Q3 Neither, Although the italic script would ormally mean an MOT failure so the car would not be in a road worthy condition there is a cut off date and I think it is after Feb o1.

I think the decision to remove front number plates from bikes was taken for safety reasons bikes registered before a certain date can keep their front plates but not newer ones. It all depends on the date in 2001 the bike was first registered.

Q4 Dave was the one who placed the vehicle on the highway and therfore committed the offence.