A frames in France ? why do they build, certificate and sell them if they are illegal ? (1 Viewer)

[Bubba]

Probably the same reason you could openly buy and own a 27mhz AM CB radio.
What you couldn't do was legally use it.

I only bought the operators manual. And got the radio free. So technically didn't buy the radio. So the guy in the shop was quoting in the late 70s.

 

[62272]

I only bought the operators manual. And got the radio free. So technically didn't buy the radio. So the guy in the shop was quoting in the late 70s.

What about the 27 foot GPA aerial, and 30 watt burner, Was that legal too

 

[Badknee]

You can't claim its legal in France because its legal in the UK as it is NOT legal in the UK it has just never been proved to be illegal as there has not been a legal test case.

Why is it A Framers always want to bend the rules to suit themselves rather than just accept its not legal.

I tow in the U.K. with an A frame but I think when it is proved beyond doubt that using one has caused a fatal collision the law will be defined. Until then I’ll carry on but won’t be taking it over ditch.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[OldCodger]

I'm not against A Frames just pissed of with all the A Frame users trying to claim they are legal, if they want to take the risk fine but don't keep ramming down everyone else's throats.

I’m seriously trying to understand all this. In what way are they “not legal” as opposed to illegal (ie it’s a crime if some sort to use them).

I understand that they are permitted in GB if properly designed and in use they comply with certain trailer regulations (and I use the word permitted in a general sense of no one will do you for using one, rather than it’s written down somewhere statutory that you can use them!)

 

[OldCodger]

I love a viennetta.........if they're having a convention I'm up for it

By convention It is held in little Vienna!

 

[Minxy]

I think the real issue is when using one abroad is if you are asked to prove that they are defined as legal, categorically and indisputably, as you wouldn't be able to as we have no such specific determination, other countries seems to have the attitude that things MUST be deemed legal officially otherwise they're not. Because we do it the other way round even if I was 100% positive that they were legal in the UK I wouldn't bet on my chances of being able to convince a foreign official as I couldn't point them to the legislation which says so which is likely the only thing they'd accept.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[62272]

I'm not sure but possibly, C & U 'Hazardous Load' regulations?

I assume you are referring to Section 100 (1) Con & Use regs ‘86? Otherwise known as dangerous condition.

No it wouldn't meet that criteria, not unless you could prove how it was dangerous.

 

[Badknee]

I was told by a German motorhomer that a toad cannot be a trailer as it has an engine and your not allowed to flat tow a vehicle, wheels up only

 

[62272]

I was told by a German motorhomer that a toad cannot be a trailer as it has an engine and your not allowed to flat tow a vehicle, wheels up only

Yes that is correct according to the EU definition of a trailer (well sort of, the actual definition is that a trailer has been specifically designed to be towed by a vehicle).. this legislation was not adopted by the UK, hence the definition under the Con & Use regs 1986 are the ones we work to.

The USA use A frames extensively as they also have a different definition.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[OldCodger]

I was told by a German motorhomer that a toad cannot be a trailer as it has an engine and your not allowed to flat tow a vehicle, wheels up only

And I think that is the core of the dilemma - here in GB they can be used (in defined circumstances!) but in some EU countries it is definitely illegal (expressly banned) even under the Vienna Convention.

 

[62272]

And I think that is the core of the dilemma - here in GB they can be used (in defined circumstances!) but in some EU countries it is definitely illegal (expressly banned) even under the Vienna Convention.

Not entirely correct, you need to look up the question asked in the EU parliament by a UK MEP (when we were in the EU) On this issue.

Effectively each signatory of the Vienna Convention (assuming that they have not derogated from relevant texts) can accept or refuse anything they like, as can we.

I think you’ll be safe Old Codger as I dont supose you’ll be A framing in EU

For the rest of us who do, we will take our chances.

 

[gus-lopez]

If there is no law that prevents it, you can do it. Simple as.

& the complete opposite in europe. Unless the law allows it specifically ,it is banned.

o someone pointing out that its legal in other countries under the Vienna convention is just wrong which is what my point wa

My point was, they are not illegal here

No,just accepted.

You won't. The Old Bill would need an offence to charge you with. No such thing exists at the moment.

mechanical modification to the vehicle voiding its Cert of Conformity.
mechanical modifications to the vehicle untested by sva .
no updated CoC
if towing points not removed when in use contravenes C&u regs for pedestrian safety.
illegal modifications in contravention of the 2007 anti-tuning directive( doubtful if they have removed this from the statue books yet)
you can amass a list if they want to.

Trailers are built to a standard whereas the A feame attachment at best can't even be classed as agricultural as most tractor attacments are far superior. R pins & the like as wear items have no place on roads at 100kphr +. Who wants to be in france when onbe goes past at the legal limit of 130kph?
this year in the Uk is the first one I haven't been overtaken by a motorhome at up to 80mph dragging a car on an A frame. I cannot even comprehend what goes through the minds of people doing it? Nothing obviously.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[OldCodger]

Not entirely correct, you need to look up the question asked in the EU parliament by a UK MEP (when we were in the EU) On this issue.

Effectively each signatory of the Vienna Convention (assuming that they have not derogated from relevant texts) can accept or refuse anything they like, as can we.

I think you’ll be safe Old Codger as I dont supose you’ll be A framing in EU

For the rest of us who do, we will take our chances.

I don’t tow (but my MoHo has all the required. gadgets so I could/might). I travel extensively in Europe. However , I would love to understand the issues behind this subject.

The hole(s) in the arguments as I see them are

A) I’ve accepted as gospel your assertion that under the “British Constitution” - the worlds worst documented code of law - that if it isn’t forbidden, it’s legal. I can go along with that to a certain extent but there are ALWAYS shades of grey…

B) No one has yet explained why this needs definition, why is it “possibly not legal””

I know B isn’t a legal test but it would help folks understand Shirley?

 

[62272]

Gus said:


mechanical modification to the vehicle voiding its Cert of Conformity.
mechanical modifications to the vehicle untested by sva .
no updated CoC
if towing points not removed when in use contravenes C&u regs for pedestrian safety.
illegal modifications in contravention of the 2007 anti-tuning directive( doubtful if they have removed this from the statue books yet)
you can amass a list if they want to.

Trailers are built to a standard whereas the A feame attachment at best can't even be classed as agricultural as most tractor attacments are far superior. R pins & the like as wear items have no place on roads at 100kphr +. Who wants to be in france when onbe goes past at the legal limit of 130kph?

Wrong on all counts (the limit in France when towing is 80 and 90 (KPH) on motorways). I do wonder if you just dream these things up

Knowledge is power, however a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

[OldCodger]

Knowledge is power, however a little knowledge is dangerous.

If that’s the case. I’m very very dangerous….

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[62272]

If that’s the case. I’m very very dangerous….

That's two of us who think that

 

[OldCodger]

Knowledge is power, however a little knowledge is dangerous

And for the most part this has been an informative discussion. I’d love it to stay that way?

 

[Jim]

No,just accepted.

Like having to accept it because its not against the law.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[62272]

And for the most part this has been an informative discussion. I’d love it to stay that way?

I agree entirely, it has been a good bit of banter particularly as there seem to be so many people with, shall we say, unique interpretations of the law.

 

[OldCodger]

Like having to accept it because its not against the law.

Agreed it is not against the law (so far no one has explained which law) but no one has explained why there is any doubt. And if there is definitively no doubt then the case is made - Just explain it.

Just trying to understand. Not defend either view!

 

[OldCodger]

unique interpretations of the law.

Errr, isn’t that why layers earn so much?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[62272]

Agreed it is not against the law (so far no one has explained which law) but no one has explained why there is any doubt. And if there is definitively no doubt then the case is made - Just explain it.

Just trying to understand. Not defend either view!

I think I understand your question.

To be illegal something must constitute an offence (AKA the law). Therefore on the subject of A frames, when something new comes to market (I assume that these were brought over by the states) the authorities (such as the police and VOSA - DOT in old money) who are interested in considering if an offence is made out will turn to the statutory legislation, such as acts of parliament or statutory guidance, and scour through case law (mostly online nowadays with keyword searching, but very expensive subscriptions). They will check obvious places like the Construction and Use regulations and other traffic related legislation to see if it is possible to lay information for a summons against an offence, based on any apparent breach of the legislation. If no breaches can be found, then no summonses can be brought, in which case there is no case to answer and therefore no offence. If something does not contravene a statutory offence then it is perfectly legal - until the situation changes (i.e. new legislation is enacted). Case law does not create legislation per se, it just interprets the enacted law. Therefore If a prosecuting authority takes a matter to court because they think that a breach of legislation has occurred, and it is in a grey area, i.e. The fact in question is open to interpretation by the parties involved, then a court will decide on the matter and specify in the judgement the point of law that has been ruled upon (or interpreted). That case law will stand unless successfully appealed in a higher court, or a new case at a different court makes a new ruling. You will generally find that case law does not rule on general matters, it is more on principles or the interpretation to be applied in specific circumstances that are generally very unique to the case in question.

 

[L' Hobo]

I assume you are referring to Section 100 (1) Con & Use regs ‘86? Otherwise known as dangerous condition.

No it wouldn't meet that criteria, not unless you could prove how it was dangerous.

perhaps that is the reason it has never been to court, no-one has ever proven it to be dangerous, and cannot, until it has been proven in court and a precedent set??

 

[bobnick]

I would comfortably TOAD in UK and take the risk in France. On our recent trip through France we saw several TOADs both on French and UK plates.
However as it is rarely we go just to France, we always go on to somewhere else the French bit is propably not going to happen.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[L' Hobo]

You will generally find that case law does not rule on general matters, it is more on principles or the interpretation to be applied in specific circumstances that are generally very unique to the case in question.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't 'case law', decisions that other judges and appeal courts have decided in previous, similar, cases and can be used to support of ones own?

Sorry, just reread your post and answered my own question.

 

[OldCodger]

Based on what I have read here it is now clear to me that in GB A frames are “not illegal”.

So, can someone help me understand why it is said they are “illegal/not legal”? There must be a basis for this as it comes up frequently.

Again, I’m trying to understand both sides of the argument.

 

[62272]

Based on what I have read here it is now clear to me that in GB A frames are “not illegal”.

So, can someone help me understand why it is said they are “illegal/not legal”? There must be a basis for this as it comes up frequently.

Again, I’m trying to understand both sides of the argument.

God only knows.

I suppose once you get a few denouncers of something, then after a while it gains currency, and you get the snowball effect.

When you challenge those who think they know why, there is no substance to their claims, otherwise there would have been a proven court case. If the great minds of VOSA and the various police forces’ experts who assist in creating legislation cannot think of breach of the law, what is it about a motorhome fun A-framer ‘disliker’ that they think they know the answer. Baffles me

I suspect it’s just a bit of sport to keep us entertained .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[62272]

perhaps that is the reason it has never been to court, no-one has ever proven it to be dangerous, and cannot, until it has been proven in court and a precedent set??

You’d have a hard job to prove it under s100(1).

There is a turn of phrase that springs to mind, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, if it is so inherently dangerous that it warrants a prosecution under S100(1) C&U regs, how is it that so many hundreds, if not thousands, of people manage to successfully A frame without incident daily? (Rhetorical question )

I have seen a photo of a detached A framer (from I assume the States) which a user posted on here some time ago, that issue relates to a lack of maintenance, or poor adaptation by the A frame installer, not an inherent danger with A framing generally. No difference to those who ignore routine maintenance of their vehicles, which go on to cause a collision.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Unless various bodies such as the National Police Chiefs Council (formerly ACPO), Police and Crime Commissioners, CPS, College of Policing, even Grant Shapps (spit) decide that the A-frame question merits closer scrutiny, the question of legality remains a grey area. For the time being it is below their radar. It would take a humungous traffic accident with casualties involving a dodgy A-frame, plus some tabloid headlines, to create such a scenario. My bet is that specific new legislation is much more likely than a test case in the Courts. Mainly because the UK is a country where there are so many civil serpents and politicians who are compulsory rule-makers, paid to do just that.

Meanwhile in the UK we carry on with the convenient fiction: modified car + A-frame = trailer. A fiction not shared by the rest of Europe.

Germans might have the correct answer - A-frame + car after having taken its engine out is a proper trailer. All you need is an engine hoist and skill with the tools.

 

[62272]

Unless various bodies such as the National Police Chiefs Council (formerly ACPO), Police and Crime Commissioners, CPS, College of Policing, even Grant Shapps (spit) decide that the A-frame question merits closer scrutiny, the question of legality remains a grey area. For the time being it is below their radar. It would take a humungous traffic accident with casualties involving a dodgy A-frame, plus some tabloid headlines, to create such a scenario. My bet is that specific new legislation is much more likely than a test case in the Courts. Mainly because the UK is a country where there are so many civil serpents and politicians who are compulsory rule-makers, paid to do just that.

Meanwhile in the UK we carry on with the convenient fiction: modified car + A-frame = trailer. A fiction not shared by the rest of Europe.

Germans might have the correct answer - A-frame + car after having taken its engine out is a proper trailer. All you need is an engine hoist and skill with the tools.

Just a slight problem with your suggestion, the car is always a car for the EU legislation, therefore that wouldn’t work. Perhaps it could be re-classified, i’d imagine a lot of paperwork involved.

As for the rest of your thoughts……

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}