Post by Administrator on Jul 15, 2019 15:02:43 GMT
Brand New insight now... Just this moment... When looking at Pictures of Invalid carriages & also Cars, then Goods vehicles from 1930s
The insight is this
1. I notice Invalid carriages is not a heavy motor car. But its in the Schedule 6. It is only a passenger vehicle, though & not adapted to carry a load other than personal effects. Its strange it is a very slow speed limit, when motorbikes go faster. But its the apparent disability of the driver that makes it a low speed limit as well as the vehicle being constructed for a lower speed. (We note a motorcycle rider might end up in one of these, if he has an accident) which is the irony in the act itself & Name.
Its a special vehicle, anyway. I wonder if the irony is also the same as evident in the "dual purpose" vehicle, under 1 not being possible to be over 2 tonnes yet its stated it can be (being) one so over 3 ton?
So its not a heavy motor car. Its not a passenger vehicle. but it has its own section. as a special vehicle. On merit of its probably not designed to go faster than a very low speed anyway (not capable)
Then I look at some General goods vehicles. These are random ones that show up around 1930. They are all by the look of it over the unladen weight of 2500kg / 2.5 tones thus heavy motor cars. And some have NO PASSENGER CAPABILITIES AT ALL. They are not CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED TO CARRY ANY PASSENGERS AT ALL.
A load only. (likely under 2500kg unladen weight)
All adapted to carry 1 passenger in addition to the driver, but over 2500kg unladen weight & likely over 3 tones unladen weight as well.
Ok... So what?? A bunch of old vehicles that just helps us recognise how the classes were created & what they did intend to mean & where we got our terms from & descriptions are based on & evolved from....
Well here it is.....
The Invalid carriage is only IN the schedule 6 table because it is mentioned... Right? It has a unique section. Or else it would not be in there because its not a heavy motor car. BUT, it IS NOT a passenger vehicle. So its NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT constructed or adapted SOLELY for the carriage of PASSENGERS & THEIR EFFECTS. nope. NONE. Not 1. The Driver is not a passenger, It is a Driver. (distinction).
Some of the Goods vehicles are constructed or adapted to carry a load. But some are constructed or adapted to carry PASSENGERS. And some ARENT. But not SOLEY for passengers.
SOLEY for passengers is mentioned in item (1) of Schedule 6 table. But we know that a (motor car) can be consatructed not SOLEY for passengers, but can be adapted for (upto 7) or a to carry a load. (or both) but not more than 7.
We know it mentions dual purpose vehicle in item (1) of the table and suggests it can be over 3 tonnes when construction & use say it cannot be possible.. So there is a conflict in the wording. an Inconsistency.
Now.. We are talking ONLY ABOUT WHAT IT DOES MENTION in that first table. If it describes it...
It says a vehicle OVER 3 TONNES.. constructed SOLELY for passengers & their effects. ( the insight is this ) you DONT FIND A VEHICLE OVER 3 TONNES SUCH AS A BUS & COACH.. which is EVER constructed to carry load (Goods). It sort of doesn't exist. (unless you start thinking horse boxes as goods/which used to have a separate section & was classed with a motor car class not heavy motor cars in the 1930 act)
I believe that because VW Crafter & Sprinter Vans are NOT SOLELY FOR PASSENGERS... is significant. Because you are saying for that reason they wouldn't place under (1) of the table. But because of their unladen weight, they would not place anyway in it.
But some motor cars.. are NOT SOLEY FOR PASSENGERS EITHER! This is it. You think of a motor car SOLEY FOR PASSENGERS. But back in 1930s there were a LOT of Motor cars that were NOT SOLELY FOR PASSENGERS. in fact NOT FOR PASSENGERS. They are NOT PASSENGER VEHICLES AT ALL.
But that is NOT the reason they are NOT in the table! The reason they are not in the table is because they just aren't heavy enough! Not Heavy motor cars.
BUT, what about when TOWING a TRAILER? surely they MUST be in the table if towing a TRAILER. But NONE of the sections says anything other than (passenger vehicle) (Dual purpose vehicle) (Motor caravan) (car derived van) when towing!?
So how on earth can you place the (motor car) that is NOT a passenger vehicle, when it is NOT towing?!
Also, interesting that if the vehicle runs on fuel which is held in a trailer... its not even classed as pulling a trailer at all & can go faster
This is where the true interpretation of the Car derived van is important... because many don't understand that it has the design of (ANY VAN) under 2 tonnes maximum gross weight, but has been adapted AS A PASSENGER VEHICLE.
Similarly to a (dual purpose) 4x4 vehicle being goods/or passenger but if passenger adapted its seats must comply with certain regulations. not makeshift ones. Or fold down ones.
A lot of Goods vehicles did not have ANY passenger capabilities!
A motor car which has been constructed to carry passengers (between 1 and 7) CAN BE USED FOR THAT USE & PURPOSE. Even if it also can be used to carry a load.
Where as other goods vehicles that HAVE NOT been adapted to carry any passengers at all, cannot do so.
Also, If it was so much an issue of (motor car class) vehicles being both passenger & goods constructed or adapted.. Then why abolish the distinction between vehicles Under 1500kg unladen & over 1500kg unladen? If it were not to mean that the entire motor car class were not in the table at all... Taking into account that you can have a motor car which is not a car derived van, which is being used to convey goods. What if it has NO PASSENGER SEATS AT ALL!!
Which is why the 1967 Schedule 5 table in the Road Traffic Regulation act 1967 does appear to remove (motor car) class from the table completely, when not pulling a trailer. And when it is, it does not seem to matter what type of goods are in the trailer at all.
Post by Administrator on Jul 16, 2019 22:38:09 GMT
Just realised that the Dual purpose vehicle CAN have more than 8 passenger seats... thus the (3tones unladen weight) is ignored. I kinda knew that already, but had not "noted it" again.. when I was focused on the weights.
This is the point ok...
4 wheel drive vehicle under 2 tonnes. You could have a 7 seater mini bus. 4x4. or part van part mini bus 4x4, or purely a load goods vehicle 4x4 not being over 2 tonnes.
If its NOT 4x4 it has to have passenger seats in the back & windows for them to be able to see. It can be for a load & passengers though...
This all relevant to pre & post 1967 Road Traffic regulation act. ALL these vehicles pictures fit into either the "Dual purpose vehicle" or Car derived van, passenger vehicle or motor caravan. either way.
But the "car-derived van" term is only invented when the DISTINCTION BETWEEN VEHICLES UNDE & OVER 30cwt (1.5 ton unladen) is ABOLISHED.
And the Car-derived van is only listed for towing. It doesn't list it in item (1) of schedule 6 speed limits 1984 act.. what if it has over 8 seats though? And what about the distinction between that weight class being removed from other vehicles?!
We come back to the same question... WHY did the DVLC publish that 1993 driving licence statement to over 30 million driving licence holders for over 3 years if it was not true??
That vehicles under 3.5 tones are not placed as goods vehicles. If it clearly meant the whole motor car class no matter what purpose it had. Also a large passenger vehicle has over 9 passengers including the driver? (not he old 15CWT 12 seater mini bus then, for certain.. even if it was 4wheel drive
2 ton unladen weight I think! NOT designed to carry a load. But can probably tow a lot more than 3.5 tones.
I guess that since a broken down vehicle is a (Burdon) of any description though, in the later acts... although not goods...
What about a Van with only 7 seats & plenty load space, like the Highways Agency use. But not goods. If they are service men team. Removal men carry personal effects belonging to people. You can have service men with their own tools... that are not goods. I guess all that falls under burdon/burden.
But what is the difference to personal effects & a burden?
I believe that originally the Classic "motor car" design was not designed to carry a (LOAD) it was designed to only have a person & their personal effects, such as a handbag, umbrella, cricket bat... Shotgun & such...
These vehicles did NOT have adaptation for a load. (travel rack) nor a (Trunk) which is a construction & adaptation to carry a (LOAD) And all motor cars.. no matter if a (VAN) or (CAR) style did carry a load.
Until later they changed it to be constructed to carry a load, (both) but adapted or constructed for the carriage or use to convey goods.
But.. you can adapt it for USE not just physically but by "Licence" of Insurance & Taxation.
You are not licences to USE it yourself anyway (for use) at all without a driving licence.
I wish I could find some sort of term the 1993 Licence was based on for (Goods) other than weight of construction.
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.
If you have a passenger car with 8 (or 12) seats depending how big it is (under 2 ton maximum weight) You most likely are not going to have MUCH load space, whatever the load is. (unless you have a roof rack)
But.. If you have the 3.5 ton van... and you DO NOT go for the 16 seats, or the 12 seats.. and you only have the 8 or less seats whatever that DOES NOT lower the speed limit of the vehicle. (still being a motor car under 3.5 ton maximum weight & under 3 ton or even 2.5 ton unladen weight...
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HELLA LOAD SPACE. IT IS GOING TO BE, WHAT YOU CALL...
IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE A VEHICLE NOT ADAPTED TO CARRY A LOAD OR BURDON OF ANY DESCRIPTION. DAM IMPOSSIBLE. BECAUSE YOU HAVE CREATED THE SPACE FOR IT TO CARRY IT.
Now.. They are seeming to imply its not possible for such a vehicle to exist for (official) dual purposes unless under 2 ton Maximum gross weight. Yet THOSE vehicles really are only good for one or the other.. Passenger or LOAD. or very little passenger & very little LOAD
It all comes down to this (personal effects) V (Goods) V (Burden of any description) And we know it can be insured for all kinds of USES, so much be CONSTRUCTED OR ADAPTED for WHAT IT IS INSURED FOR. Or the police is a retard. As are Insurance company's.
Now this is the thing...
Driving a vehicle.... The POLICE argue that... Personal effects are only your possessions. But a VAN driver has his personal effects. Drink, Sleeping bag, Lunch, Hat, Umbrella, Jacket, Cricket bat... Radio, Laptop. Are you saying a driver does not have personal effects? In the vehicle at all.
We then go on to (Shopping) Now.. shopping BAGS don't fit too well in the foot well area or on the seats (they can). But in modern cars we have a TRUNK. In 1930 its a LOAD. no matter how large area.
But the Schedule 6 speed limits (& it seems police) want to deem shopping not as GOODS. But as (personal effects) owned by a person. Because they bought them. So . . a trunk full of shopping is not goods. (according to the police) nor is a 5, 6, 8 passenger mini bus with less than 8 seats carrying shopping & stuff from B&Q. They don't lower the speed limit. Yet its carrying a load. The same stuff a guy Just delivered to the back of B&Q in a lorry is now in a 5, 6, 7 seater passenger van. with a LOT of load space. (say it has windows) is Not a dual purpose vehicle or car derived van. They DONT want to say those are goods anymore.
Yet... on EBAY, when you buy something from America.. (personal items, that have become your personal effects... They aren't goods anymore are they. But they want to charge you import duty on them. they say its (goods).
Yet really Goods are supposed to be trade items or materials that are traded at a trade price & to be sold to make a profit with. Or used to make something to make a profit.
So... Why do they say shopping in a car is NOT GOODS. Its personal effects. in a load area.
Yet your personal effects getting brought over on a plane, boat, or by mail are suddenly (Goods) again. & you get import duty.
Seems like they switch the meaning as it suits them.
Same with magistrates.. Switch the MEANING of the LAW as they fancy. Cases by case.. When really they are there to decide on what happened from various statements.. at a past time or on evidence.. The law is supposed to be the law... Same with the seat bely regulations in 2005 they wanted to suddenly charge more people for seat belt fines so just "interpreted it differently) and changed one law. But not the other that still meant the same as before.
Load space is load space. Notice how they Fiddle the meaning as it suits them... as the law changes when its the exact same thing.
A vehicle, Seats & a load space.
What else do you want to call it.
Seems to me the government have far too much time to conjure up infinite terms like Passenger vehicle, light passenger vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle.. Every other term than the dam one that is missing or misleading people. What a waste of tax payers time & money. Meals, Wine & dine Government party's.
IF YOU ADAPT A 3.5 TON VAN TO HAVE 8 SEATS OR LESS YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY CREATING LOAD SPACE ADAPTATION. WHAT IS THIS *PRIMARILY* PURPOSE ALL ABOUT THEN?
IF IT IS INSURED FOR MULTIPLE USE THEN IT HAS BEEN DECLARED AS SUCH & CAN BE USED AS SUCH
SOLEY FOR PASSENGERS & THEIR EFFECTS?!
What are these effects??
Brolly& hat & lunch?
Or 8 bags of Shopping
or (that shopping) before its sold (same shopping) in ASDA VAN as Mrs. Brockby's Saloon boot. Sheeesh.
Mrs Brockby's Saloon car boot (not a car derived van) is primarily for her (SHOPPING GOODS) or (Hat & brolly & Lunch & tennis racket) If it aint goods then what the fuck is Border force charging her for on the fucking duty slip when they are arguing its goods??
Yet driving down the road PC Plonker & chief Cole (Simon Says) are saying its NOT GOODS..
Post by Administrator on Jul 19, 2019 23:19:41 GMT
The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Amendment) Regulations 1992
UK Statutory Instruments1992 No. 3105Regulation 3 3.—(1) Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(7) In subsection (9)— (a) before the definition of “regulations” there shall be inserted— ““maximum laden weight” has the meaning given by Part IV of Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(1); “passenger car” means a motor vehicle which— (a) is constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of passengers and is not a goods vehicle, (solely one, anymore) (b) has no more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, (c) has four or more wheels, (d) has a maximum design speed exceeding 25 kilometres per hour, and (e) has a maximum laden weight not exceeding 3.5 tonnes,” (b) the word “and” immediately after the definition of “regulations” shall be omitted and after the definition of “seat belt” there shall be inserted— ““the seat belt Directive” has the same meaning as in section 14.”
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.
Administrator: ***MUST WATCH VIDEOS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT: youtu.be/-pbJW026GEk & youtu.be/ghP7kImI9WM THIS IS SERIOUS WORLD GLOBAL! NOT MESSING AROUND!!! EVERYONE RUSSELL BRAND, NEIL OLIVER, LAWRENCE FOX, SOREL AMORE, CHRIS HEDGES, DAVID ICKE, ANON
Jun 4, 2022 23:13:49 GMT
Administrator: BENTCOP.BIZ HAS THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP & PROVE THIS GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IN POLICE, COUNCILS, ARISTOCRACY BLACKROCK VANGUARD!! THIS IS MORE THAN THE ENVIRONMENT AND EXTINCTION REBELLION, WATCH ANONYMOUS, RUSSELL BRAND, DAVID ICKE, NEIL OLIVER!!
Jul 26, 2022 1:17:50 GMT
Administrator: THIS WEBSITE STARTED AS JUST AN INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE PLANNING CORRUPTION & Highways. but NOW it is a CRITICAL SERIOUS part of the evidence WITH OTHER GROUPS of the BIG PICTURE OF CORRUPTION! Anonymous, XR, Chris Hedges, David Icke, Russell Brand!
Jul 26, 2022 1:22:51 GMT
Administrator: OUR LOCAL AREA IS BEING ATTACKED BY ROGUE BUILDERS AND ALSO PLANNING SITES BEING HACKED TO CHANGE DATES!! KIRKLEES, DALTON SURGERY ANY WITNESSES PLEASE COME FORWARD 😱
Aug 19, 2022 19:37:00 GMT
Administrator: McDonalds Empire Queen Elizabeth STOLE my TUNE & CONCEPT for THEIR REACH & made MILLIONs selling HARMFULL JUNK FOOD! TRUE! > youtu.be/jh7sGGs_t4k
Aug 22, 2022 2:22:28 GMT