Sticky Stickers

[Gordon Bayley]

After dropping my TR6 off for its annual MOT; I went for a walk to the local car spare shop for bits and pieces for travelling to Le Mans in July.

On arriving back to the garage I was advised that the car could fail if I did not remove some of the stickers from the windscreen such as the Lakes weekend; red rose group meeting event and Malvern ( we got there sticker 2007; and camped) I was told the reason for this was that they obstructed the 'swept area' vision on the windscreen (presumably this means the wiper blade area) Considering the windscreen is only the size of a cloakroom window it does limit room for my collection! I was informed that if I was involved in an accident it would be considered that I would be partly at fault due to my lack of visibility and the insurance assessor would definitely take this into account!!

I have considered that my only option is careful selection therefore my road tax to stay in the bottom left hand corner; my malvern survival badge and a trip to Rhyl sticker will remain but obviously outside the 'swept area'

My only other option would be to remove one wiper blade!!!!!! See you all at Le Mans

[88V8]

Considering the windscreen is only the size of a cloakroom window it does limit room for my collection!

 

OK, so stick them on the inside of the side windows. Unless your furry seal is in a lot better contact with the glass than mine is, it's not likely to knock them off

 

Ivor

[foster461]

After dropping my TR6 off for its annual MOT; I went for a walk to the local car spare shop for bits and pieces for travelling to Le Mans in July.

On arriving back to the garage I was advised that the car could fail if I did not remove some of the stickers from the windscreen such as the Lakes weekend; red rose group meeting event and Malvern ( we got there sticker 2007; and camped) I was told the reason for this was that they obstructed the 'swept area' vision on the windscreen (presumably this means the wiper blade area) Considering the windscreen is only the size of a cloakroom window it does limit room for my collection! I was informed that if I was involved in an accident it would be considered that I would be partly at fault due to my lack of visibility and the insurance assessor would definitely take this into account!!

I have considered that my only option is careful selection therefore my road tax to stay in the bottom left hand corner; my malvern survival badge and a trip to Rhyl sticker will remain but obviously outside the 'swept area'

My only other option would be to remove one wiper blade!!!!!! See you all at Le Mans

 

I can sympathize, we don't have much real estate for windshield decorations along with the tax stickers. The best show/event/club stickers are like the TR Register sticker that you can peel off and re-apply. I have a few of those that I rotate depending on the event and the location (local vs national) and the ones that I'm not using I just park on the garage window. The show events like the VTR national convention use magnetic pads that you stick on the front wing. I like those too because when you are done with the event they can be stuck on the underside of the boot lid.

 

One of these days I will fit the roll bar that is in the basement and fill the area under the bar with Plexiglas as a wind blocker and get another potential surface for stickers.

 

 

 

Stan

[pilgrim]

I ride a motorcycle as well as drive a TR6 and a sticker can completely obscure your sight of a motorcycle so I must say I am of the opinion that a windscreen is for looking out of and not sticking stickers on.

[duncan]

Why not put them at the top of the windscreen behind the mirror, it's dead space anyway which you can't see out of. Duncan

[jonlar]

I've also had a similar problem with the MoT garage I've used for the last 17/18 years or so - they're extremely good and honest - they know I do all our cars (Euroboxes) and show me any problems or potential future defects whilst the vehicle's on the ramp. When they said to me about a sticker, I asked how the young boy racers get their cars through the test with the top half of the screen obscured by "sunvisors/rallyspeed" type windscreen obstructions - they fit smaller wiper blades was the answer. As Gordon has already said it is the "swept" area of the screen, the only thing that can intrude legally is the VEL disc - shows just what an ass the law is. I still wonder how these "boy racer" mods - bodykits, wider alloy wheels, extended spats and fancy paint jobs are notified/declared on their insurance, and even more how can they afford the premiums in any case..................

[BrianC]

I still wonder how these "boy racer" mods - bodykits, wider alloy wheels, extended spats and fancy paint jobs are notified/declared on their insurance, ...

99% of the time they aren't

 

...and even more how can they afford the premiums in any case..................

...and many of the premiums are paid by the parent. Even so, if the mods are not declared, the driver/owner is technically uninsured when he writes off your car or kills someone, so who loses out?

[Alec Pringle]

Well said Pilgrim,

 

there's nothing worse than some silly pillock driving round with a solid wadge of stickers each side of his screen - for all practical purposes a 6" thick screen pillar, that can hide an oncoming Transit never mind a 'bike.

 

As for the "sunvisor/rallyspeed" jobs Jon, didn't we all have those back in the 60s ? They were new then and all the rage ! For sure every TR on the 1977 End-to-End run had a blue one emblazoned OPTREX across the screen, 'cause if you didn't then you missed out on the sponsorship !!!

 

Let's not be too harsh on the boy racers, Brian, which is what I was 40 years ago, and no doubt many other Forum contributors were just as exotic in their youth. Insurance was relatively a lot cheaper then, and insurers a darn sight more relaxed about modifications, declared or otherwise.

 

Now and again I lend a hand to the odd local oiks, they are fellow car enthusiasts after all, and many of these lads (and lasses) are just as keen as us greying types. Some of the youngsters spend every spare penny on their cars, many of them drink a damn sight less alcohol than we did at their age, and they're into retro cars 10 or 15 years old . . . . rather like TRs were to us in the 60s and 70s.

 

Insurers are not stupid, and I've been pleasantly surprised to realise in recent years that some of the specialist outfits do recognise the effort and expenditure that goes into some of these 'boy racer' machines, and the pride that the owners take in them. Premiums are certainly not cheap, but they're not astronomical either - many of these kids have no more intention of modifying the local scenery than we have. Premiums reflect insurers' experiences.

 

Bear in mind that these youngsters are the future of the marque - like my 21-year old neighbour who's sold his scalding Scooby Doo to fund restoring his late grandad's TR7. Nothing exceptional, there are quite a few classic sports and saloon car enthusiasts in their 20s locally.

 

OK, I'm in a rural area not in a big city, but the local young car enthusiasts still get targeted by the bobbies - and it's not the characters in obvious interesting machinery who lack insurance, it's the prats in anonymous boggo euroboxes.

 

Surprise surprise, as soon as an older 'classic' enthusiast (perceived as 'responsible') is seen taking an interest in a young enthusiast, the bobbies leave the youngster in peace. A few fit young acquaintances can be one heck of a help when you need a pushstart, or an engine or 'box heaving out !

 

Come on chaps, less carping and more understanding, and more leading by example - it's just another aspect of 'preserving the marque TR'.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Ragtag]

...and many of the premiums are paid by the parent. Even so, if the mods are not declared, the driver/owner is technically uninsured when he writes off your car or kills someone, so who loses out?

 

I find I come over all "Victor Meldrew" regarding boot mounted aerofoils but I'm not sure who I get more annoyed at. The plonkers who fit them or Halfords etc for selling them. The ones in Halfords actually have a label on them stating "Not legal for use on Public Roads"!

[Alec Pringle]

So where does that leave my Vitesse, which left the Rover factory with one already firmly fitted ?

 

Am I middle-aged boy racer ?

 

Or geriatric boy racer ?

 

Or ?

 

Suggestions on a postcard to Top Gear !

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Peter Vernon]

Agreeing with Alec twice in a month has me a little worried but windows are for looking out from and anything that stops a driver having a clear unobstructed should be stopped. It is like the plethora of sat nav systems that people insist on putting in the eye line on the windscreen that not only block the eye line but destroy night vision with the glare as most do not put them into night mode, madness! It is like they are showing everyone they have a new gadget.

 

Turning to the MOT itself, whilst I am sure the tester knows a lot about cars he has demonstrated that he knows little or nothing about insurance. Likewise the comment about uninsured drivers due to mods on the cars is inaccurate. Whilst the accidental damage to the car may be in question, the insurer cannot avoid cover as the Certificate of Insurance confirms the cover complies with the Road Traffic Act (RTA). The certificate (not The Schedule) does not refer to any accidental damage cover.

 

Just to kill this off once and for all:

 

The UK Road Traffic Act On Car Insurance

 

Road Traffic Act (RTA 1988) as amended by Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). These acts deal not only with the car insurance but also with many aspects of road law.

 

 

 

Third Party Liabilities:

 

Section 143 of the RTA deals with compulsory insurance or security (by deposit for example) against third party risks and users of cars to be insured against third party risks. This part of the act says that persons should not use a car on the road without car insurance, that a person should not let others drive their car without car insurance. Breach of these points is an offence. The word 'use' is much wider than just driving it. The presence on the road is sufficient to constitute use.

 

For example towing a broken vehicle is termed as use. In the case of Brown v Roberts (1963) a driver was the 'user' when his passenger opened a door into a pedestrian.

 

For the purpose of the act, motor vehicle means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended for use on the road. In McEachram v Hurst (1978) a moped was being pedaled along a road (its engine was not working) and the moped was held to be a motor vehicle. A 'road' is anywhere the public has access to (including farm roads or cul de sacs).

 

Car insurance policies must be held by an 'authorised insurer' who are defined in the Motor Insurance Companies Act (1982). They must also be members of the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), (see below).

 

Sub-section 3 says that the policy must cover against death or bodily injury or third party property damage. It must also cover motoring within the European Union (EU) The third EU motor insurance directive goes into the minimum standards of cover whilst in Europe.

 

Car Insurance certificates:

 

Whilst strictly speaking, the insured needs a certificate of car insurance before he can drive, in practice the car insurance broker can hold the cover note on his clients behalf. There are strong laws about cover notes and in particular the dates, it is an illegal to back date cover.

 

The main purpose of the Road Traffic Acts is to secure, so far as that may be possible, that those killed or injured or who sustain damage to their property as the result of a motor accident have an effective right of redress against those responsible. To do that, it ensures that the victims are not dependent for compensation on the personal wealth of the persons responsible: they are obliged to make adequate provision by way of insurance.

 

 

 

The Motor Insurers Bureau:

 

If a person makes a false declaration forcing the insurer to void the policy or deny cover if there is injury then the matter is referred to the MIB. MIB was established in 1946 to compensate the victims of negligent uninsured and untraced motorists.

 

Every insurer underwriting compulsory motor insurance is obliged, by virtue of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to be a member of MIB and to contribute to its funding. And yes we are all paying for it via the premiums we pass to insurers.

 

The MIB functions under two separate Agreements between Government and the motor insurance industry.

 

 

One agreement - the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement - requires the MIB to meet unsatisfied Civil Court Judgments against identified motorists who may not have been insured as required by the Road Traffic Act.

 

 

 

The other - The Untraced Drivers' Agreement -requires the MIB to consider applications for compensation from victims of "Hit & Run" motorists. There is no requirement to demonstrate failure or evidence of insurance.

 

 

 

The MIB's obligations are linked to the compulsory insurance requirements of the Road Traffic Act, so the protection provided is limited to where there is a legal requirement to insure.

 

So there it is. Even if there are circumstances that a driver, for whatever reason becomes either deliberately or accidentaly uninsured the MIB ensures that the injured party does not suffer. That is not to say that damage to cars or other property is covered because it is not. All the more reason to have comprehensive cover.

 

Regards,

 

Peter

</SPAN>

 

 

Credit MIB website: http://www.mib.org.uk/

[Gordon Bayley]

Agreeing with Alec twice in a month has me a little worried but windows are for looking out from and anything that stops a driver having a clear unobstructed should be stopped. It is like the plethora of sat nav systems that people insist on putting in the eye line on the windscreen that not only block the eye line but destroy night vision with the glare as most do not put them into night mode, madness! It is like they are showing everyone they have a new gadget.

 

Turning to the MOT itself, whilst I am sure the tester knows a lot about cars he has demonstrated that he knows little or nothing about insurance. Likewise the comment about uninsured drivers due to mods on the cars is inaccurate. Whilst the accidental damage to the car may be in question, the insurer cannot avoid cover as the Certificate of Insurance confirms the cover complies with the Road Traffic Act (RTA). The certificate (not The Schedule) does not refer to any accidental damage cover.

 

Just to kill this off once and for all:

 

The UK Road Traffic Act On Car Insurance

 

Road Traffic Act (RTA 1988) as amended by Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). These acts deal not only with the car insurance but also with many aspects of road law.

 

 

 

Third Party Liabilities:

 

Section 143 of the RTA deals with compulsory insurance or security (by deposit for example) against third party risks and users of cars to be insured against third party risks. This part of the act says that persons should not use a car on the road without car insurance, that a person should not let others drive their car without car insurance. Breach of these points is an offence. The word 'use' is much wider than just driving it. The presence on the road is sufficient to constitute use.

 

For example towing a broken vehicle is termed as use. In the case of Brown v Roberts (1963) a driver was the 'user' when his passenger opened a door into a pedestrian.

 

For the purpose of the act, motor vehicle means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended for use on the road. In McEachram v Hurst (1978) a moped was being pedaled along a road (its engine was not working) and the moped was held to be a motor vehicle. A 'road' is anywhere the public has access to (including farm roads or cul de sacs).

 

Car insurance policies must be held by an 'authorised insurer' who are defined in the Motor Insurance Companies Act (1982). They must also be members of the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), (see below).

 

Sub-section 3 says that the policy must cover against death or bodily injury or third party property damage. It must also cover motoring within the European Union (EU) The third EU motor insurance directive goes into the minimum standards of cover whilst in Europe.

 

Car Insurance certificates:

 

Whilst strictly speaking, the insured needs a certificate of car insurance before he can drive, in practice the car insurance broker can hold the cover note on his clients behalf. There are strong laws about cover notes and in particular the dates, it is an illegal to back date cover.

 

The main purpose of the Road Traffic Acts is to secure, so far as that may be possible, that those killed or injured or who sustain damage to their property as the result of a motor accident have an effective right of redress against those responsible. To do that, it ensures that the victims are not dependent for compensation on the personal wealth of the persons responsible: they are obliged to make adequate provision by way of insurance.

 

 

 

The Motor Insurers Bureau:

 

If a person makes a false declaration forcing the insurer to void the policy or deny cover if there is injury then the matter is referred to the MIB. MIB was established in 1946 to compensate the victims of negligent uninsured and untraced motorists.

 

Every insurer underwriting compulsory motor insurance is obliged, by virtue of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to be a member of MIB and to contribute to its funding. And yes we are all paying for it via the premiums we pass to insurers.

 

The MIB functions under two separate Agreements between Government and the motor insurance industry.

 

 

One agreement - the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement - requires the MIB to meet unsatisfied Civil Court Judgments against identified motorists who may not have been insured as required by the Road Traffic Act.

 

 

 

The other - The Untraced Drivers' Agreement -requires the MIB to consider applications for compensation from victims of "Hit & Run" motorists. There is no requirement to demonstrate failure or evidence of insurance.

 

 

 

The MIB's obligations are linked to the compulsory insurance requirements of the Road Traffic Act, so the protection provided is limited to where there is a legal requirement to insure.

 

So there it is. Even if there are circumstances that a driver, for whatever reason becomes either deliberately or accidentaly uninsured the MIB ensures that the injured party does not suffer. That is not to say that damage to cars or other property is covered because it is not. All the more reason to have comprehensive cover.

 

Regards,

 

Peter

</SPAN>

 

 

Credit MIB website: http://www.mib.org.uk/

[Gordon Bayley]

Is that a yes :

[Gordon Bayley]

Or a no then

[jonlar]

Well said Pilgrim,

 

there's nothing worse than some silly pillock driving round with a solid wadge of stickers each side of his screen - for all practical purposes a 6" thick screen pillar, that can hide an oncoming Transit never mind a 'bike.

 

As a biker until a few years ago, I agree 100%, most car and other vehicle drivers who have not been m/c riders are oblivious to motor-cyclists, but a lot of them (and car drivers) need to learn to drive defensively (anticipate what some other prat may do (or not do for that matter)). On a bike you have to learn to keep out of the blind-spots, and as a car/lorry/bus driver become aware of the blind-spots, so you don't get a Police m/cyclist there!

 

As for the "sunvisor/rallyspeed" jobs Jon, didn't we all have those back in the 60s ? They were new then and all the rage ! For sure every TR on the 1977 End-to-End run had a blue one emblazoned OPTREX across the screen, 'cause if you didn't then you missed out on the sponsorship !!!

 

I had a clear green film across, the plastic stickers were used to cover rust holes or hold bits together! - My point was that these jobbies are totally obscure, and to get around it by using small wiper blades is frankly pathetic - the sticker I got pulled up for is the HM Coastguard one, which although obscure, encroached less than 1/2" into the swept area, and only on the passenger side.

 

Let's not be too harsh on the boy racers, Brian, which is what I was 40 years ago, and no doubt many other Forum contributors were just as exotic in their youth. Insurance was relatively a lot cheaper then, and insurers a darn sight more relaxed about modifications, declared or otherwise.

 

In 1971, enquired the cost of insuring a TR6, which was then some £300, approx. 20-25% of the vehicle purchase (I think it was a Group 16?) - and why I bought a Hillman Imp instead of going into hock to the bank for £1200!

 

Now and again I lend a hand to the odd local oiks, they are fellow car enthusiasts after all, and many of these lads (and lasses) are just as keen as us greying types. Some of the youngsters spend every spare penny on their cars, many of them drink a damn sight less alcohol than we did at their age, and they're into retro cars 10 or 15 years old . . . . rather like TRs were to us in the 60s and 70s.

 

Once again, I agree with most of your comment, but what is the logic of the boom boom, thump thump speaker system - they can't even hear the Police sirens let alone recognise the blue lights (they think it's one of their mates with those LEDs!). They'll probably end up deaf by the time they're thirty - noise pollution, almost as bad as some grey-beard motorists with their noisy exhausts (I should make it very clear that my tongue is firmly in my cheek at this point)!

[Alec Pringle]

Eh well our Jon, speak up then lad . . .

 

Couldn't agree more, the poor sods surely will deafen themselves for no good reason.

 

But then who am I to criticise ? Working in F1 pits when we didn't even use earplugs, on stage with some of the loudest rock'n'roll bands of all time, and I did get nicked for having the loudest stereo on the Kings Road in a TR5. That took some doing in 1970. Oh well, what the hell, je ne regrette rien !

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Gordon Bayley]

At last I have the anwser, I have found a spare windscreen in the garage roof space,that gives me till Malvern 2034 and then I will be looking for a new one,Only jokeing, Took the TR down to Hoylake on Friday to have the fuel injection set up it drinks more than I do, Doing a bit to reduce my carbon footprint, Who knows I may get a sticker