Paging the hardened Euro travellers.

I can't think of anyone better to interpret French law as it applies to
UK motorists than the two biggest organisations that represent UK
motorists, but wibble.

 

Ah, but it's quite a different thing to change headlights and to keep a hi-vi
in the car.

I don't think that's the case. As I said, in Spain you're required to have
two triangles. Spanish plod are tolerant of foreign drivers, that's all. They
can nick you if they want. I believe that vehicles have to comply with the
countries they're touring through too. Otherwise vehicles that are classed
as dangerous in one country could quite happily drive in another.

 

Sod it, if I have time, I'll pop down to the local Gendarmerie and will ask.

 

See Champ's post v-a-v the 1968 Vienna convention.

Oh, and just out of interest, I've been nicked in the VW at least
three, possibly as many as four or five times since that law came in,
and not once been asked to show the gilet. So it's clear that the frog
plod are not in the habit of trying to enforce this on forn registered
cars.

And I think that is the most important thing.

 

Like they'd know the rights of it. This is the same plod who for years
were insisting you exchange your UK licence, but then wouldn't let you
when you tried, right?

 

"And why would I choose to believe them?" That article is after all
just quoting what the AA said at the time.

I think the most important thing is that a reflective jacket costs
peanuts so you'd be mad to risk the wrath of a pissed off frog plod.
And it may just be the clincher when it comes to being stopped for
something else, in the same way I've been let off for speeding with a
bollocking because I "wasn't taking the piss with a small plate & loud
exhaust".

It's not like most people would argue the point on foreign soil even if
plod was wrong. I'm pretty sure what happened to us in Switzerland last
year wasn't legal, but I'm buggered if I would've contested it & gone
along to a defend myself in a Swiss court.

 

You used to be able to buy a yellow lacquer to paint the lenses with.

 

I've still got a couple of bottles. I painted one of the Tiger's
headlights when I was commuting to Brum in the winter. It makes you
stand out when filtering down the outside of a line of traffic in the
dark, making you much more obvious to cars coming the other way.

 

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily apply to everything. E.g. isn't the
maximum weight limit/length for lorries higher in some European
countries? So they'd be legal in their country, but not here?

 

He should have stopped at 2

 

Good point, but I wonder when ever you go to France in a car , do you
always take a warning triangle, which if I am not mistaken is mandatory
even for tourists ?

While the BHP issue a physical attribute of the bike, the warning triangle
is not, and neither is a flourescent jacket.

However, due to space limitations both are excluded from the motorbike
rules.[1]

That is my understanding any way, and I am sure the discussion will
continue.

FYI, In Guatemala a Hi-viz jacket with the bike's reg on the back is
required, and carrying passengers is illegal.

[1] As to why a hi-viz jacket is actually excluded on space grounds I am
not sure.

 

I know for sure that *many* furriners were delayed/hassled by plod when
the law first came in. Since the vests cost almost nothing it doesn't
seem like too much of a problem to have one.

For years I know the ferry companys supplemented their income by selling
bulb kits, convincing everyone that it's a legal requirement to carry
one. AFAIK, it isn't, it's just that driving with a bulb out is a bit
more illegal in France etc. than it is in the uk. I think.

Worrabout headlight dipping? I cba to stick tape etc. on my lights, I
just point 'em down as far as I can if I have to drive in the dark.

 

Heh. And ITYWF that they'd have stiched you up far worse if you'd try
to fight it. And I think that plod's word would be taken as sufficient
evidence in and of itself, so you didn't have a leg to stand on.

 

No. The difference is subtle, but your example is about using a
vehicle on roads where it's not allowed, rather than the vehicle
failing to comply with a technical requirement.

 

Actually specifically on that point, doesn't it only apply to bikes
registered as French, not ones owned by people living in France? If so,
it's not a good example as it's nothing to do with foreign vehicles.

 

If you're "living" ,i.e. domiciled[1], in France then the vehicles
would also need to be registered there, would they not.

[1] Unlike us, who have Swiss papers to prove we're not ;-)

 

Only if you kept them there iwht. What if you live in France, but spend
3 months of the year in the UK & take a trip to France on your UK
registered bike?

 

While channel flicking the other night, I saw some program where a
trucker was stopped from driving because his load, which was perfectly
legal where he'd come from, was not classed as legal in the UK and had
to have his trailer emptied of the excessive weight.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

**** nose.

 

But the point is plod didn't know which of us had broken the law. He
said 2 of us had made an illegal overtake & 2 hadn't, but he didn't
know which were which. So unless he lied through his teeth in court,
his word would've been '2 of these people committed an offence, but I
don't know which ones yer honour'. Surely a Swiss court wouldn't have
prosecuted 2 people at random, or all 4 of us (knowing 2 were
innocent), based just on that?