This is a joke, right?

If it had been true perhaps?

 

Current regs are 1986 and are very complex - *big* differences when
the vehicle is for sale and/or the person is a trader.

 

JP wrote

Are you suggesting that this story is untrue?

So, assuming this is right, then either the paper or the geezer is
telling porky pies and presumably the plod have then had to respond
officially to enquiries and this could be considered an intrusion into
their donut breaks.

So who is going to be brought before the bench for wasting police time
then? Somebody needs to be, I hope it is the sun.

 

As my other post - it just doesnt ring true.

I just dont think the chap has told all the story - theres more to
this than meets the eye methinks.

No time appears to have been wasted

 

JP wrote

I suspect you conclusions are correct. It does seem an awfully odd
tale.

Bugger.

 

Sounds like you were spot on with the "only hearing half the story" bit.

 

Of course it's true - it's in the papers.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6? DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#16? FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19

 

Really? Under what legislation?

All I can find is:
Regulation 34(6) Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
"Every wiper and washer required to be fitted shall, whilst the
vehicle is being used on a road, be maintained in efficient working
order and be properly adjusted."

It says nothing about additive. I suppose if its around freezing and
there is no antifreeze additive then it could be held that the washer
had not been maintained in efficient working order, but only if it has
actually frozen.