Conference terri::cars_uk

    People put their bikes on the rear of the car because if you're 4'11"
    like me it is impossible to put the bike on the roof. I don't have one
    of those rear racks,(yet) so i get around the problem by lowering the
    backsets and putting the bike in the boot! Not very practical!

    This has been discussed before. It is illegal and some police forces
    make a point of stopping offenders and pointing out the error of their
    ways.......
    
    I was told how far you may have a load projecting rearward without
    markings but can't remember the exact distance (18"??). This is only
    allowed providing lights *and* numberplate are obscured.
    
    Everything else requires a marker (e.g. trailer board).
    
    JK
    

    .2�    I was told how far you may have a load projecting rearward without
    .2�    markings but can't remember the exact distance (18"??). This is only
    
    Over here it's <1m without marker and <1.5m anyway.
    
    .2�    allowed providing lights *and* numberplate are obscured.
    
    Lights and numberplate should be visible in all circumstances.
    
    Load: no real regulations other than comply with the car's user manual,
    which describes the max weight you can get inside as well as:
    
    - on the roof (30-70kg depending on manufacturer)
    - on the rear end (usually 50kg max)
    
    If you have a chance to ride on our A8 motorway you'll be able to see
    incredible things that the italian and french police let go: cars
    overloaded by a ridiculous factor (6 adults aboard a Fiat Panda is
    commonplace, volume of the roof load bigger than the actual car). Of
    course most of them can't go faster than 70kph and when wind blows thay
    can't manage to stay on their wheels very long ... Who said risky
    business ?

I carry a bike on a rack at the back of my car.

I make sure that the lights are visible, especially the driver side rear lights 
are unobstructed.  The numberplate is mostly visible, certainly a human can 
tell what the number is...whether a camera can, I don't know (I hope not!).


I can't hang a trailer board off the cycle because I have no socket for the 
plug to go into and I'm sure that lease will be ecstatic if I put one on the 
car...so would my bank manager...

As long as one is sensible, I don't see any objection to carrying a bike 
there...

    
>>                <<< Note 1857.1 by BERN02::BYRNE >>>
>>                           -< dwarfs!! >-
>>
>>    People put their bikes on the rear of the car because if you're 4'11"
>>    like me it is impossible to put the bike on the roof. 
    
    Then there's an easy solution:- You shouldn't carry a bike full stop!
    (unless of course one is wise enough, like you, to put it in the car
    itself).
    
    -Tony

>>    <<< Note 1857.4 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>


>>>I can't hang a trailer board off the cycle because I have no socket for the 
>>>plug to go into and I'm sure that lease will be ecstatic if I put one on the 
>>>car...so would my bank manager...
    
    
    The lighting board is about �20, a lighting kit about �18 a numberplate
    (for the board) about �8. This is all a lot less than the price you
    paid for the carrier, let alone the costs of the bike. (all prices seen
    recently in Halfords)
    
    Whatever you say, your lights and plate are still obscured, it could
    cause an accident!.
    
    Richard

>    Whatever you say, your lights and plate are still obscured, it could
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    cause an accident!.
    
Want a bet ???????????

and how would an obscured plate cause an accident ???????




what is the relevance of the cost of my carrier ???????  the lighting kit would 
still have to be bought on top of that....

I'm paid by digital....I can't afford to spend money just because of someone 
elses whim, and suppositions....

    This should start the WAR!!!....
    
    Cyclist in general are dangerous... however, if anyone driving with
    obscured rear lights, they have increased the likelyhood of an
    accident.
    
    Bob 

>>    <<< Note 1857.7 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>
>>           -< Sheesh, the wimp police are out in force this week ! >-

>>and how would an obscured plate cause an accident ???????

    Obscuring the lights would cause an accident, obscuring the numberplate
    would prevent them identifying you as you drove away :-)
    


>>what is the relevance of the cost of my carrier ???????  the lighting kit would 
>>still have to be bought on top of that....

    Well you obviously bought the carrier, but didn't consider
    past it to the law!
    
>>I'm paid by digital....I can't afford to spend money just because of someone 
>>elses whim, and suppositions....

    Not a  whim, and supposition, but LAW (i.e. nick nick time)
    
    Hey I don't care!, but if I did crash into your back I sure as hell
    would argue In couldn't see you stop lights as they were obscured. The
    law would agree, your insurance company wouldn't like it and you shure
    as hell wouldn't!.
    
    Richard
    
    

    I AGREE CYCLISTS ARE DANGEROUS!
    
    Why do you think we transport the bikes away from the busy roads? You
    wouldn't catch me cycling on a road when some guys (in cars) just 
    race along???
    
    Besides my bike isn't kitted out for road cycling!

    I saw a guy driving down the M2 the other day with 2 or 3 bikes
    strappped to the back of his car, his number plate and lights wre both
    obscurred.
    He had a number plate tied to the bikes though, but you still couldn't
    see his lights.
    This man obviously thinks not seeing his no. plate may cause an
    accident, sod the fact you can't see my lights.
    
    Nick.

    
    The bottom line is that anybody who knowingly has their brake lights
    obscured and continues to drive, is STUPID and has no concept of the
    term SAFETY.

>> Obscuring the lights would cause an accident, obscuring the numberplate
 

Surely if you crash into the back of someone then you were driving too close?

Gordy.

	You should leave an adequate gap, but adequate is different
	if you can't see the lights.

	Dave

Re: .8 & .9


Why don't you read my notes instead of inventing what I've said.


My *LIGHTS ARE NOT OBSCURED* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

understand ????????????

sheesh....


your argument is not based on fact so, you'd better stop arguing...

    RE .15
    
    If you read .8 carefully I never mention you, or indicate that I mean
    you in any part of my reply...
    
    I mearly stated the obvious.... ie  *anyone* who has obscured rear
    lights for whatever reason, has increased the likelyhood of an
    accident.
    
    The fact that I picked on cyclists is a very unfair generalisation in
    which all cyclists are cast with the same shaddow as those who
    blatently ignore the guidelines in the highway code... (at traffic
    lights for instance... cycling across whilst the green man lit for
    pedestrians... etc, etc, etc) and for this I do *NOT* apologise!
    
    Cyclist riding without lights is another common bitch!
    
    Bob

Re: .16

You may not have specified me specifically, but you were among the rest 
attacking me...
    
>    Cyclist riding without lights is another common bitch!
    
In daylight ?  why ?

:-)

    re
        <<< Note 1857.15 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>

>>Re: .8 & .9
>>Why don't you read my notes instead of inventing what I've said.
>>My *LIGHTS ARE NOT OBSCURED* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    So your bikes do not IN ANY WAY come in the line of sight of your
    lights?. 
    
    May I remind you what you DID actually say:
    >>
    "I make sure that the lights are visible, especially the driver side
    rear lights are unobstructed.  The numberplate is mostly visible,
    certainly a human can"
    <<
    This most definitely seems to be contrary to  *LIGHTS ARE NOT OBSCURED*
    
    
    If they IN ANY WAY come in front of the line of sight of your lights
    they are by definition OBSCURED. They do then fit in the category I was
    describing. 
    ergo MY argument *IS* based on fact so, *YOU* had better stop
    arguing...
    
    Stop defending the undefendable. I have considered buying a bike
    carrier, I will not buy one without buying the board/lighting/plate to
    make sure I am holier than thou and whiter than white.
    
    
    Richard (the saintly)
    

    
    I've got a bike carrier and I can't caterogically state that my lights
    are NEVER obscured!!!!.
    
    
    
    Admittedly, it's a roof rack, but...
    
    
    Mark

Well, if Richard sits 2 inches from my bumper, then yes, my lights are 
obscured.   Otherwise they are not, the brake lights are visible, the tail 
lights are visible, the indicators are visible....

in what way would you say they are obscured ????


As for the number plate....stuff that...


I wonder if you are thinking of a definition of "obscure" that I am not aware 
of ?

obscure: 1 dark, indistinct
         2 remote from people's observation
         3 to conceal from view

source: OED

� As for the number plate....stuff that...
    
    Presumably the same way in which you'd stuff speed limits? If you get
    fined you accept the consequences with no qualms?
    
    Mark

    

>    Presumably the same way in which you'd stuff speed limits? If you get
>    fined you accept the consequences with no qualms?
    
well, not "no" but few....it's not dangerous. Speeding and obscuring the 
numberplates are totally unrelated in the safety stakes.  I see no reason for 
being pulled up on a semi-obscured numberplate if I am not breaking the law in 
any other way...I suspect that the courts would laugh at that one for wasting 
their time...

and in anycase, I rarely exceed speed limits anymore, the game is getting too 
one-sided.  I'd prefer to have the speed limits set at reasonable levels and be 
enforceably variable depending on conditions....

I *ALWAYS* drive safely, always have....it all depends on the road conditions.

Re .-1

You should try living in Notts,  a dirty number plate is a favorite
excuse for pulling you over, checking the car, blowing into bags
etc...

With the new cameras etc..., I expect that the Police will start 
getting tough on unclear/obscured number plates. IMHO of course!

_Richard

�being pulled up on a semi-obscured numberplate if I am not breaking the law in 
�any other way...I suspect that the courts would laugh at that one for wasting 
�their time...
    
    So, would you think the Police won't 'do' people for having number
    plates of the wrong colour / wrong style / incorrect spacing / etc ?
    
    It seems, from replies in this conference, that they do follow this up...
    
    J.R.

ah well, my rear number plate, is at all times,  yellow with black letters, 
with correct spacing, in the correct position on the car, and, to a human in a
following car, clearly visible. 

What's illegal about that ?

;-)

    I once got stopped by Mr. Plod because he didn't like my number plates. 
    After measuring the height of the letters/digits with a ruler, he read
    me my rights and took all my details.  Apparently they must be between
    80 and 88mm high.  After offering to change the plates and having no
    luck in tracing the officer concerned (having tried all 4 local
    stations) I received a summons a couple of months later.  That's when I
    spoke to a solicitor who sent the Police a letter and a photo of my car
    inc. front plate.  I then received a letter saying that basically the
    sub-divisional commander had let me off with a caution and that I
    should change the plates immediately.  That was over a year ago now and
    the plates are still on the car.  I usually pass through a couple of
    Police checks daily too being in Northern Ireland.
    
    Gary.

>>   <<< Note 1857.20 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." >>>
>>Well, if Richard sits 2 inches from my bumper, then yes, my lights are 
>>obscured.   Otherwise they are not, the brake lights are visible, the tail 
>>lights are visible, the indicators are visible....

>>in what way would you say they are obscured ????

>>I wonder if you are thinking of a definition of "obscure" that I am not aware 
>>of ?

>>obscure: 1 dark, indistinct
>>         2 remote from people's observation
>>         3 to conceal from view

>>source: OED

    Being a little economical on words here?, even the Concise Oxford
    Dictionary defines obscure as (amongs other things) To darken; to make
    less visible, legible, or intelligible;
    
    I would describe placing anything between the viewpoint and the light
    as making it less visible, hence in some way obscured. 
    
    Remember, you are talking absolutes here:
    <<< Note 1857.15 by MAJORS::ALFORD "lying Shipwrecked and comatose..." 
    >>My *LIGHTS ARE NOT OBSCURED* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Now if you had said  My *LIGHTS ARE NOT mostly, or seriously or
    dangerously OBSCURED* I could agree with you.
    
    Whether or not from all angles WHILST DRIVING I can see ALL your lights
    is still open to conjecture as I agree I have not seen your set-up.
    However the deciding factor is not you or me but the car following you,
    especially if it's white with a stripe and a blue light!.
    
    Richard (typing on a terminal that is absolutely not obscured)