Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Circus HGVs
1,356 views
Skip to first unread message
ne...@the.shed
Jul 1, 2013, 8:44:20 AM7/1/13
to
I saw a Circus HGV pass our office - it had a ride folded up into a semi
trailer that was much longer than a normal one and behind that it was towing
the rides control box in a seperate trailer. So effectively it was a US style
double. I thought they were illegal in the UK or are there special rules
for circuses? If not how the hell do they get away with pulling an overlength
vehicle with no special signs or escort vehicles?
NJR
trailer that was much longer than a normal one and behind that it was towing
the rides control box in a seperate trailer. So effectively it was a US style
double. I thought they were illegal in the UK or are there special rules
for circuses? If not how the hell do they get away with pulling an overlength
vehicle with no special signs or escort vehicles?
NJR
Mentalguy2k8
Jul 1, 2013, 9:32:25 AM7/1/13
to
<ne...@the.shed> wrote in message news:kqrtj4$i5o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
John Williamson
Jul 1, 2013, 11:24:36 AM7/1/13
to
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
base to site or from one site to the next.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Chris Hills
Jul 1, 2013, 11:29:49 AM7/1/13
to
On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
> regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
> base to site or from one site to the next.
This is very strange. Surely those rules are to protect people from
> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
> regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
> base to site or from one site to the next.
those drivers who are exhausted who are more likely to cause fatal
accidents. I would like to see this exemption removed as it is dangerous.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 1, 2013, 11:32:24 AM7/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:24:36 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The showmen do generally, but do have some special rules of their own.
>
>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>
>Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
>against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
>metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
>
>They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
>regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
>base to site or from one site to the next.
But why? Of all the industries that would have a justifiable claim to have
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The showmen do generally, but do have some special rules of their own.
>
>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>
>Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
>against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
>metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
>
>They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
>regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
>base to site or from one site to the next.
special rules for their HGVs, circuses arn't exactly the first that spring to
mind. Their rides could simply be designed to be split into smaller parts to
fit onto a standard HGV trailer.
NJR
Nightjar
Jul 1, 2013, 11:32:40 AM7/1/13
to
On 01/07/2013 13:44, ne...@the.shed wrote:
> I saw a Circus HGV pass our office - it had a ride folded up into a semi
> trailer that was much longer than a normal one and behind that it was towing
> the rides control box in a seperate trailer. So effectively it was a US style
> double. I thought they were illegal in the UK or are there special rules
> for circuses?
There are special rules for showmen's vehicles.
> I saw a Circus HGV pass our office - it had a ride folded up into a semi
> trailer that was much longer than a normal one and behind that it was towing
> the rides control box in a seperate trailer. So effectively it was a US style
> double. I thought they were illegal in the UK or are there special rules
> for circuses?
http://www.showmensguild.com/transport.htm
Colin Bignell
Clive George
Jul 1, 2013, 11:41:14 AM7/1/13
to
want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI request
to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident rate of
showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
Nightjar
Jul 1, 2013, 11:54:25 AM7/1/13
to
traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
LGVs still worked to the rules that applied to them in the 1920s, most
freight would still be going by rail.
Colin Bignell
John Williamson
Jul 1, 2013, 12:01:52 PM7/1/13
to
load bearing members can't be repeatedly and safely assembled from
smaller parts on site.
John Williamson
Jul 1, 2013, 12:04:26 PM7/1/13
to
way that showmen work
and travel.
Similar exemptions apply to people driving outside broadcast vehicles
and other jobs related to show business, by the way, and for similar
reasons.
At the end of the last day on site, they get a full night's rest, then
spend a couple of hours in the morning "striking" the rides. They then
have lunch or breakfast and drive for the hour or two it normally takes
to get to the mext pitch. They then erect the rides, ready for safety
inspection that afternoon or the following morning. If a showman drives
the ride on the road for more than five or six hours *per week*, that is
exceptional. I'll be doing more than that in a coach today, and that's a
short driving day for me.
Also, the ride may be worth upwards of a quarter of a million pounds and
the driver will also be the owner of the ride. Anyone travelling in the
cab will be either an employee or family member. That's a good incentive
to drive safely. The figures show that they are among the safest road
users in the UK.
The tachograph rule I and many others are trying to get changed is the
one that lets a coach driver take a group from the resort to the ski
lifts in the morning, have a nine hour break in a shared room in a noisy
hotel, then spend the next twenty hours starting at about nine in the
evening driving through the night, sharing the work with his colleague
who has done exactly the same thing. That one kills a few people most
years. Showmen are very rarely involved in even minor incidents on the road.
Nick Finnigan
Jul 1, 2013, 4:01:37 PM7/1/13
to
On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
>
>
> The showmen do generally, but do have some special rules of their own.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>
> Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
> against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
> metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
Which part says that? I can only see a showman's exemption for one
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>
> Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
> against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
> metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
trailer for living accommodation up to 22m
> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing regulations
> while they are plying their trade or travelling from home base to site or
> from one site to the next.
John Williamson
Jul 1, 2013, 4:53:37 PM7/1/13
to
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The showmen do generally, but do have some special rules of their own.
>>
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>>
>> Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
>> against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
>> metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
>
> Which part says that? I can only see a showman's exemption for one
> trailer for living accommodation up to 22m
>
Near the bottom of the page.
> On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The showmen do generally, but do have some special rules of their own.
>>
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/7/made
>>
>> Says that a "showman's vehicle" may be up to 22 metres in length, as
>> against the normal 18, and may in addition tow a trailer not exceeding 7
>> metres in length, up to a total length of 25.9 metres.
>
> Which part says that? I can only see a showman's exemption for one
> trailer for living accommodation up to 22m
>
>> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
>> regulations
>> while they are plying their trade or travelling from home base to site or
>> from one site to the next.
>
> The are not travelling on roads whilst they are plying their trade.
>
otherwise it wouldn't be a travelling show, would it?. Normally,
tachograph rules apply to *all* work carried out, such as cleaning,
loading, unloading and repairing a vehicle, when such work is carried
out by a driver who is covered by the tachograph regulations. For
instance, if I help out in an office, even if it's not the one operated
by the company I drive a coach for, I must make a manual record of work
carried out, and carry that record with me while I'm dricing for at
least 28 days.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 5:17:09 AM7/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:01:52 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
done with tower cranes.
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> But why? Of all the industries that would have a justifiable claim to have
>> special rules for their HGVs, circuses arn't exactly the first that spring
>to
>> mind. Their rides could simply be designed to be split into smaller parts to
>> fit onto a standard HGV trailer.
>>
>For a number of reasons, they often can't. One major reason is that long
>load bearing members can't be repeatedly and safely assembled from
>smaller parts on site.
Well that sounds plausible until you remember that that is exactly what's
>> But why? Of all the industries that would have a justifiable claim to have
>> special rules for their HGVs, circuses arn't exactly the first that spring
>to
>> mind. Their rides could simply be designed to be split into smaller parts to
>> fit onto a standard HGV trailer.
>>
>For a number of reasons, they often can't. One major reason is that long
>load bearing members can't be repeatedly and safely assembled from
>smaller parts on site.
done with tower cranes.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 5:21:44 AM7/2/13
to
1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low , but thats
no reason for not requiring the same driver regulations otherwise you might
as well exempt any form of vehicle where there are only a few examples on
the roads.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 5:25:44 AM7/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:54:25 +0100
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
They use the roads. Thats the need. Perhaps then someone who only drives their
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need to have
a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause
an accident? Pretty low probably.
>LGVs still worked to the rules that applied to them in the 1920s, most
>freight would still be going by rail.
been no changes in the rules? Doesn't look like it to me.
NJR
Ian Jackson
Jul 2, 2013, 5:51:47 AM7/2/13
to
In message <kqu638$78t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ne...@the.shed writes
> but thats
>no reason for not requiring the same driver regulations otherwise you might
>as well exempt any form of vehicle where there are only a few examples on
>the roads.
>
If you applied a 'one size fits all' rule, then you wouldn't allow
things like wide vehicles on the road (which don't always seem to have
any escort).
If there is a special need for the relatively few circus HGVs to be
somewhat larger than your run-of-the-mill HGV, then it's quite
reasonable that special rules should be applied - provided, of course,
that they don't pose any significant additional danger to other road
users.
--
Ian
>On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:41:14 +0100
>Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 01/07/2013 16:29, Chris Hills wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
>>>> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
>>>> regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
>>>> base to site or from one site to the next.
>>>
>>> This is very strange. Surely those rules are to protect people from
>>> those drivers who are exhausted who are more likely to cause fatal
>>> accidents. I would like to see this exemption removed as it is dangerous.
>>
>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If you
>>want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI request
>>to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident rate of
>>showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>
>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
You really should use percentage accident rates.
>Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 01/07/2013 16:29, Chris Hills wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2013 16:24, John Williamson wrote:
>>>> They're also exempt from the tachograph and operator licencing
>>>> regulations while they are plying their trade or travelling from home
>>>> base to site or from one site to the next.
>>>
>>> This is very strange. Surely those rules are to protect people from
>>> those drivers who are exhausted who are more likely to cause fatal
>>> accidents. I would like to see this exemption removed as it is dangerous.
>>
>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If you
>>want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI request
>>to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident rate of
>>showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>
>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
> but thats
>no reason for not requiring the same driver regulations otherwise you might
>as well exempt any form of vehicle where there are only a few examples on
>the roads.
>
things like wide vehicles on the road (which don't always seem to have
any escort).
If there is a special need for the relatively few circus HGVs to be
somewhat larger than your run-of-the-mill HGV, then it's quite
reasonable that special rules should be applied - provided, of course,
that they don't pose any significant additional danger to other road
users.
--
Ian
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 6:18:47 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:51:47 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <kqu638$78t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ne...@the.shed writes
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <kqu638$78t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ne...@the.shed writes
>>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If you
>>>want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI request
>>>to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident rate of
>>>showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>>
>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>
>You really should use percentage accident rates.
What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their cars
>>>want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI request
>>>to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident rate of
>>>showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>>
>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>
>You really should use percentage accident rates.
a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be exempt from
a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>If you applied a 'one size fits all' rule, then you wouldn't allow
>things like wide vehicles on the road (which don't always seem to have
>any escort).
signs nailed to the trailer.
>If there is a special need for the relatively few circus HGVs to be
>somewhat larger than your run-of-the-mill HGV, then it's quite
>reasonable that special rules should be applied - provided, of course,
>that they don't pose any significant additional danger to other road
>users.
manufacturers could for example easily claim that delivering cars on
individual 18m trailers is inefficient. Why not allow them longer trailers
or doubles? Same goes for fuels, chemicals, aggregates, you name it.
NJR
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 6:34:03 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:18:47 +0000, neil wrote:
>>>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If
>>>>you want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI
>>>>request to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident
>>>>rate of showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>>You really should use percentage accident rates.
> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
>>>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If
>>>>you want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI
>>>>request to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident
>>>>rate of showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>>You really should use percentage accident rates.
> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
rates rise significantly after 70-odd, as well as special licence rules
coming in.
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 6:35:17 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:25:44 +0000, neil wrote:
> Perhaps then someone who only drives
> their car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need
> to have a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances
> they'll cause an accident? Pretty low probably.
Or, p'raps, what are the chances of very old cars, etc etc. Oh, wait -
> Perhaps then someone who only drives
> their car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need
> to have a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances
> they'll cause an accident? Pretty low probably.
that's why no MOT's needed on very old cars, no VED is payable, and why
insurance premiums are incredibly low.
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 6:37:35 AM7/2/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:54:25 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>> traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>> trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>> their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
>
> They use the roads. Thats the need. Perhaps then someone who only drives their
> car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need to have
> a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause
> an accident? Pretty low probably.
>
That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer need
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:54:25 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>> traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>> trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>> their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
>
> They use the roads. Thats the need. Perhaps then someone who only drives their
> car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need to have
> a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause
> an accident? Pretty low probably.
>
an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will not be
used as primary transport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326
There is already zero vehicle excise duty on my 1968 Land Rover.
I pay rather less for insurance, too, as I only do a couple of thousand
miles a year in it.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 6:42:34 AM7/2/13
to
cars much because they use public transport for most things. They're roughly
the same age as me and maybe do 5K miles a year in their cars. Why shouldn't
they have exemptions?
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 6:43:25 AM7/2/13
to
preserve of enthusiasts.
NJR
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 6:45:13 AM7/2/13
to
time, and are inspected thoroughly before use. Funfair rides stay in
place for a few days at a time, and sometimes don't get inspected.
To come closer to the funfair requirements. take a crane that will lift
a large load which is needed for a day on a site. It is large, often
comes on a convoy of lorries, is exempt from MOT and operating licence
requirements, and under some circumstances, the driver doesn't even need
an HCV licence to drive it.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 6:46:56 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:37:35 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
all the way around europe.
>There is already zero vehicle excise duty on my 1968 Land Rover.
Probably out of sympathy.
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer need
>an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will not be
>used as primary transport.
Obviously wrong in Adrians case when he drove that knackered heap of a van
>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer need
>an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will not be
>used as primary transport.
all the way around europe.
>There is already zero vehicle excise duty on my 1968 Land Rover.
NJR
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 6:49:07 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:42:34 +0000, neil wrote:
>>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
>>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
> Are they? I know some people who live in london who don't drive their
> cars much because they use public transport for most things. They're
> roughly the same age as me and maybe do 5K miles a year in their cars.
> Why shouldn't they have exemptions?
London is not representative of the country as a whole.
>>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
>>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
> Are they? I know some people who live in london who don't drive their
> cars much because they use public transport for most things. They're
> roughly the same age as me and maybe do 5K miles a year in their cars.
> Why shouldn't they have exemptions?
But I'm sure the relative risk of claims they pose is reflected in their
premiums. Oh, wait - they actually pose a high risk of claims, since
their cars are often hit, broken into or stolen whilst parked for days or
weeks on end in the road.
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 6:50:02 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:46:56 +0000, neil wrote:
>>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer need
>>an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will not be
>>used as primary transport.
> Obviously wrong in Adrians case when he drove that knackered heap of a
> van all the way around europe.
That would be a van that's nearly 30 years too young for the MOT
>>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer need
>>an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will not be
>>used as primary transport.
> Obviously wrong in Adrians case when he drove that knackered heap of a
> van all the way around europe.
exemption, and 15 years too young for the VED exemption?
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 6:50:27 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:43:25 +0000, neil wrote:
>>> Perhaps then someone who only drives their car a few hundred miles per
>>> year could argue that they don't need to have a valid MOT or
>>> insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause an accident?
>>> Pretty low probably.
>>Or, p'raps, what are the chances of very old cars, etc etc. Oh, wait -
>>that's why no MOT's needed on very old cars, no VED is payable, and why
>>insurance premiums are incredibly low.
> Most elderly drivers don't drive very old cars. Those are usually the
> preserve of enthusiasts.
Who said otherwise?
>>> Perhaps then someone who only drives their car a few hundred miles per
>>> year could argue that they don't need to have a valid MOT or
>>> insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause an accident?
>>> Pretty low probably.
>>Or, p'raps, what are the chances of very old cars, etc etc. Oh, wait -
>>that's why no MOT's needed on very old cars, no VED is payable, and why
>>insurance premiums are incredibly low.
> Most elderly drivers don't drive very old cars. Those are usually the
> preserve of enthusiasts.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 6:50:42 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:45:13 +0100
site lets not bother with safety on the roads between sites either!
There's logic for you.
>To come closer to the funfair requirements. take a crane that will lift
>a large load which is needed for a day on a site. It is large, often
>comes on a convoy of lorries, is exempt from MOT and operating licence
>requirements, and under some circumstances, the driver doesn't even need
>an HCV licence to drive it.
And you think thats a good thing do you?
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>Tower cranes are also assembled and stay in position for weeks at a
>time, and are inspected thoroughly before use. Funfair rides stay in
>place for a few days at a time, and sometimes don't get inspected.
Oh well, thats alright then. Because there are no safety inspections on
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>Tower cranes are also assembled and stay in position for weeks at a
>time, and are inspected thoroughly before use. Funfair rides stay in
>place for a few days at a time, and sometimes don't get inspected.
site lets not bother with safety on the roads between sites either!
There's logic for you.
>To come closer to the funfair requirements. take a crane that will lift
>a large load which is needed for a day on a site. It is large, often
>comes on a convoy of lorries, is exempt from MOT and operating licence
>requirements, and under some circumstances, the driver doesn't even need
>an HCV licence to drive it.
NJR
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 7:00:45 AM7/2/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:45:13 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> Tower cranes are also assembled and stay in position for weeks at a
>> time, and are inspected thoroughly before use. Funfair rides stay in
>> place for a few days at a time, and sometimes don't get inspected.
>
> Oh well, thats alright then. Because there are no safety inspections on
> site lets not bother with safety on the roads between sites either!
>
> There's logic for you.
>
? The *only* exemption the drivers have is from the tachograph
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:45:13 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> Tower cranes are also assembled and stay in position for weeks at a
>> time, and are inspected thoroughly before use. Funfair rides stay in
>> place for a few days at a time, and sometimes don't get inspected.
>
> Oh well, thats alright then. Because there are no safety inspections on
> site lets not bother with safety on the roads between sites either!
>
> There's logic for you.
>
regulations. They still need to be licenced and insured appropriately,
the vehicles have to pass an annual MOT, and they pay vehicle excise duty.
They are also subject to all the "rules of the road". How is this
ignoring safety?
Under tachograph rules, a driver is allowed to drive for up to 10 hours
a day, and 4 1/2 hours without a break. Very few funfair ride trips are
over two hours, so the tacho rules are irrelevant, and would be an
unnecessary expense, as would the cost of enforcing the rules in these
cases.
>> To come closer to the funfair requirements. take a crane that will lift
>> a large load which is needed for a day on a site. It is large, often
>> comes on a convoy of lorries, is exempt from MOT and operating licence
>> requirements, and under some circumstances, the driver doesn't even need
>> an HCV licence to drive it.
>
> And you think thats a good thing do you?
>
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 7:10:39 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:00:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
> They are also subject to all the "rules of the road". How is this
> ignoring safety?
Ah, now that's the point Neil's trying to make. The "rules of the road"
> They are also subject to all the "rules of the road". How is this
> ignoring safety?
are different for them than for your average HGV.
One of the real reasons, of course, is that twice as many vehicles would
be required if showmen couldn't tow two trailers, since the caravan/
ticket office which is usually hung off the ride would need to be towed
by something else.
Effectively, Bloaty's trying to ban something for the usual reason - that
he doesn't do it, and he doesn't see why somebody else should. Plus ca
change.
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 7:29:28 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:49:07 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:42:34 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>>>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>>>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
>>>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>
>>>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
>
>> Are they? I know some people who live in london who don't drive their
>> cars much because they use public transport for most things. They're
>> roughly the same age as me and maybe do 5K miles a year in their cars.
>> Why shouldn't they have exemptions?
>
>London is not representative of the country as a whole.
I'm sure the same applies in other big cities such as manchester, brum,
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:42:34 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>>>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>>>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year? Perhaps they should be
>>>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>
>>>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
>
>> Are they? I know some people who live in london who don't drive their
>> cars much because they use public transport for most things. They're
>> roughly the same age as me and maybe do 5K miles a year in their cars.
>> Why shouldn't they have exemptions?
>
>London is not representative of the country as a whole.
glasgow. Anywhere where there's half decent public transport.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 7:30:32 AM7/2/13
to
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 7:33:56 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:10:39 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:00:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
>
>> They are also subject to all the "rules of the road". How is this
>> ignoring safety?
>
>Ah, now that's the point Neil's trying to make. The "rules of the road"
>are different for them than for your average HGV.
>
>One of the real reasons, of course, is that twice as many vehicles would
>be required if showmen couldn't tow two trailers, since the caravan/
>ticket office which is usually hung off the ride would need to be towed
>by something else.
So what?
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:00:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
>
>> They are also subject to all the "rules of the road". How is this
>> ignoring safety?
>
>Ah, now that's the point Neil's trying to make. The "rules of the road"
>are different for them than for your average HGV.
>
>One of the real reasons, of course, is that twice as many vehicles would
>be required if showmen couldn't tow two trailers, since the caravan/
>ticket office which is usually hung off the ride would need to be towed
>by something else.
>Effectively, Bloaty's trying to ban something for the usual reason - that
>he doesn't do it, and he doesn't see why somebody else should. Plus ca
>change.
But either tachograph and hours regs are there for a good reason or they're
not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
from them. After all - whats stopping Krusty the Clown from driving his rig
all the way from lands end to john o groats non stop? Apparently nothing it
would seem.
NJR
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 7:42:21 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:30:32 +0000, neil wrote:
>>>>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer
>>>>need an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will
>>>>not be used as primary transport.
>>> Obviously wrong in Adrians case when he drove that knackered heap of a
>>> van all the way around europe.
>>That would be a van that's nearly 30 years too young for the MOT
>>exemption, and 15 years too young for the VED exemption?
> Did Dr Who transport it in the Tardis for you?
Here's a clue.
>>>>That's already happened. Cars made before a certain date no longer
>>>>need an MOT, workin on the theory that as they are so old, they will
>>>>not be used as primary transport.
>>> Obviously wrong in Adrians case when he drove that knackered heap of a
>>> van all the way around europe.
>>That would be a van that's nearly 30 years too young for the MOT
>>exemption, and 15 years too young for the VED exemption?
> Did Dr Who transport it in the Tardis for you?
1960, 1973, 1988.
One of those years is when our van was built, and the other two are the
exemption dates for VED and MOT. See if you can guess which is which?
Ian Jackson
Jul 2, 2013, 8:06:32 AM7/2/13
to
In message <kquaar$i4v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Adrian
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>> Perhaps they should be
>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>
>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
>rates rise significantly after 70-odd, as well as special licence rules
>coming in.
My insurance actually went down (about Ł10). My wife's went up Ł30 - but
it was the first renewal on a new(er) car.
--
Ian
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:18:47 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>>>>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If
>>>>>you want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI
>>>>>request to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident
>>>>>rate of showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>
>>>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>
>>>You really should use percentage accident rates.
>
>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year?
My wife's annual mileage is typically 2k per year.
>
>>>>>We've had long enough to find out if it is especially dangerous. If
>>>>>you want to see it removed, I'd guess the first step would be a FOI
>>>>>request to the appropriate ministry to determine what the accident
>>>>>rate of showmen's vechicles is compared to others.
>
>>>>I wonder what the proportion of circus HGVs compared to all HGVs is?
>>>>1:1000? 1:10000? Of course the accident rate is going to be low ,
>
>>>You really should use percentage accident rates.
>
>> What are the percentage accident rates of people who only drive their
>> cars a few hundred or thousand miles a year?
>> Perhaps they should be
>> exempt from a number of things normal drivers have to suffer.
>
>Quite high, usually, since they're often the very elderly. And insurance
>rates rise significantly after 70-odd, as well as special licence rules
>coming in.
it was the first renewal on a new(er) car.
--
Ian
Clive George
Jul 2, 2013, 8:19:05 AM7/2/13
to
is. And the sensible measure of accident rate is per km driven, so the
proportion of them to other HGVs will be irrelevant.
Nightjar
Jul 2, 2013, 8:25:41 AM7/2/13
to
On 02/07/2013 10:25, ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:54:25 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>> traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>> trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>> their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
>
> They use the roads. Thats the need.
There is only a need to change a law if it can be shown that there is
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:54:25 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> The rules date back to the 1920s, when a Showman's vehicle would be a
>> traction engine, towing a trailer with the attraction on it and a living
>> trailer behind that. They work within the fairly strict limitations of
>> their applicability, so there has been no need to change them. If other
>
> They use the roads. Thats the need.
any identifiable benefit from doing so. Unless there is significant
evidence that the showman's vehicle rules result in more accidents, or
have some similar detrimental effect, there is no need to change them.
> Perhaps then someone who only drives their
> car a few hundred miles per year could argue that they don't need to have
> a valid MOT or insurance? After all, what are the chances they'll cause
> an accident? Pretty low probably.
vehicle quite legally without an MOT. That is a recent change, based
upon evidence that preserved cars have a very low rate of MOT failure.
>> LGVs still worked to the rules that applied to them in the 1920s, most
>> freight would still be going by rail.
>
> And what? Are you saying circuses are somehow suffering because there've
> been no changes in the rules? Doesn't look like it to me.
over the years, because there were overwhelming reasons to do so. There
are no similar reasons to change the showman's vehicle rules.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
Jul 2, 2013, 8:44:36 AM7/2/13
to
On 02/07/2013 12:33, ne...@the.shed wrote:
...
The European Union would appear to disagree with you. Specialised
vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment are specifically
exempted from the need to have tachographs in the EU regulations, along
with vehicles used for collecting milk from farms, household refuse
collection vehicles, road maintenance vehicles, play buses and mobile
libraries, vehicles carrying animal waste, specialised vehicles used for
medical purposes, emergency and humanitarian aid vehicles and quite a
few others.
The rational behind fitting tachographs is to ensure that the drivers'
working hours regulations are not broken. Where the nature of the use is
such that is unlikely to be relevant, it is pointless to require a
tachograph.
Colin Bignell
...
> But either tachograph and hours regs are there for a good reason or they're
> not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
> for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
> from them. ...
> not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
> for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
The European Union would appear to disagree with you. Specialised
vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment are specifically
exempted from the need to have tachographs in the EU regulations, along
with vehicles used for collecting milk from farms, household refuse
collection vehicles, road maintenance vehicles, play buses and mobile
libraries, vehicles carrying animal waste, specialised vehicles used for
medical purposes, emergency and humanitarian aid vehicles and quite a
few others.
The rational behind fitting tachographs is to ensure that the drivers'
working hours regulations are not broken. Where the nature of the use is
such that is unlikely to be relevant, it is pointless to require a
tachograph.
Colin Bignell
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 9:30:10 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>1960, 1973, 1988.
>
>One of those years is when our van was built, and the other two are the
>exemption dates for VED and MOT. See if you can guess which is which?
I don't care when it was built, it looks like an antique. Did you actually
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>1960, 1973, 1988.
>
>One of those years is when our van was built, and the other two are the
>exemption dates for VED and MOT. See if you can guess which is which?
pay money for it or was it free with a cornflakes packet?
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 9:32:57 AM7/2/13
to
not exempt them too?
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 9:34:46 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:44:36 +0100
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>On 02/07/2013 12:33, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>....
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>On 02/07/2013 12:33, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> But either tachograph and hours regs are there for a good reason or they're
>> not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
>> for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
>> from them. ...
>
>The European Union would appear to disagree with you. Specialised
In which case I probably have a good case.
>> not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
>> for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
>> from them. ...
>
>The European Union would appear to disagree with you. Specialised
>The rational behind fitting tachographs is to ensure that the drivers'
>working hours regulations are not broken. Where the nature of the use is
>such that is unlikely to be relevant, it is pointless to require a
>tachograph.
tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats to stop
them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a few quid with
no one the wiser?
NJR
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 9:44:44 AM7/2/13
to
hours per day when he's at work. The main job of a fairground ride
driver is to operate it and set it up. Driving it is a *very* minor part
of his job. That's why the fairground ride driver is not subject to
tachograph rules. If he were to drive a normal lorry, then he would be
subject to tacho rules while doing so.
Nightjar
Jul 2, 2013, 9:57:44 AM7/2/13
to
very rarely, happen as proposed by somebody desperate to defend an
increasing impossible position. In real life, the Police take a
particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
the Police.
Colin Bignell
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 10:00:32 AM7/2/13
to
anyone else, as they aren't showmen, unless there's a ride attached to
the circus, in which case the ride and its owner are exempted as has
been discussed. The trucks that carry the tents and animals are subject
to the normal rules for size, weight, driving hours and so on. The
exemption is for showmen and their rides only. Krusty couldn't drive his
rig from one end of the country to the other, partly because what I've
seen of it would make it illegal to park on a road, never mind drive
there.....
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 10:43:43 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:44:44 +0100
So tachographs are only required if driving is the persons job? So I guess
all an employer has to do is give someone some other job title and they're
sorted! No tacho!
>tachograph rules. If he were to drive a normal lorry, then he would be
>subject to tacho rules while doing so.
Whats a "normal" lorry?
NJR
>> Whats the accident rate of fuel tankers? Quite low I would imagine. Why
>> not exempt them too?
>>
>Because the main job of a tanker driver is to drive a tanker for up to 9
>hours per day when he's at work. The main job of a fairground ride
>driver is to operate it and set it up. Driving it is a *very* minor part
>of his job. That's why the fairground ride driver is not subject to
Wow, look at those goalposts move.
>> not exempt them too?
>>
>Because the main job of a tanker driver is to drive a tanker for up to 9
>hours per day when he's at work. The main job of a fairground ride
>driver is to operate it and set it up. Driving it is a *very* minor part
>of his job. That's why the fairground ride driver is not subject to
So tachographs are only required if driving is the persons job? So I guess
all an employer has to do is give someone some other job title and they're
sorted! No tacho!
>tachograph rules. If he were to drive a normal lorry, then he would be
>subject to tacho rules while doing so.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 2, 2013, 10:46:22 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:57:44 +0100
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
>the Police.
I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over the side
of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
NJR
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>On 02/07/2013 14:34, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old -
>> tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats to stop
>> them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a few quid
>with
>> no one the wiser?
>
>Laws have to be based upon realistic scenarios, not upon what might,
>very rarely, happen as proposed by somebody desperate to defend an
>increasing impossible position. In real life, the Police take a
Oh right, so no chance of it ever happening then. Good to know.
>> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old -
>> tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats to stop
>> them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a few quid
>with
>> no one the wiser?
>
>Laws have to be based upon realistic scenarios, not upon what might,
>very rarely, happen as proposed by somebody desperate to defend an
>increasing impossible position. In real life, the Police take a
>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
>the Police.
of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
NJR
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 11:14:00 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:34:46 +0000, neil wrote:
>>The rational behind fitting tachographs is to ensure that the drivers'
>>working hours regulations are not broken. Where the nature of the use is
>>such that is unlikely to be relevant, it is pointless to require a
>>tachograph.
> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old
> - tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats
> to stop them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a
> few quid with no one the wiser?
Y'mean, apart from the small detail that that'd be breaking a shitload of
>>The rational behind fitting tachographs is to ensure that the drivers'
>>working hours regulations are not broken. Where the nature of the use is
>>such that is unlikely to be relevant, it is pointless to require a
>>tachograph.
> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old
> - tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats
> to stop them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a
> few quid with no one the wiser?
other laws around operator's licences, as well as almost certainly being
against their insurance?
If they're happy to break all of that lot, a small detail like tachos
isn't going to bother 'em.
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 11:14:33 AM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:46:22 +0000, neil wrote:
>>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
>>the Police.
> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
So they've just repainted the wagon as well, just to earn a few quid
>>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
>>the Police.
> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
overnight?
Nightjar
Jul 2, 2013, 12:20:27 PM7/2/13
to
On 02/07/2013 15:46, ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:57:44 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 14:34, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old -
>>> tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats to stop
>>> them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a few quid
>> with
>>> no one the wiser?
>>
>> Laws have to be based upon realistic scenarios, not upon what might,
>> very rarely, happen as proposed by somebody desperate to defend an
>> increasing impossible position. In real life, the Police take a
>
> Oh right, so no chance of it ever happening then. Good to know.
No realistic probability of it happening often enough to be worth the
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:57:44 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 14:34, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> All well and good, except circuses tend to use bog standard - albeit old -
>>> tractor units to pull their trailers, not specialised vehicles. Whats to stop
>>> them going off one night to haul someones standard trailer for a few quid
>> with
>>> no one the wiser?
>>
>> Laws have to be based upon realistic scenarios, not upon what might,
>> very rarely, happen as proposed by somebody desperate to defend an
>> increasing impossible position. In real life, the Police take a
>
> Oh right, so no chance of it ever happening then. Good to know.
time and cost of administering a tachograph scheme for the whole class
of vehicles.
>> particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>> obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>> not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>> fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped by
>> the Police.
>
> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over the side
> of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
otherwise standard vehicle is more or less essential to establish that
it is used by the showman for purposes of his business and for no other
purpose. Unless that can be established without doubt, it does not
qualify as a showman's vehicle and is not exempt from the various bits
of legislation.
Colin Bignell
Adrian
Jul 2, 2013, 12:37:03 PM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:20:27 +0100, Nightjar wrote:
>>> particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>> obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>> not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>> fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped
>>> by the Police.
>> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
>> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
> Having a travelling showman's name and business plastered all over an
> otherwise standard vehicle is more or less essential to establish that
> it is used by the showman for purposes of his business and for no other
> purpose. Unless that can be established without doubt, it does not
> qualify as a showman's vehicle and is not exempt from the various bits
> of legislation.
It's worth reading this...
>>> particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>> obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>> not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>> fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped
>>> by the Police.
>> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
>> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of cabbages.
> Having a travelling showman's name and business plastered all over an
> otherwise standard vehicle is more or less essential to establish that
> it is used by the showman for purposes of his business and for no other
> purpose. Unless that can be established without doubt, it does not
> qualify as a showman's vehicle and is not exempt from the various bits
> of legislation.
http://www.showmensguild.com/transport.htm
(Membership of the Showmen's Guild is - AIUI - a prerequisite for the
concessions to apply)
Mark Goodge
Jul 2, 2013, 12:46:57 PM7/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:33:56 +0000 (UTC), ne...@the.shed put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>But either tachograph and hours regs are there for a good reason or they're
>not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
>for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
>from them.
The tachograph and hours regulations are, on the whole, good. But they're
not a one-size-fits-all solution, and there's no particular reason why they
have to apply in every possible situation.
The reason they don't apply to some classes of large vehicles (including,
but not limited to, showmen's vehicles) is because there are good practical
reasons why not, and there's no indication that granting an exemption has
any negative effect on safety.
If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to find the stats which show
that showmen's vehicles do, in fact, have a higher accident and/or injury
rate than normal HGVs, and demonstrate that this is likely to be related to
their exemption from normal HGV regulations. But I think you'll find that
such evidence is lacking. On the contrary, the evidence, such as it is, is
that they are considerably safer than the average vehicle. One outcome of
that is that insurance rates for vehicles eligible for the showmen's
exemption are significantly lower than normal.
>After all - whats stopping Krusty the Clown from driving his rig
>all the way from lands end to john o groats non stop? Apparently nothing it
>would seem.
Nothing in law prevents it, at least not directly. But the law doesn't stop
other drivers doing something silly. You could party all night and,
provided you aren't over the alcohol limit, take your rig out on the roads
in the rush hour having had no sleep at all. The tacho rules won't stop
that, either.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
keyboard and typed:
>But either tachograph and hours regs are there for a good reason or they're
>not. If not then get rid of them. If they are then I don't think the "I work
>for a circus" argument *quite* stands up as a good enough reason to be exempt
>from them.
not a one-size-fits-all solution, and there's no particular reason why they
have to apply in every possible situation.
The reason they don't apply to some classes of large vehicles (including,
but not limited to, showmen's vehicles) is because there are good practical
reasons why not, and there's no indication that granting an exemption has
any negative effect on safety.
If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to find the stats which show
that showmen's vehicles do, in fact, have a higher accident and/or injury
rate than normal HGVs, and demonstrate that this is likely to be related to
their exemption from normal HGV regulations. But I think you'll find that
such evidence is lacking. On the contrary, the evidence, such as it is, is
that they are considerably safer than the average vehicle. One outcome of
that is that insurance rates for vehicles eligible for the showmen's
exemption are significantly lower than normal.
>After all - whats stopping Krusty the Clown from driving his rig
>all the way from lands end to john o groats non stop? Apparently nothing it
>would seem.
other drivers doing something silly. You could party all night and,
provided you aren't over the alcohol limit, take your rig out on the roads
in the rush hour having had no sleep at all. The tacho rules won't stop
that, either.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
John Williamson
Jul 2, 2013, 2:34:13 PM7/2/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:44:44 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> Whats the accident rate of fuel tankers? Quite low I would imagine. Why
>>> not exempt them too?
>>>
>> Because the main job of a tanker driver is to drive a tanker for up to 9
>> hours per day when he's at work. The main job of a fairground ride
>> driver is to operate it and set it up. Driving it is a *very* minor part
>> of his job. That's why the fairground ride driver is not subject to
>
> Wow, look at those goalposts move.
>
Nope, they're still exactly where they were when you started posting
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:44:44 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> Whats the accident rate of fuel tankers? Quite low I would imagine. Why
>>> not exempt them too?
>>>
>> Because the main job of a tanker driver is to drive a tanker for up to 9
>> hours per day when he's at work. The main job of a fairground ride
>> driver is to operate it and set it up. Driving it is a *very* minor part
>> of his job. That's why the fairground ride driver is not subject to
>
> Wow, look at those goalposts move.
>
your drivel.
> Whats a "normal" lorry?
>
If you can't grasp the difference between a normal lorry and a
fairground ride, you should be in parliament.
Steve Firth
Jul 2, 2013, 2:41:55 PM7/2/13
to
never felt the need to tow two trailers.
Having worked a few show grounds where there were "rides" I'm impressed by
the work rates of the guys who make their living that way. They generally
start hours before the other showmen on start and will be going long into
the night. The bastard show ground owners snatch most, and sometimes all of
the profit.
I heard two of the showmen yakking at the end of the day "What would you do
if you won the lottery?"
"I'd keep doing the shows until the money ran out."
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
ne...@the.shed
Jul 3, 2013, 5:28:36 AM7/3/13
to
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 3, 2013, 5:29:12 AM7/3/13
to
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Jul 3, 2013, 5:31:32 AM7/3/13
to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Clowns branch?
NJR
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (Membership of the Showmen's Guild is - AIUI - a prerequisite for the
>> concessions to apply)
>
>For various reasons, I used to be a member of the Showmen's Guild. I've
Steve Firth circus performer - check.
>> (Membership of the Showmen's Guild is - AIUI - a prerequisite for the
>> concessions to apply)
>
>For various reasons, I used to be a member of the Showmen's Guild. I've
Clowns branch?
NJR
Adrian
Jul 3, 2013, 5:40:10 AM7/3/13
to
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:29:12 +0000, neil wrote:
>>>>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>>>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>>>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>>>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped
>>>>by the Police.
>>> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
>>> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of
>>> cabbages.
>>So they've just repainted the wagon as well, just to earn a few quid
>>overnight?
> Well the unit I saw pulling the 2 trailers was plain white.
Probably newly acquired, then. Give 'em chance, and it'll be signwritten.
>>>>particular interest in showman's vehicles and towing something that
>>>>obviously (or, as one showman found, in the case of portable toilets,
>>>>not so obviously) does not fall within the definition of circus or
>>>>fairground equipment with a showman's vehicle is asking to be stopped
>>>>by the Police.
>>> I doubt they'd use a unit with "Circus" or similar plastered all over
>>> the side of the tractor cab if they were pulling a trailer of
>>> cabbages.
>>So they've just repainted the wagon as well, just to earn a few quid
>>overnight?
> Well the unit I saw pulling the 2 trailers was plain white.
Steve Firth
Jul 3, 2013, 7:24:11 AM7/3/13
to
Here's a clue, bozo. showmen .ne. circus
> Clowns branch?
You'd know all about that.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
ne...@the.shed
Jul 3, 2013, 7:56:25 AM7/3/13
to
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
No, more likely you ran a farmers market stall selling performing Olives.
NJR
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
><ne...@the.shed> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> (Membership of the Showmen's Guild is - AIUI - a prerequisite for the
>>>> concessions to apply)
>>>
>>> For various reasons, I used to be a member of the Showmen's Guild. I've
>>
>> Steve Firth circus performer - check.
>
><yawn>
>
>Here's a clue, bozo. showmen .ne. circus
You wrote some fortran code to run the lights?
><ne...@the.shed> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> (Membership of the Showmen's Guild is - AIUI - a prerequisite for the
>>>> concessions to apply)
>>>
>>> For various reasons, I used to be a member of the Showmen's Guild. I've
>>
>> Steve Firth circus performer - check.
>
><yawn>
>
>Here's a clue, bozo. showmen .ne. circus
No, more likely you ran a farmers market stall selling performing Olives.
NJR
Steve Firth
Jul 3, 2013, 5:21:12 PM7/3/13
to
<ne...@the.shed> wrote:
> No, more likely you ran a farmers market stall selling performing Olives.
See you can get close if you try. Although I was just the driver, assistant
> No, more likely you ran a farmers market stall selling performing Olives.
and general dogsbody and no olives were for sale. Olive oil, certainly and
a nice line in charcoal grilled anchovies in olive oil with peperoncino.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
ne...@the.shed
Jul 4, 2013, 5:46:04 AM7/4/13
to
they offer useful help, discounts off insurance or whatnot?
NJR
Steve Firth
Jul 5, 2013, 12:53:28 AM7/5/13
to
venues that rent out pitches to stall holders at county shows, horse riding
events and "stately home" open days.
It also gets a discount on rates in some markets.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Nightjar
Jul 5, 2013, 3:58:55 AM7/5/13
to
That would go some way to explaining why the same stalls keep cropping
up at different shows, even when they are not particularly relevant to
the activity of the show.
Colin Bignell
ne...@the.shed
Jul 5, 2013, 5:40:04 AM7/5/13
to
stalls though. At Herstmonceux last year they were especially good. Sadly
though they're usually interspersed with the usual suspect burger vans, 2nd
hand we-couldn't-sell-it-on-gumtree stalls and crystals and reki healing type
bullshit that also appear everywhere like warts on a tart.
NJR
Hugo Nebula
Jul 5, 2013, 3:15:58 PM7/5/13
to
[Default] On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:29:28 +0000 (UTC), a certain
chimpanzee, ne...@the.shed, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
>I'm sure the same applies in other big cities such as manchester, brum,
>glasgow. Anywhere where there's half decent public transport.
You can exclude Manchester from the list of places "where there's half
decent public transport". It's cack. Except for Fallowfield which
seems to have 50 buses per hour into the city centre.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?
chimpanzee, ne...@the.shed, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
>I'm sure the same applies in other big cities such as manchester, brum,
>glasgow. Anywhere where there's half decent public transport.
You can exclude Manchester from the list of places "where there's half
decent public transport". It's cack. Except for Fallowfield which
seems to have 50 buses per hour into the city centre.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?
ne...@the.shed
Jul 8, 2013, 4:55:24 AM7/8/13
to
On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 20:15:58 +0100
Hugo Nebula <ab...@local.host> wrote:
>[Default] On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:29:28 +0000 (UTC), a certain
>chimpanzee, ne...@the.shed, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
>
>>I'm sure the same applies in other big cities such as manchester, brum,
>>glasgow. Anywhere where there's half decent public transport.
>
>You can exclude Manchester from the list of places "where there's half
>decent public transport". It's cack. Except for Fallowfield which
>seems to have 50 buses per hour into the city centre.
So whats that tram thing for then? Seemed fairly frequent when I was there
Hugo Nebula <ab...@local.host> wrote:
>[Default] On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:29:28 +0000 (UTC), a certain
>chimpanzee, ne...@the.shed, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
>
>>I'm sure the same applies in other big cities such as manchester, brum,
>>glasgow. Anywhere where there's half decent public transport.
>
>You can exclude Manchester from the list of places "where there's half
>decent public transport". It's cack. Except for Fallowfield which
>seems to have 50 buses per hour into the city centre.
though I never rode on it.
NJR
0 new messages