chappers580:
jus bein devils advocate ere but if the swept area has to be kept cleared then wot bout wen u drop sunvisor inside or even the visor outside an also wot is the poit of the mirror in the corner then ■■?
Those are fair points mate, as is this from semtex:
semtex:
If you are going to take the letter of the law regarding anything in the swept area’s of the wipers, then you need to remove the steering wheel and instrument binnicle out of the Man TGA
I’m no expert on the subject of vehicle type-approval, but IMHO those items are either legal requirements or are standard manufacturer fittings. So I’d say it’s a fair bet that VOSA already know about them.
I didn’t see the other topic about tables, but if geebee45 could let us know what he’d do about that type of table fitted in that position, we’d be a bit clearer on whether to chance our arm and buy one.
For obvious reasons, that’s if it’s not that gaudy blue colour. I know, let’s see who dares to buy blue interior lights, cos there’d be the mother of all topics about that!!
chappers580:
jus bein devils advocate ere but if the swept area has to be kept cleared then wot bout wen u drop sunvisor inside or even the visor outside an also wot is the poit of the mirror in the corner then ■■?
they come under " fixed equipment " not " drivers extras "
ive never had a table nor do i feel i would ever need one, just more space to fill with junk and tat.
chappers580:
jus bein devils advocate ere but if the swept area has to be kept cleared then wot bout wen u drop sunvisor inside or even the visor outside an also wot is the poit of the mirror in the corner then ■■?
they come under " fixed equipment " not " drivers extras "
ive never had a table nor do i feel i would ever need one, just more space to fill with junk and tat.
Them dafs tend to have some flat surfaces in the cab where you can put stuff (gas stove, laptop etc) However something like the TGA doesn’t. I can see why you wouldn’t feel the need to have a table but the TGA driver possibly would.
i just had a thought im with rogfish on this… as it is transparent and would not cause any visability isues… now something else that comes to mind that is transparent and in the sweep of the wipers has got to be a driver that wears glasses, now the same aplies there in a way as you sometime still get the glare and reflections from them…
just wodering, say you were to attach a window fringe to the visor in the front of a daf so you couldnt see it from the seat, and would also go up when moving blind, could you still get fined etc■■?
I once got a GV9 prohibition at the VOSA station at the top of the M50 (Strensham) for a table in the windscreen of the FL i drove in those days. I just wonder what they would make of the trucks over here, Lol.
zorg2006:
i just had a thought im with rogfish on this… as it is transparent and would not cause any visability isues…
Hi zorg2006, that appears to be a fair point at first sight BUT,
The ROGfish has now been landed cos he failed to show that a transparent intrusion is allowed and (IMHO) clearly missed the blindingly (excuse the pun ) obvious safety risk from glare/reflection.
Surely folks can see that the table in the pics ceases to be truly transparent in some conditions of lighting as PROVED by the pics
IMHO it matters not whether ROG or anybody else can see the point of something, cos inventing non-existent exemptions only serves to create confusion. The overriding point is that the relevant enforcement authority will decide whether they think it’s illegal and take appropriate action.
zorg2006:
now something else that comes to mind that is transparent and in the sweep of the wipers has got to be a driver that wears glasses, now the same aplies there in a way as you sometime still get the glare and reflections from them…
Another fair point at first sight mate, BUT a lot of drivers wear glasses (including me) as a legal requirement.
If something is a legal requirement by one law, then how can there be another law making it illegal ?
Glasses are a legal requirement in many cases, but a table that intrudes into the swept area (whether transparent or not ) remains illegal unless somebody can show that it’s allowed.
i see what you saying dave but the only reason they are ilegal is because they block the veiw… now being transparent they would not block the veiw… well if you dont put a sat nav there lol …
zorg2006:
i see what you saying dave but the only reason they are ilegal is because they block the veiw… now being transparent they would not block the veiw… well if you dont put a sat nav there lol …
Hi zorg2006, I can see what you’re saying too, BUT…
You’re doing exactly the same as ROG and relying on an exemption that doesn’t exist, cos he made it up.
You’d need to come up with something IN THE LAW that says: ’ …except if the intrusion is transparent,’ or the like.
For now it simply says ‘thou shalt not intrude the swept area.’
Go ahead mate, buy one and use it by all means, but IMHO you might be running something of a risk.
I’m still looking for the actual piece of legislation, but I came across Vosa’s “Categorisation of Defects” guide. (For use by Vosa Examiners and others)
Under “Description of Defect” is written . . .
View to the front
Driver’s view to the front impaired having
regard to the original design of the
vehicle (See Note 1)
Under “Severity of Defect” is written . . .
(1)Any object seriously impairing driver’s view
through the area swept by the windscreen
wipers
(2)Otherwise than above
This has the recommended action as being a Prohibition in the case of (1) and " . … . they will advise the user/ owner using a Vehicle Inspection Notice. This notice is advisory only and does not in itself prevent further use of the vehicle" in the case of (2)
(See Note 1) gives an allowance to satnavs and reversing monitors.
==========================================
Now then . . . . . . . .
I would argue that “seriously impairing the driver’s view” is prone to both interpretation and opinion.
I would then argue if I don’t need to be out of my normal driving position* to see under, over, round or through the “object” then that object couldn’t be described as seriously impairing my view to the front. Even if that means I have to make use of the now obligatory “driver-blame mirror” fitted at the top of the windscreen
“Having regard to the original design of the vehicle” would obviously negate the argument of steering wheels, instrument binnacles, and IMO the tables fitted by manufacturers such as M.A.N (I say that because the fitters remove the MAN table as part of their MoT prep)
I know, let’s see who dares to buy blue interior lights, cos there’d be the mother of all topics about that!! 
…
