Local Dorset News...

DorsetDude

DorsetDude

Spud
Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,018
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Couldnt resist sharing this story and all the comments below it for a laugh.

Basically a chap with a "general lee" car, of surname "Duke" , sounded his Dixie horn whilst transporting a bride and groom and got nicked.

Story
 
I wasn't aware those horns were illegal, but I guess now I do. Not many emergency vehicles will be using dixie horns. Can you use them on private land or not at all.
Seems a little harsh, you'd have hoped a warning, don't use on public roads, noted on our records type of thing.
 
It's hardly sounds like the crime of the century, and it does make you wonder what happened to police discretion.
But equally he may be a serial offender that they were just fed up with, who knows?
 
Was Rosco P. Coltrance the arresting officer and they were brought before Boss Hoss?
 
Lynton said:
Was Rosco P. Coltrance the arresting officer and they were brought before Boss Hoss?
Click to expand...

I think you watched the cheapo version :lol:
 
What a waste of police time. Next time they moan about not having enough coppers maybe this should be discussed. Yet again the motorist is enemy number 1
 
Actually...


Calls it a replica? He should have floored it, whilst playing the tune, drifting around corners and finally getting away with a ridiculous jump over a ruined bridge over a river...
 
Maybe they thought he was running Moon shine?

Two / triple tone etc horns have been illegal for many years,
but I didn't realise that was the reason.

We don't get many ambulances around here, whistling Dixie :D
 
Lynton said:
Well forgive me for a bloody typo... You need to be pixel perfect from now on!!!!
Click to expand...
Whoa there boy! You got a smiley with the "admonishment". Chill or you'll be getting called Princess....

;)
 
Trouble with the press is you never know what the whole story is.
There's 2 offences, unnecessary use of warning instrument and the fact that it's illegal anyway.
I have no idea which he is being done for, or if it's both. If it's going to court, then it's his choice, an FPN would have been issued, so it's obviously him disputing it. Thats assuming the report is correct when it says
"Mr Duke, from Wimborne will now appear in court to answer the charge of sounding the illegal horn."

As for discretion, it's easy to second guess when you weren't there. In any case, it's the officers decision, no one elses.
 
Bernie174 said:
Trouble with the press is you never know what the whole story is.
Click to expand...
Very true.

As for discretion, it's easy to second guess when you weren't there. In any case, it's the officers decision, no one elses.
Click to expand...
Unless there is a back story with this particular individual it does seem a bit OTT in this case going to court when a simple "Ok we know its a wedding, youve had your fun now dont do it again" would have been the sensible route.
 
Unless there is a back story with this particular individual it does seem a bit OTT in this case going to court when a simple "Ok we know its a wedding, youve had your fun now dont do it again" would have been the sensible route.
Click to expand...

Which is all you are being told. The information comes from the accused, who, for example is unlikely to say to the press, "I got stopped, I got out the car and told the Police Officer to F right off, who does he think he is stopped me, I pay his wages"
In which case, I wouldn't blame the Police officer for sticking him on. That isn't an unusual reaction from a driver either. A lot of them talk themselves into the book!
I had a driver do exactly that to me, he got put in the booked, and turned up an hour later at the Police Station in his Pentecostal Vicars outfit. Oh well, another trip to complaints, only to find there were 3 witnesses and CCTV that showed him to be lying through his teeth. Result!
But either way, it isn't for us to second guess the Officer, it's his authority and his decision.
 
Oh god yes. I'm the most polite, apologetic person when stopped. No point annoying the officer more.

Bernie174 said:
it's his authority and his decision.
Click to expand...
image_thumb%25255B4%25255D.png
 
Oh god yes. I'm the most polite, apologetic person when stopped. No point annoying the officer more.
Click to expand...

Like I said, too many drivers talk themselves into the book. My starting premise was always warning (I didn't like reporting people for traffic offences!), yet there's always a few drivers that seem to think they can argue their way out it. It never works.
 
"Shut up copper what do you know. Why aren't you out catching proper criminals" :D
 
now if it had been the real DOH, no way they'd have been caught, would have been jumping rivers and all sorts.. pretenders. Charge them with impersonating a 1970's film bod..
 
What do you expect in Weymouth.... Its a bit like the wild west down there
 
Bernie174 said:
Like I said, too many drivers talk themselves into the book. My starting premise was always warning (I didn't like reporting people for traffic offences!), yet there's always a few drivers that seem to think they can argue their way out it. It never works.
Click to expand...


Actually that isn't strictly true, I know someone driving a seven and a half tonne truck on the outside lane of a motorway a few
years ago who got pulled by the police,
took a while and a call to the station to prove he was within his rights to do so
 
It still doesn't help arguing.
For example, I was stopped by a spotty faced PC in Kingston years ago. I was still a Policeman at the time. He decided to stick me on for driving on sidelights, which is cobblers, it wasn't an offence in the circumstances I was driving in. I knew it wasn't, but not worth the argument on the street. I simply yes'd no'd three bags full'd. Drove round to Kingston Nick, quick chat with the Station Officer, end of problem.
Arguing would have only caused a longer delay. In cases where you know, and I mean know the Police are in the wrong, make your point, but if he's going down the route of giving you an FPN, then button it, all that will happen is it takes longer and he might look deeper, and find something that IS an offence. The solution is go to/ring the local nick, if you're right, and it isn't a substantive offence, it'll be solved instantly. But please note that doesn't work with offences like you saying you didn't do a red light and he said you did. In that case you will have to argue it in Court.
 
Cobra said:
Maybe they thought he was running Moon shine?

Two / triple tone etc horns have been illegal for many years,
but I didn't realise that was the reason.

We don't get many ambulances around here, whistling Dixie :D
Click to expand...
When were they made illegal, I was under the impression that they were legal on cars if built before a certain year, much the same as the old style black number plates.
 
Con & use regs. and in answer to your question, 1st August 1973.

Audible warning instruments

37. (1) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), every motor vehicle which has a maximum speed of more than 20 mph shall be fitted with a horn, not being a reversing alarm or a two-tone horn.

(b)
Sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to an agricultural motor vehicle, unless it is being driven at more than 20 mph.
(2) Subject to paragraph (6), the sound emitted by any horn, other than a reversing alarm or a two-tone horn, fitted to a wheeled vehicle first used on or after 1st August 1973 shall be continuous and uniform and not strident.
(3) A reversing alarm fitted to a wheeled vehicle shall not be strident.
(4) Subject to paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) no motor vehicle shall be fitted with a bell, gong, siren or two-tone horn.
(5) The provisions of paragraph (4) shall not apply to motor vehicles—
(a)
used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes;
(b)
owned by a body formed primarily for the purposes of fire salvage and used for those or similar purposes;
(c)
owned by the Forestry Commission or by local authorities and used from time to time for the purposes of fighting fires;
(d)
owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used for the purposes of the disposal of bombs or explosives;
(e)
used for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service provided under the National Health Service Act 1977 or under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947;
(f)
used by Her Majesty's Coastguard or the Coastguard Auxiliary Service to aid persons in danger or vessels in distress on or near the coast;
(g)
owned by the National Coal Board and used for the purposes of rescue operations at mines;
(h)
owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used by the Royal Air Force Mountain Rescue Service for the purposes of rescue operations in connection with crashed aircraft or any other emergencies; or
(i)
owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and used for the purposes of launching lifeboats.

(6) The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (4) shall not apply so as to make it unlawful for a motor vehicle to be fitted with an instrument or apparatus (not being a two-tone horn) designed to emit a sound for the purpose of informing members of the public that goods are on the vehicle for sale.

(7) Subject to paragraph (8), the provisions of paragraph (4) shall not apply so as to make it unlawful for a vehicle to be fitted with a bell, gong or siren—
(a)
if the purpose thereof is to prevent theft or attempted theft of the vehicle or its contents; or
(b)
in the case of a bus, if the purpose thereof is to summon help for the driver, the conductor or an inspector.
(8) Every bell, gong or siren fitted to a vehicle by virtue of paragraph (7)(a), and every device fitted to a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1982 so as to cause a horn to sound for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (7)(a), shall be fitted with a device designed to stop the bell, gong, siren or horn emitting noise for a continuous period of more than five minutes; and every such device shall at all times be maintained in good working order.
(9) Instead of complying with paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) to (8), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 70/388 or ECE Regulation 28 or, if the vehicle is an agricultural motor vehicle, with Community Directive 74/151.
(10) In this regulation and in regulation 99—
(a)
“horn” means an instrument, not being a bell, gong or siren, capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle to which it is fitted;
(b)
references to a bell, gong or siren include references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a bell, gong or siren;
(c)
“reversing alarm” means a device fitted to a motor vehicle and designed to warn persons that the vehicle is reversing or is about to reverse; and
(d)
“two-tone horn” means an instrument which, when operated, automatically produces a sound which alternates at regular intervals between two fixed notes.
 
I'm rather surprised about points (b) 2 and 3 in Bernie's post (#26 above) that warning devices shouldn't be "strident".
I'm pretty certain he knows far more about it than I do, but surely the whole point of an "audible warning instrument" is that it is indeed strident, or "urgent, clamorous, or vociferous" (as defined in the Collins English dictionary).

I have no doubt it's open to interpretation anyway, but to my mind (and definitely in layman's terms) that's exactly what you would want a horn to be.

I know the police don't make the laws, and that they often have the unfortunate duty to enforce rather silly ones, but Is this just another case of inadequately worded legislation?
 
Last edited:
I would certainly take this one to court on the grounds that the vehicle in question was in use prior to 1st August 1973. Therefore, the current legislation as stated by Bernie would appear to not apply to it. I recall a somewhat similar situation many years ago involving the fibreglass fuel tank on my 1967 Triton and a copper that thought he knew best. He was determined to nick me for using an illegal fuel tank and was in no mood to listen to me regarding the law on the subject so I just told him to fill his boots even though he'd be wasting both his and my time. Went to court, I won as I knew I was going to, and he just ended up annoyed at his ignorance of the specific law being shown up in front of the magistrate.

The point being that coppers are not there to interpret the law; only to apply it. Interpretation is the realm of the judiciary. The problem with coppers is that they do not know the ins and outs of many of the laws they enforce and they cannot reasonably be expected to ... but they like to think they do. In my case if I'd just accepted the copper's 'verdict' on the matter, I'd have ended up with a financial hit in the form of a fine for something that I was not in the wrong for. They might not like it when an ordinary peasant challenges them but people should when they know they're in the right.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt it's open to interpretation anyway, but to my mind (and definitely in layman's terms) that's exactly what you would want a horn to be.
Click to expand...

I take your point on the word strident, or at least the interpretation of it. But in this case, it's not the relevant part, its the 'continuous and uniform'. There isn't any doubt that it is not that, its simply a matter of should it have been fitted with it and should it have been used in the circumstances. The driver in effect puts his hands up in the article to improper use, so it's now down to should it have been fitted with it, was it legal at date of import and if not was it fitted afterwards.

Stuart

The 'in use' is in the UK. It may have been built before then, but if it was imported after, then it's a no no. Nor do we know it was imported with it, or had it fitted afterwards. Again if it was imported before that date, and had it fitted after it falls foul.

Besides, as I said originally, you only have one side of the story, and there are 2 offences here, having it, and improper use. I don't know, nor do any of us which offence he was stuck on for.

From what you have written, it seems you are misinterpreting due process, not police. Police don't interpret legislation they enforce it. In effect, its a case of reporting facts for a Court to decide on. Without going into the specifics of your case, it may be that you say it's legal, but the circumstances were it's not as clear cut as you believe them to be. In that case it is for a magistrate to decide, not you, or the officer. That isn't Police interpreting.

I don't know when the incident you mention happened, but if it's recent(post end of the 80's), the CPS obviously thought it needed deciding in a Court as well, so your assessment of the officers knowledge may not have been correct.

On the subject of knowledge, again, I'd take issue. I dealt with crime mostly, I didn't deal with traffic unless I really had too. Hence my starting point of warning nearly every time. I fully admit I am no expert on it, but if it was something I wasn't sure about then 'call oscar' (traffic).

'Proper' crime was a different matter, but again, often it is a case of a court deciding it after I report facts. So for example, 5am, I walk round a corner, to see a bloke removing a child safety seat from an apparently abandoned car. "hello" Thinks me, and he's nicked for theft.

He admitted everything in interview, but pleaded not guilty. He was acquitted on the grounds you cannot steal property that you believe to be abandoned no matter how unreasonable that belief may be. Whether or not he came up with that in the first place it was for a court to decide if it applied, not me. So again it's not police interpreting it's simply a matter of a court being the proper place for the facts to be decided.
 
I had Dixie horns on a mk3 cortina in 1979 , I think they're still in my dad's attic

Looks like I'll be leaving them there then :D
 
@Stuart M , a GRP tank on a Triton deserves a ticket on the grounds of good taste in nothing else!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top