Disagrees with what? I just asked how many of those that allegedly had dodgy lights or tyres had dodgy tyres because the technique used in that piece is typical propaganda and sensationalism whereby two unrelated items are lumped together to paint a bad picture. This works because people "attach" to the worst case. For example, if twenty people were slightly injured changing lightbulbs but nobody was end, a sensationalist piece could truthfully claim that twenty were end or injured changing lightbulbs. In the same way, if nobody stopped had dodgy tyres but 17 had a blown tail-light bulb the claim "17 had dodgy tyres-lights" would be true albeit misleading. Of course, any of those with a blown tail light bulb had doubled-up tail lights (like the Volvo 850), the cited vehicles would be completely legal.
Ah, now you're exaggerating downward ;)
The question was what proportion of outfits were stopped. If only 64 were stopped in an entire working day during the holiday season, I suspect that only a few percent were stopped and that those who were stopped were because something didn't look right. So if 10% were stopped, and half of those had something wrong, that's still better than my pbuttenger's experiment suggested you'd get stopping solo cars yesterday.
And you know this for a fact? I suspect that you're making buttumptions and dreaming once again!
Are you stupid, do you not read English?
Your summary stated that they didn't have their safety cable attached; the quoted piece stated that they didn't have their safety cable attached *properly*. IOW, the cable was attached but in a manner that the inspector thought improper. If the cable was attached so that the trailer brakes would apply on uncoupling, that's all the law requires. I've heard of inspectors claiming that looping the cable around the towball and clipping back on itself is improper. However, that method is legal.
Not only given to exaggeration, but to profanity also. You quoted, "no less that one in three of the *caravans* weighed..." Inspectors have attempted to weigh twin-axle units by weighing one wheel at a time and don't seem to understand that on a close-coupled unit weight from the low axle will transfer to the high one - to the one that's the thickness of a load cell higher - i.e. to the one they're weighing. They then add the values from each wheel together and then try to take the trailer off the road because their maths gives them well over MTPLM!
Incidentally, it's comparatively difficult to exceed axle limits on most modern towcars because the maximum front axle load plus the maximum rear axle load is significantly more than the maximum allowable mbutt. IOW, under most loading conditions you'd exceed MAM before busting an axle limit. That said, your piece didn't mention axle loadings ...
Your piece mentioned nothing of the towcars with respect to weight. However, the quote you gave mentioned gross weight - not axle loadings. So, the 250 kg quoted was over 30% of either the gross weight of the car or the gross weight of the caravan. You insist that it is not of the caravan, so the towcar must have a MAM of less than 750 kg. AFAICT, there is only one range of cars in that category - and that's the Aixam cycle cars, which aren't approved for towing. Even the Smart two-seater has a MAM of over 900 kg!
You really must learn to read what you quote and not make things up as you go along.
-- Geoff
