Legality of anti hijack central locking systems - Legal or not?

[tentonhammer 10]

Well, it seems the old plod have stuck their nose in again and issued me with a 'Prohiition Notice' which to those of you who don't know what these are, it means I can't use my car until it gets the all clear by the garage (via another MOT, car was only MOT'd before xmas!) and then it has to be given the all clear by the Police afterwards(!). The notice was issued because the officer couldn't get into my passenger door properly because the door handle (external) wouldn't work. The door works fine from inside the car and central locking ok etc.

 

Basically some oik reversed into my passenger side door over Xmas, knackering the door handle in the process (external handle only, internal mechanism fine). The car is fitted with Passat (88-93) rear door handles (colour coded to CM5) for keyless entry into the vehicle. In order achieve this central locking with remote fob etc was fitted to control the locking mechanism(s).

 

Now the problem I have is this - The dumb f*ck officer failed to recognize the fact that my car's central locking system has anti hijack built in (as do ALOT of other cars out there), meaning NOBODY, even the fire brigade can just waltz over to my car and get in basically! His problem was that if the car was involved in an accident, the fire brigade wouldn't be able to open the door from the outside via the door handle, which you can't do on my car any way because of the central locking and so he restricted use of the vehicle until the garage gives the new handle the all clear. I made it quite clear to him that the fire brigade wouldn't give a f*ck about a door handle that wouldn't open, they would just simply break the damn window but he wasn't budging.

 

I explained that a new handle was going on in the next week or so but because of the car's central locking anti hijack feature I didn't think it would be an issue?? After getting on the radio to his MOT buddy, eventually he decided to issue me with a 'Prohibition Notice' instead of giving me 3 points (yes, 3 f*cking points??!?!). Still means I have to shell out to a garage for a new MOT and get the all clear from the Police, on top of fitting a new door, body work, painting, and fitting new door handle plus colour coding handle etc.

 

I presume then that central locking with built in anti hijack systems are illegal too or maybe the Police just don't give a sh*t these days?

 

I know the Police see it from a 'door handle' point of view but they really need to consider central locking as a key factor here. Anti hijack systems render your door handles useless after all.

 

What kills it is that there is no right of appeal against the 'imposition' of a Prohibition Notice, just what the garage say which is still going to cost me money and doesn't give me the right to use my f*cking car in the mean time.

 

It's stuff like this that makes good honest people HATE the f*cking Police. I'm getting sick of my license being at risk over silly things like this.

Edited January 13, 2013 by tentonhammer

[destructiv dave 0]

Not something I've ever come across before but did you call him a mug or something as it seems he had it in for you. Did he pull you for the damage to the car then?

[BILLCOR 1]

I think all new cars have anti hi-jack as standard, your doors auto lock after 30-60 seconds of driving, I'm sure its called safety a feature, saves you from getting robbed at traffic lights etc :bonk:

[tentonhammer 10]

destructiv - I was nice as pie to him (my missus was in the car as well). We literally pulled up beside the Police car and he must have saw the damage to the passenger side door / handle.

 

BILLCOR - Exactly, anti hijack is pretty standard on most cars these days so you would think the Police would realize that if you car is fitted with one, your external door handles are completely useless anyway - I would have thought then that anti-theft voids the legality of your door handles if this is the case?

[Wullie 1]

This is intriguing. My car has an anti hijack system built in via the alarm. Basically if shut the doors and switch on the ignition the central locking operates and locks everything.

 

I did a bit of Googling and came up with this

 

www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/Categorisation%20of%20Defects.pdf

 

On page 192 it states:-

 

Part 2: Passenger Cars, Private Buses

and Light Goods Vehicles

 

Doors

Door jammed/ obstructed/ cannot be

opened from inside or outside

 

Jammed,obstructed or deliberately secured

so that it cannot be opened from inside or

outside (See Note 5)

 

5.This applies to the driver’s and front

passengerdoors on a car, or any

door on a bus, but if the door

opposite to the driving side of a goods

vehicleis rendered inoperative

deliberately,it must be considered to

be an integral part of the cab.

 

This is flagged with an "I" denoting an immediate prohibition.

 

The last amendment to the document is listed as 2008 suggesting that it is still valid.

 

So going by the letter of the second paragraph, when I switch on the ignition I am deliberately securing the doors in violation of that paragraph.

 

But then as is said above this feature is standard on most new cars nowadays. Seems a case of damned if you do and damnedif you don't.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Wullie

[MarkFoster 0]

Every modern(ish) car I've been in has had the ability to activate the central locking from inside the car so that you're effectively locked in, ie the handles won't work from the outside. I don't want to get into a Police kicking session, but it sounds to me as if the officer wasn't really sure about what he was saying (you mentioned he spoke to his controller) so issued this 'prohibition notice' in order to get himself out of a hole...

 

I would make sure you're compliant with the notice (no point in getting into even more trouble of this) but at the same time contact your local police complaints office and speak to them about it. If it can be agreed the officer had made a mistake then surely you should be compensated for the expense this has/will cost you. Keep all your receipts!

 

Mark

[OllieVR6 0]

I'm not taking sides here but I'm pretty sure that in an accident, anti hijack systems unlock the doors, obviously you wouldn't be able to open the door if its actually broken. As you say though, the firemen will just break the window.

 

It does sound like said policeman was just having a bad/quiet day and picked on you.

[VAG-hag 0]

In my daily driver the doors lock automatically until I either:

Take keys out

Use unlock button

Pull interior handle twice

Or have a bump big enough to deploy the airbags.

 

So, if the anti hijack has a fail safe incase of a crash then I cant see why you cant retrofit legally? as said it sounds like mr copper was bored or drives a ricer! :lol:

[elliott 10]

It's stuff like this that makes you wonder about the police.

 

Last time I was pulled I asked why I had been stopped, he gave me the silent treatment while his side kick gave my car the full going over but he couldn't find anything.

Asked him again why he thought he had to stop me and the answer I finally got was... "your car is unusually old". Not a serious reason I thought?

 

Sounds like he had it in for you tho, maybe he always wanted a Corrado but was never allowed one :lol:

[OllieVR6 0]

It's stuff like this that makes you wonder about the police.

 

Last time I was pulled I asked why I had been stopped, he gave me the silent treatment while his side kick gave my car the full going over but he couldn't find anything.

Asked him again why he thought he had to stop me and the answer I finally got was... "your car is unusually old". Not a serious reason I thought?

 

Sounds like he had it in for you tho, maybe he always wanted a Corrado but was never allowed one :lol:

 

I've been told this by the police before as well. They told me that anything over 14 years old will get pulled for no other reason....not really sure what the difference is between a 13 year old and 15 year old car??

 

In my first car (F reg 205) I got pulled over 8 times in 1 year. In my second (and current car) a brand new (in 2003) Clio, I've never been pulled over!

[elliott 10]

I've been told this by the police before as well. They told me that anything over 14 years old will get pulled for no other reason....not really sure what the difference is between a 13 year old and 15 year old car??

 

In my first car (F reg 205) I got pulled over 8 times in 1 year. In my second (and current car) a brand new (in 2003) Clio, I've never been pulled over!

 

I've been stopped at least once a year in my F reg merc estate, age doesn't really come into it. Some cars just don't blend in with the norm, the Corrado is a classic example.

[mad-dog 10]

mine auto locks when the engine is running for about 30 seconds the door will not unlock until either i turn the engine off or i hit the unlock button it passed its mot like that this year ( and i aasume every other year its a pain as i have to make sure the window is open or i leave the door open if i get ouyt and leave the engine running for any reason why should it be illegal?after all its a safety feature if you have an accident the engine will stopor be stopped and unlock anyways as for a broken handle i spose they consider the fact that if you are not coherrent after and accident they should be able to get you out? still its a classic case of put a uniform on some people and they become little adolfs ( no offence intended to anyone just my terminology)

[GrahamU 5]

My wifes 2001 Beetle has a problem with the convenience ECU/crash sensor so it will think the car has been in a accident and unlock the doors and switch the interior lights on randomly.

 

Dont think it has alot to do with anti hijack as that isnt activated on her car and it wont matter if the doors are locked from the inside, in an accident they unlock.

 

If yours doesnt unlock in an accident that is probably why mr policeman had a problem, you'd also probably find that anti hijacks on aftermarket alarms may be frowned upon aswell.

 

Be interesting to hear what the MOT station will have to say about it

[Stonejag 10]

On page 192 it states:-

 

Part 2: Passenger Cars, Private Buses

and Light Goods Vehicles

 

Doors

Door jammed/ obstructed/ cannot be

opened from inside or outside

 

Jammed,obstructed or deliberately secured

so that it cannot be opened from inside or

outside (See Note 5)

Ask the MOT tester, but it all depends on what they mean by 'or'. I imagine they mean the exterior and interior door handles both have to work (supported by [this link), not just that one or the other has to work.

 

I agree that in your car, just the same as any modern car, if you have a crash and are knocked unconscious but the engine is still running and the ignition still on, then the doors will be locked. So the fire brigade / helpful bystander will just smash your window, pull the handle twice from the inside and the door will open. But it looks like the letter of the law says the handle has to work :( Given that handle's knackered anyway I'd probably have whipped the screw out of the end, pulled it free and cut through the central locking cable as a temporary fix since you can then press the opening lever to open it - or at least offered, just to try and wriggle out (and hope they don't realise you can then unlock it with finger pressure on the lock lever). Shame they noticed the damage really :(

 

I got stopped on Monday - I was doing 60ish on a single-lane national limit road, it was just after midnight and nobody was about so I had accelerated fairly hard away from the roundabout I just left. Auto box only has four gears so I was most likely in second when I passed the traffic car going the other way...they stopped me a couple of miles further on and told me off about how it was so loud so I must have been speeding :scratch: Unfortunately they then went over everything in excruciating detail and caught a tyre a half-millimetre under the limit :( Apparently I now get to wait for up to 28 days while they decide if I get a £60 fine, three points, both, a speed awareness course (eh?!) or nothing! They were slightly sympathetic since I was less than a mile from home and I had a set of spare wheels/tyres to go on (or apparently I would have got a prohibition notice too), and they let me replace a duff bulb rather than adding that too, but they were obviously incredibly disappointed that I was taxed, insured and had a valid MOT...

 

So yeah, they basically pull anyone and everyone, on any pretext, because they're really looking to nab people on tax/licence/MOT/insurance/tyres. Just bite your lip and take it, there's not a lot else you can do...

 

Stone

[mad-dog 10]

i go tell em to get lost car is legal i never ;) speed and am an upstanding citizen of the community ( yeah right i have a responsible job as a taxi driver lol) if they stop me for no reason they are asking for trouble :)

[tentonhammer 10]

Some very interesting responses here ;)

 

Seems a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Wullie - It certainly looks that way unfortunately, one law for one thing another law for another... It's quite clear that by deliberately turning our ignition on engaging the anti-theft (locking the car down completely) we are in fact violating the letter of the law. It's a shame the Police haven't got the brain power to work this out, instead they've turned something quite straight forwards into a ball ache. Not all crashes result in engine switch off, and so in an incident like this the anti theft device will be active resulting in a locked door for the emergency services.

 

Obviously my passenger side handle was knackered (as well as it being a 20 year old car albeit in great nick:cool:) so the Police took it upon them selves to pull me. What's done is done now eh.

 

I'll def see what the MOT testers have to say about this though as I have never had problems getting the car through it's MOT before, but then both handles were working normally...