Unbelievable tripe....RTA

[jamiehamy 0]

Reading though the Road Traffic Act section 144, I am absolutely astounded at the complete tripe that is in there. Most of it is virtually impossible to understand. The more I read this, the more I really believe the law should not apply unless it can be read and understood by a 'normal' peron...

 

144BExceptions to section 144A offence

(1)A person (“the registered keeper”) in whose name a vehicle which does not meet the insurance requirements is registered at any particular time (“the relevant time”) does not commit an offence under section 144A of this Act at that time if any of the following conditions are satisfied.

 

(2)The first condition is that at the relevant time the vehicle is owned as described—

(a)in subsection (1) of section 144 of this Act, or

(b)in paragraph (a), (b), (da), (db), (dc) or (g) of subsection (2) of that section,

(whether or not at the relevant time it is being driven as described in that provision).

 

(3)The second condition is that at the relevant time the vehicle is owned with the intention that it should be used as described in paragraph ©, (d), (e) or (f) of section 144(2) of this Act.

 

(4)The third condition is that the registered keeper—

(a)is not at the relevant time the person keeping the vehicle, and

(b)if previously he was the person keeping the vehicle, he has by the relevant time complied with any requirements under subsection (7)(a) below that he is required to have complied with by the relevant or any earlier time.

 

(5)The fourth condition is that—

(a)the registered keeper is at the relevant time the person keeping the vehicle,

(b)at the relevant time the vehicle is not used on a road or other public place, and

©the registered keeper has by the relevant time complied with any requirements under subsection (7)(a) below that he is required to have complied with by the relevant or any earlier time.

 

(6)The fifth condition is that—

(a)the vehicle has been stolen before the relevant time,

(b)the vehicle has not been recovered by the relevant time, and

©any requirements under subsection (7)(b) below that, in connection with the theft, are required to have been complied with by the relevant or any earlier time have been complied with by the relevant time.

(7)Regulations may make provision—

(a)for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) and (5)© above, requiring a person in whose name a vehicle is registered to furnish such particulars and make such declarations as may be prescribed, and to do so at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, and

(b)for the purposes of subsection (6)© above, as to the persons to whom, the times at which and the manner in which the theft of a vehicle is to be notified.

(8)Regulations may make provision amending this section for the purpose of providing for further exceptions to section 144A of this Act (or varying or revoking any such further exceptions).

 

(9)A person accused of an offence under section 144A of this Act is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception; but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.

[fla 9]

tbh, i find its the same with some of the Microsoft on-line help files, total gibberish.

[Wullie 1]

I seriously doubt anyone could understand that. It is total gobbledygook

[mjcp 0]

Write to your MP and tell them! (they are supposed to respond, even if its to jsut say they got your letter) :smug:

 

 

=

Dear XYZ

 

I have been reading about the new law regarding the insurance of vehicles even when off the road.

Link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/22

Can you advise how an "ordinary person" is supposed to be able to understand this tripe? The document, particularly part 144b "exceptions", is full of circular references and obscure language.

Members of Parliament should require that new laws pass an "Ordinary persons understanding"* test and that where electronic versions of the laws are published, the references are shown with links to the referenced section.

*Such a test may also deal with laws that are written for one situation and miss used or miss applied to others too!

Yours sincerely,

MJcp

Edited May 13, 2011 by mjcp

[jamiehamy 0]

Write to your MP and tell them! (they are supposed to respond, even if its to jsut say they got your letter) :smug:

 

 

 

Tidy! I think I'll leave 'tripe' in, it makes me laugh more in that context!

 

 

The more I read through different sections, the more I think 'WTF?!?!' lol

[robrado974 1]

I understand it perfectly well.

[jamiehamy 0]

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Whatever sister...lol

[Kevin Bacon 5]

any requirements under subsection (7)(b) below that, in connection with the theft, are required to have been complied with by the relevant or any earlier time have been complied with by the relevant time.

 

That is probably the most meaningless sentence I have ever read.

 

It's the same with any official document I find. Legal docs, financial docs, disclaimers, you name it. 1000s of words shoved on a page with no real structure or meaning. Certainly with insurance and financial agreement documentation, very few people read it and these companies use that to their advantage.

 

Simplifying these documents has been requested 100s of times, but who's going to get the job of deciphering all this garbage into laymens terms? It's a massive, possibly endless task!

[aide 0]

That is probably the most meaningless sentence I have ever read.

 

:lol: i read that 3 times and still didn't get it, and i deal with legal docs a lot!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Apparently the Police have special training on how to speak to people in that stupid way you see on the TV (seriously). I'm sure government document authors also have special training on how to write meaningless documents!

[Wullie 1]

Write to your MP and tell them! (they are supposed to respond, even if its to jsut say they got your letter) :smug:

 

 

=

Dear XYZ

 

I have been reading about the new law regarding the insurance of vehicles even when off the road.

Link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/22

Can you advise how an "ordinary person" is supposed to be able to understand this tripe? The document, particularly part 144b "exceptions", is full of circular references and obscure language.

Members of Parliament should require that new laws pass an "Ordinary persons understanding"* test and that where electronic versions of the laws are published, the references are shown with links to the referenced section.

*Such a test may also deal with laws that are written for one situation and miss used or miss applied to others too!

Yours sincerely,

MJcp

 

Just sent an e-mail to my MP using the text above though I used gobbledygook as I think it's cooler than tripe. Now I wait with bated breath to see if I get a reply.

 

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

 

At least the auto reply is working

 

E-mails are treated in the same manner and the same level of importance as other communications i.e. post, telephone or fax. As the office is very busy all cases will be prioritised accordingly and I would ask therefore that you not be disappointed if you do not receive an immediate reply.

 

Parliamentary protocol dictates that a Member of Parliament can only deal with issues on behalf of their own constituents.

 

Please ensure that you have included your name and full postal address (within the constituency of Paisley & Renfrewshire South). If this was not included in your e-mail please re-send with a full postal address.

 

 

Thank you

Constituency Office of Douglas Alexander MP

[jamiehamy 0]

Just sent an e-mail to my MP using the text above though I used gobbledygook as I think it's cooler than tripe. Now I wait with bated breath to see if I get a reply.

 

 

Good stuff Wullie! I'll be doing the same after the by-election. :)

[mjcp 0]

...I used gobbledygook

 

I would have too had I been able to trust my spelling or MS Word's spelling (damn you IE for not having a spellchecker); though on the Mac I'm using now apparently has no issues with "gobbledygook".

 

Mjcp

[Wullie 1]

Update. Got a postcard from the Houses of Parliament from my MP saying my enquiry was being looked into and I would recieve a reply in due course. Not exactly holding my breath.

[Wullie 1]

2nd Update. Got another response from my MP. He has recieved an acknowledgement of his request on my behalf from the DVLA and will be back in touch when he recieves their reply. I'll go and start War and Peace now. Should be finished it before I hear anything else.

[jamiehamy 0]

Dear Mr Wullie,

 

We would like to thank you for raising your concern about the terminology in document , with particular reference to (please refer to website www.confused.com for actual text). We would like to highlight that these documents have been subject to intense scrutiny and are set out in a such a manner as to alllow no dubiety about the aforementioned subject. We have worked closely with the organisation dedicated to making everything clear (see website http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/howto.pdf) and trust you have recognised this when reading the documents.

 

We will however take your feedback on board next time we decide to draft a silly bit of legislation that you didn't vote for and will most certainly not agree with - but let me be brutally frank - if it's a daft and dreadfully contrived piece of legislation to begin with, then how do you think we're going to be able to explain how it works?!

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Mr DeeV Elly.

[Wullie 1]

That looks about right. Let's just wait and see how close your version actually is. :bonk: