We have an organisation called Brake over here who would likely say it's always the driver's fault....

Their name is not spelled Brains.

 

Oh that's absolutely how the law and courts work here too and that's how one has to drive. But honestly, sometimes these people really do belong on the Darwin list.

The pedestrian may have the law on their side but the automobile usually wins these battles.

 

Not to beat this much longer but please clarify- Were S-types in the UK equipped with leapers as delivered to the first owner. I've always been told 'no' and in my many trips over cannot remember seeing any.

The subject first came up in 2006 when looking at a R/H drive car in the Glasgow area identical to mine in every way- except the missing leaper. The hole in the bonnet was covered with a small badge. The owner was adamant that this is the way it was delivered to him and stated that no S-types came with them- end of discussion. Having never seen an S-type in the UK with a leaper, I assumed he was correct.

 

I don't know whether Jaguar themselves fitted the leapers. I suspect not. There are endless threads every now and then on the UK forum if you have a spare day or two to read them....

Remember, you need mainly to follow C & U Regs as amended and modified. Leapers are not banned anywhere that anyone has ever managed to report that I've seen. Check pistonheads, too, if you really want to go into this as it's not just jags that are affected. There are police, legal eagles and the like on there.

RR, Bentley, et al fit ornaments. I doubt they'd do that if it were illegal

Glasgow doesn't immediately spring to mind as a crime-free city so fitting a leaoer might not be wise......

 

1) S-types in the UK did not have leapers when delivered to their first owners.
2) S-types in North America did.

was the point I was getting at. What owners subsequently do to them was not really the question.

 

Could be. But not for the reason you stated.

 

Mikey,

Yes they did, but not by the Romans. The Celts (Helvetans) were about the last to actually use them, probably against the Etruscans when they used an iron scythe in charges against infantry. They fitted fixed forward curved blades pointing outwards & slightly upwards on the outside, but also under the front pointing downward to give any footsoldier that survived being run down by the chariot horses a further 'thrill'. . .

The Romans used a nasty little device called a 'caltrap' (forerunner of anti personel mines) basically 4 spikes arranged in such a way that no matter how they land when thrown, there will always be one spike pointing upwards. In those days, the target was not the chariot itself, but the feet of the charging animal, be it man or horse. Since chariots really only work on level ground which is the ideal place for caltraps, chariots kind of went out of favour except for racing. And the modern version of the caltrap for use in peacetime? Try tyre spikes as used by the modern 'peacetime Roman Army' with their peaked "helmets".

Cheers,

Languid

 

Re the 'Leaper' & other bonnet 'mascots'. In many parts of the world they became illegal along with items like 'knock ons' on wire wheels in the early 70's because of the injuries that they could cause to pedestrians in an accident (like disembowling when they came over the bonnet - and you think an insect's guts an annoying obstruction to your vision!). It took a while, but subsequently agreement was reached between the Authorities & Vehicle Manufacturers about having spring loaded or retractable mascots as a compromise. I'm not certain, but I think that for a time no new vehicles were mass produced that had anything other than a flat emblem on the bonnet, even in the US. I'm pretty sure that the first ones allowed to reintroduce the emblem might have been Mercedes who spring loaded the circled star, which has remained the same until present day. Perhaps another of us 'old coots' in the Forum might have a bit more light to shine here.

Cheers,

Languid

 

As far as i know leapers are NOT illegal.

My personal view is they are NOT a danger if mounted correctly. i don't know of anyone being prosecuted for having a leaper on their car. I remmember merc used to have their logo sticking up on the front of their cars and that wasn't a problem, same with rolls.

But thats just my view, people my have been stopped by an over keen bobby, who personaly thinks the leaper is dangerous and will issue a VDRS form (Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme). (making you remove the leaper and have the form stamped by a MOT garage to prove it's been done) most people will remove the leaper rather than take it to court.

The could be other reasons for issuing a VDRS form, if a bobby stoped someone to advise them on an aspect of their driving and the person didn't take the advice on board/denied they had done anything wrong/had a terrible attitude (riight or wrong) i could see tickets being issued.

Attacched are vdrs form guidlines, the way it is worded some people read it as they must issue as many vdrs forms as they can, but what it actualy means is issue as many vdrs as possible INSTEAD of fixed penalty notices (points and or fine).

So to sum up, it's all down to the individuals view.

If i had a leaper and got a vdrs form i would take it to court (i doubt the cps (Crown Prosecution Service) would continue with the case as it would not be in the publics best intrest to waste a lot of timme and money on a case they would prob loose.

 

Quite.

Plenty fit leapers over here, some then fit a replacement a few times and then get fed up of the pain and cost.

I don't recall anyone posting that they'd been issued with one of those forms. First time I ever heard of the form, too!

No matches for VDRS on the UK forum for any Jaguar vehicle.

 

If you keep your vehicle in a safe and roadworthy condition you won't have had a reason to be issued one, so won't have heard of one.

Someone might have mistaken it for a HO/RT1 form (these are getting issued less and less now due to computer checks at the roadside) sometimes referred to as a 'producer', this is a small form designed to give the station enquiry officer all the information he/she requires to be able to accept your documents when you produce them for a police officer. You would be issued with one of these if you do not have your driving documents in your possession when required to produce them for an officer. You then have 7 days from midnight on the day of issue to produce them at any police station of your choice. This could be anywhere in mainland Britain. The form contains information on the make, type and registration number of your vehicle; your name and address; your date of birth; the location of the incident at which you were required to produce your documents; the reason for the production; whether you were accompanied in the vehicle; whether you were being supervised by a full licence holder; if you were displaying L-plates; if the vehicle is manual or automatic; the station at which you elect to produce your documents and the details of the officer making the requirement to produce.

A Vehicle Defect Rectification (scheme) Form (VDRS form) is often a carbon copy of the HO/RT1 form and is issued if you have committed an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations. These are offences in relation to the general condition of the vehicle, such as defective tyres, lights, number plates, windscreen wipers and dangerous parts etc. The form contains details of the offence and when issued with one of these you should rectify the defect to your vehicle as soon as possible and then ensure that the vehicle is taken to any M.O.T. testing station where the M.O.T. tester will check that the defect has been rectified. He\she will then stamp the form accordingly and it should be sent to the station at which the officer has noted at the bottom of the form within 14 days. You do not have 14 days to rectify the defect. If you continue to use the vehicle in a defective condition, you commit a further offence. The 14 days relates only to the form being stamped and then sent in.

Another way to deal with it would be a non-endorseable fixed penalty notice which is issued in respect of minor traffic offences which do not carry penalty points. The fine is currently fixed at £30 which must be paid within 28 days. If it is not, then the fine automatically increases to £45 and if that's not paid then a summons is issued. Offences covered by this include seat belt offences, parking offences, many Construction and Use offences etc. The fine can be paid by cheque or postal order to an address written in red on the bottom of the form or can be paid over the telephone by using a credit card.

Yet another way would be Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice this is very similar in procedure to the non-endorseable notice but is issued in respect of offences which do carry penalty points such as speeding, dangerous parts etc. The fine is currently £60 and, if not paid, this increases to £90 before a summons is then issued. The rest of the procedure is the same with the added provision for the surrender of your driving licence for the penalty points to be endorsed upon it. This notice has a box included for the details of your driving licence and is filled out by the officer at the scene if you choose to surrender your licence there, or at the police station if you choose to produce it within 7 days. Your licence is then sent away and, while your licence is away, the notice acts as an official driving licence. If you wish to hire a vehicle, or if you need to produce your licence for a police officer, then this notice is what you produce. Your licence should be returned to you within about 3 /4 weeks but you should allow up to 3 months in case of delays.

And finaly if you were realy realy unlucky or got the bobby from hell

A Notice of intended prosecution is a warning that should be given by the police following the commission of a number of offences, such as speeding and driving without due care and attention (but only when no accident has resulted from this latter charge or if the driver would be unlikely to know that an accident had occurred) and is intended to let a driver know that he has either been photographed committing one of these offences or that a complaint has been made so that he can refresh his memory of the incident. The warning can be given in either a verbal manner at the time of the incident, such as when you get stopped for speeding by a patrol officer, or within 14 days of the incident by post. This would be done in cases of GATSO speed detection or when a complaint is made by another motorist, for instance, of your manner of driving. This form must be issued within 14 days to the registered owner of the vehicle. It does not have to reach that person within 14 days and the recipient does not need to have been the driver at the time.

All of the above are possible, but very, very unlikely.

As i said in a previous post it's down to the individuals view at the time.

Has anyone with a leaper been stopped by the police, gone to court and been told the leaper is a danger and must be removed ??? I think not.

 

Does anyone know the real reason Jaguar chose not to equip UK market S-types with leapers? I don't buy the 'they might get nicked' story.

 

Could be cost. A badge is cheaper than a spring-loaded leaper and faster to fit. Or CBA (can't be @rsed) to figure out the regs. You can be almost certain they won't say.

Lots of things on the S-Type were cost-reduced when it was first introduced. A fair few were redesigned (2002.5MY) to make the car worthwhile - such as the suspension. I bet the badge for the UK wasn't given much thought.

 

I don't think it could be cost as the US models were shipping with the leaper, so the emblems still had to be produced and there had to be a cost element involved on the line at leaper/badge installation time.
Where the leapers offered as an option in the UK?

 

No idea.

Are the US ones spring-loaded? If not, they'd have had to retool for the UK one which would at least have to be.

 

i think jaguar might have just been worried about a lawsuit in the uk

 

Yes, they're spring loaded in Canada as well as the US.

Possibly- but why not here in the colonies as well?

 

Maybe they got feedback from dealers and customers along the lines of "can you fit a badge cos the leaper keeps getting torn off". I don't think we'll guess their reasons or if we do we won't know we have.

A lawsuit, in the UK? You're kidding. We're not litigious like some places. We don't sue, we moan. (Not quite true, but nearly.) It's horrifically expensive to sue, it's hard to find grounds to do so and it's hard to win. Who'd fund it?

 

From one engineer to another, I appreciate the novelty in this idea, but it has serious ramifications.

First of all there are a million exceptions.

What if I'm in the train / taxi / limo / bus and am not driving but am in a moving conveyance?

What if I'm a passenger? I have so much going on that I often let other people drive me around so I can return phone calls and tend to business when traveling from point A to point B.

Second of all. Are we REALLY at the point in society where we have to stoop to the lowest common denominator and try not only to legislate against stupidity, BUT electronically block it.

I've had a cell phone since the mid 90's. My first one wasn't even a cell phone, it was installed in the car. Until these hands free laws went into effect, I NEVER had a hands free device of any sort. I drove around on the phone just like everyone else did / does. I understand that it can be a distraction but so can coffee / smoking / eating / arguing with your wife / child? What's next are we going to ban drive thru food chains because someone might eat their food or drink their coffee in motion? Are we going to ban passengers because someone may get involved in a conversation with them and get distracted?

I kind of agree with the secondary offense theory (the way it used to be here in the People's Republic of NJ), where if you got stopped for a traffic violation OR were involved in an accident, if you were on the phone at the time you got an additional ticket. Now if you touch the phone the wrong way, you can get pulled over. Why punish people who are capable of multitasking because some simply arent? Especially with this texting law BS. I got pulled over for reading my blackberry at a red light with the car not in motion. Didn't get a ticket but the cop waited for me to proceed, pulled in behind me and pulled me over. He was adamant that I was texting. It was only after I showed him my messages and the last one had been sent over an hour ago that he backed off....

Take care,

George

 

Another One... Captured this on my recent visit to New York.

Thanks,
Rizwan