On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:55:44 +0000, Andy Burns wrote...
Post by Andy BurnsPost by Tim JacksonI read elsewhere that the car had been brought in from abroad in order
to drive it off-road on the Goodwood race track.
I can't now find the specific article I read. It's possible it may have
been padding out the present Cybertruck's woes with a more general
reference.
Post by Andy BurnsA BBC article states
"GMP said the car that was seized had been referred to Operation
Wolverine, which was established in 2007 to target drivers
without insurance. The owner will have to prove ownership and
correct insurance prior to release."
Which implies the police are treating it as a lack of insurance, rather
than an illegal vehicle? Maybe insurance is easiest to approve,and if
they somehow get it covered, they'd quickly find getting pulled again on
e.g. C&U legislation?
Yes, I get the impression that the insurance angle is the easiest one
for the police to pursue. However, it may be all they need, as I doubt
it's possible to get valid insurance for a vehicle that fails C&U?
See https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ar-AA1xmSBz
<quote>
A statement posted on Bury Police’s Facebook page said: "Legitimate
concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if
they were involved in a collision with a Cybertruck."
It added that the Tesla "does not hold a certificate of conformity".
As a result, the Cybertruck was seized under S165 of the Road Traffic
Act, which gives police the ability to seize vehicles driven without a
licence or insurance. The driver was also reported.
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)