I found the following report in the Times Digital Archive, to which I have access online via my library membership (many of you may have this facility available to you) and would like to know more about this particular law. Haven't manage to dig it up anywhere else. What were the details? How did you 'secure' a car? Quite a hefty fine! Anybody know more about this? cheers, Helen The Times, August 21st, 1940. After a day's remand in custody LESLIE RAIMENT, 32, described as a Government contractor, of Inverness Mews, Paddington, was fined £50 by Mr. McKenna at Bow Street Police Court yesterday for having, during daylight, failed to secure a motor-car at Moxon Street, W., so as to render it while unattended incapable of use by unauthorised persons. He pleaded "Guilty". Mr. McKenna said he had remanded Raiment in custody to consider whether he could adequately protect the public by imposing a fine. If he found himself in this position again he would get something like a month's imprisonment.
Hello Helen make sure it is locked and the key is safe and removing starter handle if applicable removing the rotor arm in the distributor making the car not start Distributor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia regards Clive
Hi Helen - A few years ago I came into possession of a few old motoring magazines that belonged to my dad when he was but a callow youth in the late 1940s... And dating as they did from an era of petrol rationing they were filled with articles about preventing fuel theft/syphoning, and how to add brackets etc. for door locks! This was also an era of coachbuilt car bodies when door locks and locking petrol caps were very very uncommon....and if available/listed at all for a particular model by the manufacturer when new - had to be PAID for as an optional extra! :p Even as late as the 1960s motorcycle manufacturers kept up this "tradition" by making you pay more for a sidestand etc.! I'm not sure what authority a policeman actually had to lift one's bonnet/hood to check if the rotor arm was stil in the distributor...but an unsecured drivers' door or petrol cap were more than obvious I would note the date... The Times, August 21st, 1940. After a day's remand in custody LESLIE RAIMENT, 32, described as a Government contractor, of Inverness Mews, Paddington, was fined £50 by Mr. McKenna at Bow Street Police Court yesterday for having, during daylight, failed to secure a motor-car at Moxon Street, W., so as to render it while unattended incapable of use by unauthorised persons. He pleaded "Guilty". Mr. McKenna said he had remanded Raiment in custody to consider whether he could adequately protect the public by imposing a fine. If he found himself in this position again he would get something like a month's imprisonment. ...and the size of the penalty!!! This was of course at the height of the "Invasion scare" period of 1940, when the authorities...and everyone else!...was paranoid about parachutists falling from the sky and making off with any available transport But whereas I'm sure the law was strictly applied in Kent and Sussex for a time I find it a bit odd to be just so strict in London... It's worth taking a look at Peter Fleming's Operation Sealion to put this in context; some quite hefty penalties were handed out in the summer of 1940 to act as deterrents for others...on some quite trivial offences - or rather, what would look trivial to us today.
I've seen the adverts for fuel cap locks. I'd like to see the wording of the regulation. Was everyone required to remove the distributor cap (or equivalent) every time they parked the car? Or was that an alternative to having locking doors? So it would be one or the other? And why does the article mention that it was in 'daylight hours' - how did the regulations differ at night time? Anyone know where I can find the chapter and verse?
I'm not sure why they thought the design of this near-illegible website was so good, but there's a relevant paragraph or two here: Welcome - Suffolk Anti-invasion defences I think these regulations were introduced shortly after Dunkirk during the invasion scare. All unattended motor vehicles were supposed to be immobilised in order that they could not be used by the enemy: removing the distributor cap was the normal recommended method. Mr Raiment's case does seem extreme, so I can only assume that his was a particularly blatant offence: Moxon St seems rather narrow, so perhaps it was also illegally or obstructively parked? The regulations would have been published in the motoring magazines of the time, of course. But it's difficult to lay your hands on those these days - there are very few archive copies left! As you're in Reading, the nearest easily accessible ones would be at the Library of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London, who are very nice people!
Hello Helen make sure it is locked and the key is safe and removing starter handle if applicable removing the rotor arm in the distributor making the car not start Distributor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia regards Clive I wonder if this was routinely done at Dunkirk. At the least it would have inconvenienced the Germans and depleted their supply of British spare rotors, if they had any. And if they didn't have spares, they can't drive a truck without a rotor. I imagine it was done if they had time.
Dave, there are various differing accounts of what was done; some engines had their sump plugs pulled and run 'til they seized....some had their crankcases smashed. There were regulations...wuite long and detailed ones IIRC!...stating what should be done, in detail, when immobilising service vehicles - but one party's account I read ages ago now said that they were in such a hurry that indeed all they did was pull the rotor arms and throw them away... If I was a smart German officer, having seen that I'd just have my landsers form a line and walk them slowly across the field, eyes down! :p
In July 1941, there was a DME circular instructing the installation of an immobiliser on all WD motorcycles. This was simply a device with a removable section fitted into the HT (spark plug) lead. Single cylinder engines don't have a rotor arm, nor any other part of the ignition system that could be easily removed without tools. Prior to this, motorcycles are often seen with padlock and chain wrapped around the rear carrier but the engines could still be started. Nowadays, thieves are unlikely to ride away on an old motorcycle, they'll have transport waiting and the average modern thief wouldn't be able to start a machine of this era anyway. Simply leave it on 'full advance' and wait for the kick-back.
I'm not sure what authority a policeman actually had to lift one's bonnet/hood to check if the rotor arm was stil in the distributor...but an unsecured drivers' door or petrol cap were more than obvious :wink: It appears to have become one of a beat officer's tasks. Note the summary punishment! British Pathé, July 11th 1940: CARELESS MOTORISTS BEWARE! - British Pathé
Fantastic link, Vitesse - thanks! I'm not getting any less confused, mind you. In this case the officer just 'sabotages' the car, in the Times example, he was fined £50. Perhaps the severity of this crime varied according to the period of the war, and possibly the region. Shall have to find the hard facts somewhere - perhaps the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, as suggested.
As a Driver/Op in LAA, I was the official driver of a 15cwt Bedford Van. In Italy, if you ever had occasion to park and leave your vehicle, it was mandatory to remove the rotor arm before quitting the scene. Ron
Fantastic link, Vitesse - thanks! I'm not getting any less confused, mind you. In this case the officer just 'sabotages' the car, in the Times example, he was fined £50. Perhaps the severity of this crime varied according to the period of the war, and possibly the region. Shall have to find the hard facts somewhere - perhaps the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, as suggested. Agree. It was a fantastic link. Beautiful little car too. What kind is it?
Agree. It was a fantastic link. Beautiful little car too. What kind is it? Standard Flying Ten B) Difficult to tell, but I think all three cars in that clip are Standards: I believe Standard may have had some sort of deal with Pathé, as I've seen other "info newsreels" from the same period which use Standard cars.
As discussed,all this legislation was introduced to deny the use of transport to an enemy.Anyone having access to a vehicle had a statutory obligation to disarm the vehicle when it was not in use....penalties as laid out...£50 was an enormous penalty for an individual to pay. Don't forget that the majority of civilian vehicles were forced off the road,those authorised for private use received a meagre petrol ration. The majority authorised to use motor vehicles were those such as doctors and those involved in other essential support services.I remember the preparations for the Suez emergency in 1956,those deemed to be involved in essential services received petrol coupons,those who did not qualify, received none....in the end the scheme was not commissioned,Ike told us to go home. The authorities regarded the British Isles as under siege and took the appropriate measures....the utmost vigilance was asked for in reporting anybody who could be a spy. There was a large power station about 5 miles away from us but it was only observable by walking through a very large wood.On one particular day,our neighbour's grandfather paid them a visit from Leeds and while walking through the wood with his grandchildren saw the power station but being a relative stranger, asked some older boys what the building was.Later that day the police paid a visit to our neighbours to enquire who this stranger was. Obviously the boys had reported the stranger to the police. In the clearing beyond the wood, the military authorities established a searchlight and ack ack battery to protect the power station.....the searchlight panning the skies was a feature I remember in the night sky.
From instructions to the troops of 134th Brigade in Sussex, dated 31 May 1940: "8. Immobilisation of motor cars. Clear instructions have been broadcast by the B.B.C. The L.D.V. are required to assist police in checking up on these instructions to see that they have been complied with, especially in the villages and rural areas. The sub-area Comd. approves "dummy" seizure of cars not immobile - with police co-operation - to drive home the lesson to car owners."
Note that the charge "is failing to secure a motor".The military authorities through legislation did not approve any method of disabling a car,it was left to the user/ owner responsibility to disable the vehicle using any metod they preferred,providing it was effective. This might be the removal of the rotor arm which appeared to be the preferred method for the short term disabling between regular use. The legislation also applied to laid up vechiles and there must have been many.I am sure, that a number of these vehicles as appropriate, would have requisiioned by the appropriate ministry.No doubt vechiles of no use to the government and laid up,might have their fuel tank lines disconected, wheels removed for the duraton, engine oil drained and battery removed as the case might be.While owners who were able to do so, would rely on the rotor arm being removed so that the engine could be turned over periodically. Digressing, the Air Ministry was known to have requisitioned light ircraft as appropriate and others which were considered to be of use to te enemy would have been disabled in storage.
Indeed; there used to be an EXCELLENT site on the web that listed ALL RAF air used during WWI and gave detailed specs and histories on them, a Dutch-hosted site...that included all commandeered civvie types, often used as station runarounds and "communication" aircraft. Sadly it died a few years back, I often used it for detailed info that wasn`t readily available elsewhere. Motorcycle owners managed to avoid the requisition in 1939-40 by dismantling motorcyles into big lumps The government was particlularly interested in Triumphs and BSAs of various sizes and coinfigurations similar to types in service. In fact they "called up" so many of Triumph`s excellent pre-war single cylinder range and sent them to France that the classic bike scene is famously short of pre-war Tiger 70/80/90s! Sadly- dismantling didn`t work great either...not across seven years! (MIGHT have worked if the war had been over by Christmas...) Parts got lost or stored separately and were never reunited and out back on the road etc..
My father had a Ford Prefect in 1940 and, equally important, a small essential users allowance of petrol to put in it! I remember he had a secret immobiliser switch somewhere under the dashboard. Enough, presumably, to meet the needs of the legislation without the hassle of rotor removal. I don't know for how long these measures had to be taken. Chris
That's interesting Chris,it brings back memories of a collegue of mine who purchased a new Austin Cambridge in 1965 before the event of immobilisers.He decided to put a switch in the ignition circuit and situated it under the dashboard.. While he was at work his wife went shopping with a friend and while travelling,she said that her husband,(a highly knowledgable electrical engineer), had fitted this secret device to the car...look this,this is how it works and promply operated the switch,the car immediately lost ignition and the engine still in gear, continued to be driven from the road...she then restored the ignition at speed and initiated an explosion in the exhaust which was then blown off.....gave us all a laugh at work when he related the event to us.
