Have you been caught with a full power bike? [Archive] - SV650.org

EssexDave

14-03-13, 01:09 AM

To be fair, you have to be doing over 110mph on a restricted pointy to show that you're not restricted (at least mine would do 110 on the clock with 33bhp ECU in).

Now, if you're caught at that speed, not being restricted is probably the least of your worries.

I had a VFR400 (60hp) after the SV and that 'was restricted officer' - if you get my meaning.

There is no real way to tell except for dyno test.

NTECUK

14-03-13, 10:58 AM

Thing is your driving a vechle without a licence entilement.
Be like driving a car on a bike licence
So Your out for a hidding to nothing if you get caught.
6 points, so you'll lose your license. Get fined, bike impounded have to pay huge fees to get it back, and then an extended re-test.

Mako

14-03-13, 11:10 AM

I imagine the biggest worry would be if you were involved in a collision. If it gets picked up on that the bike isn't restricted, you're driving "otherwise than in accordance with a licence" and your insurance may use this to seek recompense for your third party liability through civil proceedings.

savage86

14-03-13, 12:02 PM

I've heard that its hard for the police to tell as they aren't normally willing to spend the cash to find out if it's restricted unless its been involved in a serious rtc.

timwilky

14-03-13, 12:14 PM

No No No people.

The problem is the police do not have to prove anything. The onus is on the rider to prove it is restricted. Guilty until proven innocent. Traffic law is out of kilter with common law.

As for testing, nobody knows exactly what the test is, it has not been legally defined. Amongst a few of us we would guess that the European type approval procedures would probably be the model. however, there are very few dynos in the UK capable of conducting a test in accordance with this procedure. So your run of the mill shop dyno may give an approximation sufficient to show attempts have been made to restrict the power of an engine. It would not stand up to expert scrutiny in a proper court. Unfortunately most cases seem to have been settled in front of the magistrate and I can find no case law that properly examines what constitutes evidential testing of an engines power.

ChrisCurvyS

14-03-13, 12:31 PM

In response to the OP's question - for what it's worth, I used to be a reporter and sat through endless days of court sessions. Saw loads of bikers being done for speeding, no insurance, dd etc but never came across anyone being done for riding a full power bike on a restricted licence. Don't know anyone who's been done for it either and never heard of the police taking an interest in the issue after pulling someone young-looking on a bike over.

It's surely one of those areas of the law which is so complicated and hassle-inducing for the police, it's rarely actively enforced. Even more so with the new EU power-to-weight rules - can you see the cops going roung weighing bikes then putting them on a dyno? And trying to decide whether or not to take fuel and fluids into account for the bhp/tonne formula?!

Wideboy

14-03-13, 12:34 PM

I had an accident which the police attended when I was 33bhp. I was asked to provide proof of restriction and quized about it more so than having insurance or being breathalysed ect.

EssexDave

14-03-13, 02:06 PM

I did actually once get stopped in a group and asked for my license (which still shows the restriction on the back) but as we all know it expires after 2 years.

Mr Police Man asks me if my bike is restricted.

I say no.

Mr Police Man says, well it should be.

After a bit of educating,I ask whether he wants to phone the DVLA and find out the correct licensing rules.

He doesn't say anything, and leaves.

So, to conclude this little story; he clearly thought I was driving an unrestricted bike when it should have been restricted.

Either (a) he realised he was wrong and tried to skate over it, or (b) he just thought it's so not worth it.

granty92

14-03-13, 03:17 PM

i have had to prove it was restricted before so i showed the certificate and they were happy with that, but also my mate was on a restricted license and lost his license for speeading twice and they still didnt ask if his was restricted or not

Captain Nemo

14-03-13, 04:59 PM

its not the police you have to worry so much about, although riding like a **** may cause undue attention and hassle enough for them to make you prove its restricted, otherwise all they know is that bike should be 70nhp or whatever and unless you can prove its restricted theyll chew you.

your bigger problem is if you have an accident and the bike goes away from you, you can more or less guarantee that if your insurance company needs to inspect it, theyll look for proof its been neutered, if none available, as Tim says, likely as theyll pursue you for 3rd party costs, and good luck getting reinsured.

why take the risk, just wait out the time, use it as a chance to learn how to ride without worrying about the bike slamming you through a hedge., if you want to ride fast and cant ride a 33bhp sv fast, the extra horsepower isnt going to help.

Bluepete

14-03-13, 05:03 PM

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/3c0c45ed0f18d855f90fde550387d80c_zpsccd50fce.jpg

Tomor

14-03-13, 06:45 PM

Haha, I think Pete has summed it up ;)

Fordward

14-03-13, 07:24 PM

No No No people.

The problem is the police do not have to prove anything. The onus is on the rider to prove it is restricted. Guilty until proven innocent. Traffic law is out of kilter with common law

sorry, but this is not correct

there is an onus on the rider to provide proof of restriction for their insurance company or for the police if asked to do so, but not being able to do so doesn't automatically make you guilty of driving without the correct license

if you can't provide this proof and the police suspect your bike isn't restricted they may report you for driving otherwise in accordance with a license under section 87 of the road traffic act, and the CPS or sheriff court may prosecute you

as soon as you get to this stage it is up to the police to provide evidence that the bike is not restricted, but you are innocent until proven guilty as per usual

you cant be convicted of any offence in the UK without evidence, unless you accept a fixed penalty which is in effect a way of accepting that there is evidence against you and pleading guilty out of court, there is always a way to request evidence be presented in court if you believe you are not guilty

Elliott

14-03-13, 08:54 PM

rb8989

14-03-13, 09:40 PM

Knew one guy who did get caught, known ten times more riders that have got away with it.

Bit like riding without a valid cbt. Most L platers I know have a long expired certificate but it's not something that is checked often.

Fordward

14-03-13, 10:28 PM

Ive had two offs back when I needed to be restricted and on both occasions was very nearly prosecuted.

In the first instance (it was restricted) and the inspection showed it wasn't. Police got it between there teeth and tried to pursue it. However I was able to prove that it was. Couldnt dyno due to the amount of damage.

In the second time (with a pointy, again restricted) they told me it wasnt restricted as the ECU part number was that of a "full power" model. Again the same thing happened until I was able to show proof that it in actual fact had the washer version.

Lesson, dont mess about as come crash time you are going to get found out.

the police will put the frighteners on you a make you try to provide evidence that it is restricted, 'we will prosecute you if you don't prove it', but its talk, nothing more, and its done that way because talk is all they have in this instance until they can stick your bike on a dyno.

If you know the bike is restricted you could just sit back and say 'if you suspect I've committed an offence and you think you can prove it in court, then please go ahead and charge me'

it has to be dealt with by the courts, the police cant convict you, they can only charge you with a suspected offence and present evidence to the court

in a court it has to be to proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, its the basis of our justice system

if the evidence is questionable or weak it'll never get to court as the CPS have to believe.they have at least a 50/50 chance of conviction for it to get there

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

chris8886

14-03-13, 10:59 PM

why take the risk, just wait out the time, use it as a chance to learn how to ride without worrying about the bike slamming you through a hedge., if you want to ride fast and cant ride a 33bhp sv fast, the extra horsepower isnt going to help.

and i think the sv is one of the best bikes on the market to restrict cos of all the power being so low down in the rev range cos it's a v twin. i only really noticed a major difference in the power at top of the rev range when i got mine de-restricted.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/3c0c45ed0f18d855f90fde550387d80c_zpsccd50fce.jpgLO L!

embee

15-03-13, 05:20 PM

Just a 2p's worth adding to Timwilkys post. We had a lengthy discussion on the issue of testing when the lad had his bike impounded a couple of years back.

Manufacturers of vehicles have to have the engine power "witness tested" for type approval, and it has to be done very strictly to the rules. The rules are complex, but in essence it requires a steady state reading for a start, which rules out any form of inertia dyno such as most (or all?) bikeshop type machines. It also isn't done at the wheel, and measurements and conditions have to be according to the procedure, air temperature measurements within 150mm of the intake, a known reference fuel (not pump fuel), everything must have valid calibration certificates, the reading must not vary by more than a given percentage during the test etc etc.

The bottom line is that very few places could actually do it (places like MIRA for example), and it would cost a fortune even if it was technically possible with a production bike engine (power measured at the crank, how without modifying it?). It's not on.

I suspect as others say it would in reality come down to whether you could convince a magistrate that the bike is probably restricted to somewhere near the required value, it couldn't be proved in the strict sense of the word.

Fordward

15-03-13, 05:49 PM

@embee

spot on

inaccuracies of the dyno are relevant if a bike dyno's at 34-40 bhp and the police try to prosecute you for being over 33bhp, but if they dyno it at 70bhp which would be normal full power for an SV650, you obviously won't convince a magistrate it's restricted, or that you made any attempt to have it restricted

if a bike was slightly over the limit then it'd be down to the defence lawyer to highlight the inaccuracies of the test procedure, all he has to do is convince the CPS prosecutor before the court case that he has less than 50% chance of winning so he doesn't run the case, or introduce reasonable doubt about the bikes true BHP into the magistrates mind if he does

if anyone ends up in this situation ALWAYS use a specialist motoring lawyer, preferably one who knows the CPS prosecutors in the area you are being prosecuted, and furnish that lawyer with the contents of embee's post above and insist they include it in your defence (they work for you)

EssexDave

15-03-13, 06:10 PM

To be fair, as had been said, on the SV there is no reason not to as it's still plenty quick enough restricted.

Bordtea

16-03-13, 04:11 PM

Yeh I think the general consensus is 99% of the time you'll be fine as long as you don't have a crash, however the big if is if you do have a relatively serious accident, you are buggered.

madmanRAB

25-03-13, 12:28 AM

I can't add anything to the OP that's not already been said by others but i am a fellow 33bhp rider. Although it comes down to the individual rider i have had no problems at all with the power available to me. Personally i wouldn't take the chance to de-restrict it (washers and throttle stop no ecu) but i know that won't be to everyones liking. I see it as a chance to learn a bigger bike from the old 125cc, and i have so many years ahead of more powerful bikes that there is no need to rush it.

Richie

25-03-13, 02:03 AM

Time and the Law wait for all men... Amen.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/3c0c45ed0f18d855f90fde550387d80c_zpsccd50fce.jpg

just be legal and don't invalidate your insurance and other peoples lives :0)

yorkie_chris

25-03-13, 09:32 AM

there is an onus on the rider to provide proof of restriction for their insurance company or for the police if asked to do so, but not being able to do so doesn't automatically make you guilty of driving without the correct license

if you can't provide this proof and the police suspect your bike isn't restricted they may report you for driving otherwise in accordance with a license under section 87 of the road traffic act, and the CPS or sheriff court may prosecute you

My analysis of the risk when I was restricted distilled down to "they can try it, I'll happily argue that in court"

Go find me the legislation that requires proof.

Insurance contracts are different, they can state whatever terms they want and it's up to you whether you abide by them or go elsewhere.
My own view on it was every insurance I took out I asked them to confirm, in writing, that they did NOT require a 33bhp certificate just that it was actually 33bhp.

The bottom line is that very few places could actually do it (places like MIRA for example), and it would cost a fortune even if it was technically possible with a production bike engine (power measured at the crank, how without modifying it?). It's not on.

I suspect as others say it would in reality come down to whether you could convince a magistrate that the bike is probably restricted to somewhere near the required value, it couldn't be proved in the strict sense of the word.

The dvla website (and presumably legislation) states net power output, which to my interpretation means to include all transmission losses.

If they tried to say otherwise (like by using a dynojet "rough guess of crank output") in court I reckon you'd tear it to pieces in minutes if it was anywhere near the correct output.

Fordward

25-03-13, 10:19 AM

Go find me the legislation that requires proof

there isn't any, you are not required by law to provide it, but that won't stop the police putting the onus on you to provide it

maybe you missed this bit?

the police will put the frighteners on you a make you try to provide evidence that it is restricted, 'we will prosecute you if you don't prove it', but its talk, nothing more, and its done that way because talk is all they have in this instance until they can stick your bike on a dyno.

If you know the bike is restricted you could just sit back and say 'if you suspect I've committed an offence and you think you can prove it in court, then please go ahead and charge me

yorkie_chris

25-03-13, 10:44 AM

there isn't any, you are not required by law to provide it, but that won't stop the police putting the onus on you to provide it

maybe you missed this bit?

It depends on your definition of "the onus", legally no, just to worry you a bit. I'm not sure what the point would be for anything like that from their point of view. Maybe if they've got a bee in their bonnet and no understanding of the truth of the matter.

I'm not sure what happened in the case of the guy on here, it was never really brought to a close. The risk is the thieving scum at the impound yard. I don't really know what recourse there is for impound fees when your vehicle has been seized but no offence has been committed.

Regarding second bit you quoted, yes, you're right as far as I know.
I was arguing with your use of "the onus" which is a duty or responsibility and you have contradicted yourself on this point.

Fordward

25-03-13, 10:53 AM

sorry, I didn't look up the definition of 'onus' before using it, substitute it for whatever word you are happy with

Dicky Ticker

25-03-13, 11:41 AM

So in theory you can ride any bike if you just say it is restricted ?:rolleyes:

Fordward

25-03-13, 12:15 PM

So in theory you can ride any bike if you just say it is restricted ?

no, you would be driving otherwise in accordance with a license under section 87 of the road traffic act

yorkie_chris

25-03-13, 12:16 PM

So in theory you can ride any bike if you just say it is restricted ?

I dunno what that theory would be based on.

Imagine in court them trying to argue that your bike, with some effort to restrict it (washers, ECU, whatever), tested on any random dyno in the land at 33.1bhp was you outside your licence conditions... I suggest it would not get to court or it would not result in a conviction.

On the other hand if your (100hp sports 600 or whatever) tested at near as damnit the expected power from factory (on whatever dyno) and no efforts to restrict it could be found then you would quite rightly get convicted.

It's the difference between being in a fuzzy grey area and so far outside the fuzzy bit and so far into the red that you can taste beetroot.

Now I may be proved wrong here by some brief coming forward to say they've successfully defended the second case and some coppers coming forward to say they successfully prosecute 10 people a week with the first case... but that's how I see it and I'd be really interested to see any case law that may have been formed on it.

Fordward

25-03-13, 12:28 PM

this is really simple IMO

to be convicted it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence

if a bike dyno's at 34 bhp, doubt over the accuracy of that dyno result is reasonable

Captain Nemo

25-03-13, 12:46 PM

bit of a derail but jesus

yorkie_chris (http://forums.sv650.org/member.php?u=6124)
Noisy Git
Mega Poster

http://forums.sv650.org/image.php?u=6124&dateline=1303338352 (http://forums.sv650.org/member.php?u=6124)

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax/Leeds
Posts: 25,229

25000 + posts, how, just how

madmanRAB

25-03-13, 04:27 PM

So in theory you can ride any bike if you just say it is restricted ?

In theory yes you can just lie and say a bike is restricted when it's not. Obviously this is illegal and not advisable etc but it is possible to answer your question.

When i got insured for my bike a few months back i did NOT have to prove it was restricted but the insurance company did have in writing within the contract i signed that i had to have the correct license for my bike. They see it as the riders responsibility not theirs to fully investigate if you do or do not have the bike restricted before they provide insurance. There wasn't even a price difference for me between the full power and restricted, it's something i was expecting to get a discount on but apparently not.

On the downside of lying, if you have a crash, get caught speeding etc then you are pretty much screwed and expect a loss of license just for starters. That's whats being discussed alot within this thread but assuming you don't have a crash or do reckless driving to get pulled over by the police then you can get away with it and I'm sure many people have over the years.

disco2

25-03-13, 05:01 PM

I don't see why even if you where pulled for speeding the rozzas would bother going to the hassle of testing the bike as said on this forum many times peeps get 100mph out of a restricted sv so surely you would have to be going some for them to bother, in this case chances are you would loose your licence anyway.

BoltonSte

25-03-13, 07:39 PM

So in theory you can ride any bike if you just say it is restricted ?:rolleyes:

But isn't that changing witht he new tests now anyway? I thought (and cba to check) that you can only restrict up to a certain % of the bikes orignal power, so you couldn't get away with riding a busa and restricting it (or saying it is when stopped)