View Full Version : Visors! BEWARE!
After my little ding, the police returned my helmet to my parents minus the visor.
My helmet was a Takai Terror with a slightly smoked visor which had both an E stamp, and "For day use only" stampped on the side. As the accident happened at 9:30ish in the morning, I was abiding by the statement on the helmet.
Anyway, the police removed the visor as it was deemed to be illegal and be too dark for the road, even though it had both these stamps. As a result I have warned Hein Gericke to check it out (where I bought mine from).
SO a word of warning to those who have tinted visors, you may just want to confirm with an independant party that your visors are legal, because depending on what mood the rozzers are in, if you are wearing on of these and you have an accident, they may hold you liable simply because of this, even though you helmet states different.
...and you have an accident, they may hold you liable simply because of this, even though you helmet states different.
They may want to (even try to) but do remember that they would need to prove that this was the contributing factor in a court of law and with a decent solictor/barrister (armed with the facts) you should be able to prove otherwise.
.
fraser01
17-10-04, 12:24 PM
On the T1 (accident report) there are boxes that you have to circle which ask the time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, light conditions even what day of the week it is....so that would stand out if you visor was indicated as a contributry factor.
Mate, I'm not sure that the police have the legal right to retain your visor - particularly if it's road legal. I'd check it out if I were you.
fraser01
17-10-04, 03:21 PM
Mate, I'm not sure that the police have the legal right to retain your visor - particularly if it's road legal. I'd check it out if I were you.
If it relates to evidence of an offence....
The visor is not contributable evidence if the visor manufacturer and its user are abiding by laws which the visor manufacturer appears to have aheared to.
The user was abiding by the manufacturers usage guidelines. If these guidelines are illegal there is a clear case for sueing the manufacturer. If not, then you can sue the police for theft of property.
I remember the police bloke gave mine a good checking over in A&E, so they do look at them if you have a smash.
The visor is not contributable evidence if the visor manufacturer and its user are abiding by laws which the visor manufacturer appears to have aheared to.
The user was abiding by the manufacturers usage guidelines. If these guidelines are illegal there is a clear case for sueing the manufacturer. If not, then you can sue the police for theft of property.
Nonsense.
.
How is it nonsense? The visor company have told him its legal to wear during the day?
I think it may be a case of ****ed up communication in standards. Rozzers use one lot, and the manufacturers use another.
From personal experience it really does depend on the mood of the cop what he deems to be legal & illegal :evil:
No it doesn't, it depends on a law. I strongly suggest you check out the relevant legislation; if the visor is illegal by law then get a solicitor and sue the manufacturer.
If not then give the old bill a call, give them the legislation to look up, and ask for your visor back.
fraser01
17-10-04, 09:40 PM
Your visor, to be deemed road legal should be fall into the British Standards 4110 category...i.e allow a minimum of 50% of the light through....I would check to see if this is the case...as if it is not BS4110 then it is not legal....
Another thing to think about is that the visor may say for day time use, but that means ideal weather conditions, not heavily overcast or peeing it down with rain, or other such poor conditions......
some more fat to chew on...
Regards
fraser01
17-10-04, 09:47 PM
If not, then you can sue the police for theft of property.
hmm, I would like to see that... :P
Quote:
"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"
Make that fit Andrew..... :roll:
:lol:
How is it nonsense? The visor company have told him its legal to wear during the day?
My point (maybe a little too brief :lol: ) was that the police can seize anything they wish if they consider it evidence. You only get your say once you're in court.
.
"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"
Not sure where you got that quote from, but if someone nicks my bike for three months with the intention of returning it, I'd class that as theft too. ;)
Good work on the BS standards. Sincs, phone the manufacturer up and ask if it meets BS4110. If so, phone the police up and ask why they are holding your visor.
Don't let them make up there own laws as they like to do (no offence frazer), and don't take the rap for an accident that isn't your fault.
fraser01
17-10-04, 10:43 PM
"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"
Not sure where you got that quote from, but if someone nicks my bike for three months with the intention of returning it, I'd class that as theft too. ;)
Good work on the BS standards. Sincs, phone the manufacturer up and ask if it meets BS4110. If so, phone the police up and ask why they are holding your visor.
Don't let them make up there own laws as they like to do (no offence frazer), and don't take the rap for an accident that isn't your fault.
Andrew,
That quote is the definition of theft....as stated by law...and Andrew..we do not make up our own law we are governed by guidelines (such as P.A.C.E 1984). I do not take offence to this as it is completely ridiculous, it would never make it past CPS...let alone the section Sgt..
Andrew i know your heart is most likely in the right place and you have good intentions, but please...your like a rabbit on heat, I am sure Sincs is more than capable of fighting his own battles, please don't start talking verbal garbage about criminal law when you do not have a thorough understanding of it...thankyou. :wink:
:D
I know it's going way off line.............oh go on then! :wink:
I never did get that TWOC thing, taking without the owners consent. What ****head (you fill in the blanks) thought that one up, and why doesn't it apply to the five grand I pinched from the Post Office (oops!.....er, allegedly that is 8-[ ).
What difference (morally at least) does it make whether I intended to "eventually" return it, whatever the legal definition of "permanently" might be? (end of the universe?)
It probably dates back hundreds of years and applies to horse rustling or similar.
No, I don't really want the real answer, just a rhetorical rant.
I remember making a statement when some pond-life pinched a car of mine (well, company car anyway) about 15 years ago, at 3 o'clock in the morning, and used it in a ram-raid on a clothes shop. The copper asked me if I'd given them my consent (yeah, I know, they are required to ask, but perleeease.................. :roll: ).
.......anyway, back to the mutual abuse, seconds away, round 3, "ding" :wink:
Oh, and the responsibility thing, basically you are responsible for your actions, "he told me to do it" isn't a defence, nor is "they said it was legal". Just wish this government didn't keep making up a gazillion new laws every year that were all supposed to know about, but that's what comes from having so many politicians who used to be lawyers and wish they still were.
Think that about covers most rant topics for now. [-(
\:D/
..............................
Tact is the art of making your guests feel at home when you wish they were.
"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"
Not sure where you got that quote from, but if someone nicks my bike for three months with the intention of returning it, I'd class that as theft too. ;)
Good work on the BS standards. Sincs, phone the manufacturer up and ask if it meets BS4110. If so, phone the police up and ask why they are holding your visor.
Don't let them make up there own laws as they like to do (no offence frazer), and don't take the rap for an accident that isn't your fault.
Andrew,
That quote is the definition of theft....as stated by law...and Andrew..we do not make up our own law we are governed by guidelines (such as P.A.C.E 1984). I do not take offence to this as it is completely ridiculous, it would never make it past CPS...let alone the section Sgt..
Andrew i know your heart is most likely in the right place and you have good intentions, but please...your like a rabbit on heat, I am sure Sincs is more than capable of fighting his own battles, please don't start talking verbal garbage about criminal law when you do not have a thorough understanding of it...thankyou. :wink:
:D
<rant> There are many coppers that make up their own small laws, the type of self-laws that don't go through court. I've respect for the majority but with some the power clearly goes to the head.</rant>.
I don't confess to know much about law, only I am a well-educated law abiding citizen where my views of honesty and integrity nearly always match that of decency, which is law.
In this case, if the visor was BS approved then the police can surely have no reason hold it under a law the visor does not break, but frazer01 correct me if wrong.
The 1968 Theft Act is due for renewal. I'm off to nick a new R1 for a four year period after which I intend to return it. Just another legal loophole!
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml
Hey, further to Andrew's link there, in section 12(4) regarding "Taking of motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority", I'd interpret para (4) as meaning that the alleged miscreant ought to be charged with theft, and the jury should determine if it wasn't theft and should be "taking without consent of the owner".
Hmm, glad I'm not a lawyer, I could get really boring (what was that at the back?) :-# .
Damn, I said I didn't want to know the real answer. #-o
As someone charged with enforcing criminal law, I feel qualified to comment.
We are allowed to retain items pertinent to our investigations if we believe an offence has been committed. I suspect that this is the case here.
Just a thought................could it be that the policement who retained Sincs' visor has done so with a view to demonstrating to the Court that it wasn't a factor in in the accident - something that could work in Sincs' favour? After all, we do not know what the car drivers solicitors are claiming.
All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive? ](*,)
And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen :lol: This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.
Jelster
18-10-04, 08:01 AM
I think the point that is trying to be made here is 2 fold.
1) If the authorities (in this case the police) feel that an item is evidence to in an accident or criminal event then they have the power to seize such an item, although I think they have to give you some kind of reciept.
2) Although the visor in itself is not illeagal, its use during the current weather conditions may be seen as wreckless or dangerous as it was not suitable. In which case they can nick you. (Like wearing sunglasses at night when driving - Sunglases are not illeagal, using them in the dark whilst driving is...)
I can work that out and to many I guess I would be "generally educated"... No mater how much education you have you can still have a lack of common sense. I know as I have to train Graduates on a regular basis :lol:
.
fraser01
18-10-04, 08:11 AM
Andrew,
I am not questioning your integrity or your honesty or indeed whether you’re a law-abiding citizen. I work within a legal framework, I have never ‘made up my own law’ nor do I know anyone else who has done so. As for the theft act, it has been amended on a number of occasions…let other people worry about that, I am not going to try and explain the definition of theft as it would be a waste of my time.
You seem to missing the point with regards to the accident and seem only focused on the visor. Lets get this straight; it does not matter whether the visor is legal or illegal. When the accident occurred a crash investigator would have taken over the investigation and would have collated every bit of data, from weather conditions, to position of the bike, skid marks, injuries caused, debris (to mention but a few). He would then assess all this information and rule out things like mechanical failure, rider error etc, etc, etc this would include looking at the visor as a contributory factor….if he did not have the visor then he would not be able rule this out. (You must have seen CSI Miami)
fraser01
18-10-04, 08:41 AM
All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.
Very true, people seem to forget this....
And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen :lol: This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.
I decided not to mention this, or the one where he was racing those two other bikers...but we won't go there :wink:
:D
As someone charged with enforcing criminal law, I feel qualified to comment.
We are allowed to retain items pertinent to our investigations if we believe an offence has been committed. I suspect that this is the case here.
Just a thought................could it be that the policement who retained Sincs' visor has done so with a view to demonstrating to the Court that it wasn't a factor in in the accident - something that could work in Sincs' favour? After all, we do not know what the car drivers solicitors are claiming.
All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive? ](*,)
And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen :lol: This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.
It was hardly a hit and run. If the guy wants to walk into my moving bike then good luck to him, but I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or ****ed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).
All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.
Very true, people seem to forget this....
And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen :lol: This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.
I decided not to mention this, or the one where he was racing those two other bikers...but we won't go there :wink:
:D
Racing two other bikes is hardly crime of the century!! Besides which, one can know what is right and wrong and still take the wrong path if they think they can get away with it. We all do that, I'm sure frazer you do to.
If police take away items they believe could be evidence shouldn't the owner be told rather than receive part of the item back without explanation?
It was hardly a hit and run. If the guy wants to walk into my moving bike then good luck to him, but I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or p*ssed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).
Not sure that the police or a court would see things in quite the same way... anyway how do you know that he was OK. It's not a waste of time, it's the law. Can't see that being drunk or swinging a fishing rod has anything to do with it. Anyway what did you do with the few minutes it would have taken to stop & check all was OK?? Sorry Andrew but I do think you should have stopped.
Sid Squid
18-10-04, 11:15 AM
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?
:shock:
Do you seriously want an answer to this?
Wooooooooooaaaaahhhh!
I never meant for this to be a cop bashin thread, but each to their own.
Jabba, the case was NEVER going to go to court as they were not going to press charges against me (why the **** should they? It was a 50/50 accident!). The ONLY reason they didnt press charges was because of the extent of my injuries.
SCUSE ME, OLD FASHIONED GIT HERE.. WHAT HAPPENED TO A GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT? **** happens not everyone is to blame, so why always try to blame someone?
This is my complaint against the Police & justice system in general.
As for the conditions: they were dry, fairly bright and visability was excellent. The only thing they could say is that they took it because the acident happened under trees. So what, are they going to say a smoked visor is illegal if the sun goes behind a cloud, and therefore you must stop until the sun comes out again?
Sometimes the Police can be so anal, and bend the law just because they are ****ed off, and Jabba & Fraser, say what you want but this is the TRUTH! For instance, one same rozzer will book someone else for speeding one day, and the next they will let it slide. Why would this be?
Anyway, I'm off to fight for an insurance payout on a GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT, which will be next to impossible to get because someone ALWAYS HAS TO BE BLAMED!
Flamin_Squirrel
18-10-04, 12:09 PM
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?
:shock:
Do you seriously want an answer to this?
I do :shock:
wolverine04uk
18-10-04, 12:25 PM
Takai Terror...
eeep. I've got one of them. Just had a look and the visor is marked with an E3 symbol. Anyone know what that means? Also is Hein Gericke at fault for selling a helmet with a visor not stamped with the British certificate? Would they be responsible to make reparations?
Never thought to check the visor. Assumed that as it was being sold at a shop like Gericke it would be fully legal.
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?
:shock:
Do you seriously want an answer to this?
I can't believe you just posted that - well alright then I can really!
[-X :lol:
.
howardr
18-10-04, 01:52 PM
I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or p*ssed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).
... and I suppose there's ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY that he may have been disabled in some way and merely APPEARED drunk (in YOUR humble opinion) and which you deemed it was unnecessary to find out?
urrr . im not getting involved.
my tinted visor has gone away for the winter anyway (cant see me ever needing it :( )
Jabba, the case was NEVER going to go to court as they were not going to press charges against me (why the f*ck should they? It was a 50/50 accident!). The ONLY reason they didnt press charges was because of the extent of my injuries.
In that case ask for your visor back (if you want it).
Sorry - didn't mean to raise your blood pressure with the earlier post. I was only trying to put the other side of the case and pointing out a possible reason for their retaining your visor. I didn't know that there isn't going to a be a Court hearing over your accident.
Feel free to climb back out of throat any time you like :wink: :lol:
SCUSE ME, OLD FASHIONED GIT HERE.. WHAT HAPPENED TO A GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT? sh*t happens not everyone is to blame, so why always try to blame someone?
It's not a matter of placing blame. There's always a cause for an accident, even if that cause was an inadvertent mistake on the part of one/other/both/all parties or "an act of god" or something. It is the reason(s) for your accident that will have been investigated.
If you'd been in an accident where a poor road surface had been a significant contributory factor you'd want it recorded somewhere, wouldn't you?
<pompous mode off :lol: >
Anyway, I'm off to fight for an insurance payout on a GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT, which will be next to impossible to get because someone ALWAYS HAS TO BE BLAMED!
Good luck with your claim, and I hope that the recovery is going OK :thumbsup:
Wooooooooooaaaaahhhh!
I never meant for this to be a cop bashin thread, but each to their own.
Rading back a bit, it seems to have become an "andrewcharnley bashing" thread :lol:
Sorry andrew - only joking - but you should have stopped :P
I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or p*ssed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).
... and I suppose there's ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY that he may have been disabled in some way and merely APPEARED drunk (in YOUR humble opinion) and which you deemed it was unnecessary to find out?
Your damn bloody right!
fraser01
18-10-04, 03:20 PM
Missed all this today, as i have been out on the bike with the missus, another 100 miles covered....what a great day its been pottering around :D
Anyhow, the whole point of thread was to try and explain what happens in relations to accidents....but people love to chew fat..... :D
Sincs hope you get the insurance company sorted and don't have too much of a battle on your hands. If you were fully comp then it should work it self out eventually.
good luck :thumbsup:
Wooooooooooaaaaahhhh!
I never meant for this to be a cop bashin thread, but each to their own.
Rading back a bit, it seems to have become an "andrewcharnley bashing" thread :lol:
Sorry andrew - only joking - but you should have stopped :P
No need for apologies, this is good knowledge for when it happens to us.
fraser01
18-10-04, 03:40 PM
This is my complaint against the Police & justice system in general.
Sometimes the Police can be so anal, and bend the law just because they are p*ssed off, and Jabba & Fraser, say what you want but this is the TRUTH! For instance, one same rozzer will book someone else for speeding one day, and the next they will let it slide. Why would this be?
Sincs,
I believe this is called discretion, unfortunately as much as i would like i cannot deal with everything (i am only one person), i see hundreds of minor offences every day but am comitted with other stuff, there is no law bending, its just the person may have got away with it this time. lucky them. I would love to be able to deal with everything i see but at the end of the day i am only human. :shock:
I am sorry that you feel as you do, quite rightly take it out on the justice system and the laws that govern this land but please do not tar everyone with the same brush.... as i said in my previous post....good luck :wink:
fizzwheel
18-10-04, 05:38 PM
Mines not. Cant see ****e when the sun is so low in the afternoons
Having said that I havent got pulled for it yet and I always carry my clear one in a pouch under my jacket
I know that I am breaking the law by using it, but to be honest that the risk I am prepared to take. Rather than be blinded by the sun and run off the road or into another road user. Only takes a few seconds to stop a change the visor on my Shoei, so its no hassle.
I still think its nuts that its OK to wear sunglasses under a clear visor but not to wear a visor with a tint.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.