"33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

I was taken to court for reasons, one of them including riding a vehicle outside the restrictions on my license. I told the coppers at the time that I had self restricted it and that I didn't need a certificate. They made the ignorant assumption that "oh, 1000cc...mustn't be restricted then".

The day came around in court and the judge gave the CPS a right earful for letting it get that far. And it got thrown out straight away. I was quite grateful that I had the forgings for a good career at the time. Otherwise I would have got my revenge on that nob for blatantly lying on his statement to the CPS.

[Ch00]

Originally Posted by Flameboy

Yes i have passed my cat a motorbike test (restricted), received a pinky back in October that shows on the card i can ride anything up to 25kw (33bhp)

Along with the licensed I am, of course fully insured taxed and motd

Cheers for your answer, hope it works out in the end.

[yorkie_chris]

+1 to all of that embee. Big can of worms.
If I had to say I'd guess it's the same people who do the crash investigations who'd have to look at the bike physically. Fishtits I'd like to hear what you have to say about these.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

My advice would be carry some proof. Why sit on your high horse and state it's not a legal requirement just to be awkward? It may cost you your bike one day.

Because there's no legal requirement for it (unless you'd point to legislation that says otherwise!) to be proven like that and it's extortionate to get a certificate which has no legal standing.

Some jumped up tw*t with a badge should not have the right to cost you anything unless they've got reasonable grounds to believe you're in the wrong. He has applied 5bhp of power to go round a roundabout. If he'd been caught doing 120 it would be a different story of course.

You're completely right, i've never eluded to the fact that carrying proof of restriction is a legal requirement, all i'm saying is that it would help your case if you found yourself in the same position as the OP to be able to show something to back up your claims.

And if they have grounds to believe you're in the wrong, wouldn't you want to try and prove them otherwise and be able to ride home instead of walk?

I was only offering my opinion and a word of advice thats all, personally i'd be more likely to let someone ride off who had shown me proof of restriction, than someone who hadn't.

Worst copper should of done was given a producer. End of.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

I can't answer for the Officer's involved. If it were me personally - and if the rider had been co-operative, polite, and upfront with me, not rude and arrogant - then yes I would give them the opportunity - providing they don't live a ridiculous distance away!

But from what you've asked me, circumstances permitting i'd always give someone the opportunity to prove their story before I take such a drastic step as seizing their vehicle. As everyone has alluded to, it's not just a bike... It's transport to work, transport to family, for kids, for nipping to the shops, and the repurcussions and costs could be huge. It's a big deal, and not one I take lightly.

My advice would be carry some proof. Why sit on your high horse and state it's not a legal requirement just to be awkward? It may cost you your bike one day.

I will not be carrying any such certificate because my bike was restricted by my uncle and at the end of the day, I don't see why I would have to pay > £100 to have my bike restricted just so I have the certificate incase my bike is seized.

At the end of the day, if my bike was seized I would be putting in written complaints and going to a solicitor. And I wouldn't be paying for any of the inconvenience.

I still think that, if there is nothing more to this than what the OP is telling us, the cops responsible are hard pressed to have any reasonable cause to believe the bike is unrestricted. Say "well he doesn't have the certificate" is not reasonable cause to believe because it is not a requirement of law to have any such certificate.

In my professional opinion, (and with the caveat of "if all is as the OP tells us") I think that the officers involved are clutching at straws with this.

I know there is no WAY my Sergeant would allow me to seize a bike on those grounds, and he is only out of the traffic department for a year or so.

ive read all this and it dont make sence my bike is restricted but i have no certificate , restricted by the ecu but insurance company didnt even want a certificate unless i wna make a claim ,,and there is police on here that are saying you dont need a certificate ,, has this person wiv the bike being taken got a certificate ?? and how long have they had the bike ??? no paper work that is weird i would phone the police and say you stolen my bike

[jonny.boyd]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

I was only offering my opinion and a word of advice thats all, personally i'd be more likely to let someone ride off who had shown me proof of restriction, than someone who hadn't.

Thankyou for your advise! I'll be making a photocopy tomorrow. Much better to be safe than sorry and like you said have to walk home!

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

And if they have grounds to believe you're in the wrong, wouldn't you want to try and prove them otherwise and be able to ride home instead of walk?

I was only offering my opinion and a word of advice thats all, personally i'd be more likely to let someone ride off who had shown me proof of restriction, than someone who hadn't.

Forums are for opinions, nothing personal

I am asking though, you mentioned dyno testing earlier, surely they can't knacker your tyre for you and just give it back with a surly "ok it's restricted, you keep it that way sonny". What do they do? Who conducts the dyno test? Genuinely wanting you to clarify your experiences of it.

My opinion is that if you've got reasonable grounds to think it's not restricted then no bit of paper is going to help, like doing 100+mph.
"You look a bit young" or "it might not be restricted" is nowhere near reasonable grounds IMO and if the law allows vehicle seizure based on no evidence then the law is an ass.