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

[Red Herring]

Morning, a couple of things quickly as I'm just off to work.

Flame, the PACE requirements you are referring to concern the police powers to stop and search vehicles/persons for other than road traffic purposes. If a vehicle (and therefore it's driver) is stopped under Road Traffic Act legislation (you were) there is no requirement in law for a record to be made.

To answer Specialalone's question Flames bike was seized under PACE, not Sect 165 RTA (The no document power). To seize the bike under PACE the officers will need to show that they had a reasonable suspicion that Flame was committing an offence, and that the bike was evidence of that offence. This is one of the things the inspector will be examining.

In reply to Timwilky there has been much discussion around the use of the dyno and this is something the police will need to examine and get some advice on. Ultimately it could be for a court to examine the evidence and how it was obtained, but I think we are all hopeful it won't go that far. I think the police involved were quite surprised as to just how much interest this particular case has attracted but the truth is this is quite a grey area of police practice and legislation so some trail finding needs to be done. I'm sure given the circumstance the police will want to make sure things are done properly so we just need to sit back now and wait to see what happens. Frustrating I know, but I'm sure Flame will keep us all updated.

Having read this thread with extreme interest I would like to agree with Mr TW with regarding the testing as I worked in the engine division of the same company and know just how stringent and exacting all the measurements had to be before exact power output figures at the flywheel were established.
RH,as you say it would be down to the court to make the ultimate judgment but the expertise required is not just the on the engine type approval schedule but on the type approval of the equipment used which is rather more complex than than just the machinery itself. Keeping it simple things like air pressure,air density,engine filtration on intake and exhaust can all make tremendous difference
I know you and Tim have stated this but we used to establish figures on a minimum of six units and run two of them to destruction. The established figures were based on an average of all units tested but the variation could and has been vast,as much as 15-18%.
Take any two vehicles of the same production line and there will be variations depending on the tolerance and balance of each individual part that makes up the drive train.

It is a can of worms with so many variants that can be brought into question I doubt the CPS would proceed with such a trivial case,but that is just my opinion.

As this is an electronic device I would have thought that manufacturers name and part no. would be the only sensible answer to the vehicle being restricted.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

get some advice on. Ultimately it could be for a court to examine the evidence and how it was obtained, but I think we are all hopeful it won't go that far.

See where getting advice got them the first time

If it did go to court, it would give serious problems for police proving ANY lack of restriction in future.

IMO only way to do it is for inspectors who do the post-crash stuff to take a look and see that a valid attempt has been made to restrict it. In this case they would have lifted seat, jotted down ECU code and rang suzuki and we wouldn't have all this fuss.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

IMO only way to do it is for inspectors who do the post-crash stuff to take a look and see that a valid attempt has been made to restrict it. In this case they would have lifted seat, jotted down ECU code and rang suzuki and we wouldn't have all this fuss.

Trouble with this is that the majority of police would have no idea which makes and model of bike were restricted by ECU, exhaust, throttle, etc, and most would have no idea where to find the ECU on a motorbike. A dyno is the only way to test some bikes isn't it?

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Trouble with this is that the majority of police would have no idea which makes and model of bike were restricted by ECU, exhaust, throttle, etc, and most would have no idea where to find the ECU on a motorbike. A dyno is the only way to test some bikes isn't it?

Then rather than have the half arsed grey area crud we currently have they should actually put some effort in to make the law more understandable (both for us and them!) - perhaps they could compile some kind of list of makes / models with their potential restriction methods? Or make it mandetory for restricted riders to carry some kind of documentation with them? Stopping a "young looking" rider, siezing his bike and then dyno-ing it for every single stop on a bike that "looks big" would be immensly impractical, time consuming and costly to the force (as this thread seems to be proving)

I have a lot of respect for the plods, but the law making idiots that get paid insane wages for doing not a lot should sort it the hell out and figure out a decent way of implementing / enforcing the laws they pass before they pass them.

Is it just me sitting here thinking what a complete waste of time for a total non event?

(not the whole bike gone, fire damage, PITA but the accompanying circus)

"We've confiscated you bike because it doesn't have a restrictor plate"
"Oh it doesn't have to have one"
"Here's your bike bike."

It would be nice to think the OP injected a "it's restricted through the ECU here's the part number - it can be checked" at some stage during the hour(?) they were all sat around chatting but still... (apologies if you did Flameboy)

Just need the CPS to go for it, a solicitor to be hired and we can all bow our heads to national debt.


NB: This is a pointless rant. Probably an inaccurate simplification of events & I'm sat here listening to christmas carols. Sanity has left the building - Sing it Frank.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Trouble with this is that the majority of police would have no idea which makes and model of bike were restricted by ECU, exhaust, throttle, etc, and most would have no idea where to find the ECU on a motorbike. A dyno is the only way to test some bikes isn't it?

As YC says, let the post crash inspectors handle it once the bike is "in custody". At worst case set up a database, or just ask the manufacturer or sub the work out to a local garage. (A quick check of ECU authenticity, or the carb equivalent must be cheaper than paying for dyno time?). I think this is the most sensible, and possibly the only way to do it without further official guidelines.

Originally Posted by Sosha

Sing it Frank.

I did it MYYYYYY WAYYYYY!

[yorkie_chris]

Local garages talk as much sh*t though TBH... because mechanics by and large, especially the fitters at bigger ones are pretty f*cking stupid and read the crap that FI international sends.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Local garages talk as much sh*t though TBH... because mechanics by and large, especially the fitters at bigger ones are pretty f*cking stupid and read the crap that FI international sends.

There must be some out their who are up to the job...Or even let the police mechanics check it out. It wouldn't take long for even the dumbest Mech to get there head round what's being asked of them if they do it often enough.

[yorkie_chris]

Yeah same people who do the inspections when a bike is too bent to run on a dyno.

Not like it's a hard job

step 1, does bike produce more than 33rwbhp as standard
step 2, does MFR make 33bhp OEM kit, is it fitted
step 3, are aftermarket throttling plates or throttle stop fitted