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

I've been watching this thread from the start with utter disbelief.

I just had to register to ask a couple of outstanding questions.

FB's bike has failed the test... so does that mean he cannot now ride it until it is modified to reduce its output ?? Can this even be done to a black box ?

If he does ride it will he be breaking the law and will his insurance cover be invalid ?

In this digital age if one black box fails don't they all fail. Where does this leave every other 33hp SV. Can the police just pick em off one by one now that they have "reasonable suspicion" ??

Just got to know...

[embee]

Originally Posted by Trixy750

FB's bike has failed the test... so does that mean he cannot now ride it until it is modified to reduce its output ?? .....

In this digital age if one black box fails don't they all fail...

...

His bike didn't "fail the test".

It was fitted with a device which was type approved by the manufacturer to achieve a certain result which conforms to the requirements, as such should be deemed to comply with those parameters. In this case those parameters were that the bike would produce not more than 25kW.

The riders resposibility is to ride in accordance with their licence, and that is what FB did (he claims). The Police, for whatever reasons, have decided they had reason to believe he didn't. Either the case gets dropped or goes to court and gets tested on its merits.

The Police in this instance chose to undertake a somewhat questionable course of action in which they tested the bike on "a facility" to "a test procedure" carried out by "personnel", as far as we can ascertain none of which conformed (probably) to the directive which prescribes how such testing should be done in order to demonstrate conformity, and came up with "an answer". Now, whether the Police or CPS would want to test their "evidence" in court is up to them, but as we have discussed at length, any half competent technical expert witness could shred their case if what we are told is to be believed.

I wouldn't have thought it would be in the public interest for the Police nor CPS to undertake a test case challenging Type Approval per se, which is effectively what you are contemplating might be the case. The whole point of Type Approval is that it obviates the need for second guessing by any other authority, and effectively exonerates (or at least should) the end user from having to prove what the device/system does in practice.

I seemed to have touched one of your nerves there... Didn't mean to do that.
So please back that lorry up and can we start again.

"His bike didn't fail the test" ..... erm... why are the police considering prosecution then ??

"which is effectively what you are contemplating might be the case"... I'm just asking questions.

If this doesn't come to court as you imply then what's to stop the next police officer from using this unchallenged "test result" against another 33hp SV owner ?

[yorkie_chris]

He is just telling it how it is, read thread.

Police are not "considering prosecution", they have not prosecuted him because they have no evidence they can get him with. They are leaving risk of prosecution there (yeah right) as scare tactic.

So he is able to ride the bike and his insurance is valid... OK then that's what I wanted to know.

Just checked back over FB's posts and he said

"weather or not I'll be prosecuted is still to be decided and hopefully I'll find out soon either way."

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

He is just telling it how it is, read thread.

Police are not "considering prosecution", they have not prosecuted him because they have no evidence they can get him with. They are leaving risk of prosecution there (yeah right) as scare tactic.

Exactamundo.

A scare tactic to put him off making a claim against the Police involved for damaging his bike.

[embee]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound short, just trying to put the relevant issues without any judgement one way or the other.

This case is a good example of how the relevant issues should be sifted out and considered strictly on their own. For example, what exactly was the reason the bike was taken, it was that the officers "had reason to believe" that he was not driving in accordance with his licence. What ensued was all to do with that premise. You then get into questions of what evidence there might be to substantiate that belief, how evidence might be obtained, whether that evidence is in fact valid or would be admissable, or even relevant.
There is then the issue that, as the various people in-the-know have said, it is up to the rider to demonstrate that he is riding in accordance with his licence, and that then begs the question, well just how do you demonstrate that. In this case it could be argued that a simple statement that "the device fitted means that he was" should be sufficient, but of course that would have to be tested in court.

personally as a traffic police officer myself i think this is a load of nonsense. I think if this situation has been explained correctly by Flameboy(and im not suggesting it hasnt) then my personal opinion is that the police on this occation have gone to far. We would NEVER routinely examine a vehicle to check restriction. I wourk within Great Manchester so i suppose i can not comment for other forces in that matter. We would however conduct that test should the vehicle be involved in a collision. A producer would have been my course of action. And if the rider did not produce when requested then i would continue with a summons for the offence.

I can not comment on the legalities of such a plate fitted to the bike. However i would imagine that should a matter like this ever get to court over a bloody plate but the vehicle was restricted and is confirmed by the way of a dyno check then there would be no case to answer for.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Trixy750

So he is able to ride the bike and his insurance is valid... OK then that's what I wanted to know.

It's pretty hard to "invalidate" insurance too. Don't believe all crap you read.

This is obviously a sensitive subject.

My questions were based on what FB said and I was asking questions because I simply do not understand how FB's bike can fail a "POLICE test" ( I hope that definition is OK ) and the Police then allow FB to carry on riding.

My reason for saying this is that FB is not licensed to ride a bike over 33hp and should he be involved in an accident then this "test evidence" would surely be used AGAINST the Police officer who allowed him to ride.

If a Police officer catches a motorist with an invalid licence then they seize the car don't they ?

My conclusion is that because he is allowed to ride this is "proof" that the test was already in doubt ( by the Police ) at the time FB was allowed to ride home. Any Police comment welcome on these points ?


I also don't understand how a Police "producer" notice would work. What is there to produce... an eBay receipt is all that FB has unless he takes the black box to the police station and shows em the manufacturer's numbers. Also that is no guarantee that the original full power box was not fitted to the bike when stopped.

I think we can agree that there does seem to be a breakdown between the legislation and enforcement here.

If the black box has been approved then there should have been attention given to how it can be identified by a vehicle examiner and how it should be tested. Is this information available and can we get it ? Maybe it should be a red box with tamper proof seals. Maybe on switch on the display should flash "33" or do something different to the standard unit.

This is not difficult stuff. Suzuki should be looking after their customers.