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

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

It would depend on the circumstances. If you had been clocked at 110mph and produced the certificate to me, I would be inclined to think it was either fake or you had derestricted the bike.

If you were stopped doing 90mph, yes, in that case, I probably would believe you.

But I personally wouldn't be seizing it unless I had some sort of evidence suggesting it wasnt restricted.

If speeding then i would fully understand you taking it into question.
Just strange things...like i got pulled over because the PCO "didnt like my manner of driving" i was filtering in stationary traffic and took into question if the bike was restricted and started making wiled claims at me even though he said "he didn't know anything about bike restriction" after reading somthing for a good 10mins.
Has thrown my confidence in the law due to him just making things up.

Originally Posted by fastdruid

I've heard tales of a mobile dyno at least one police force use, mainly for mopeds which allegedly does bikes up to 33HP as well.

Here we go http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Ne...estedbypolice/

Druid

Why would you need to dyno a moped.
there "ment to be restricted" to 30mph on L plates at 16 so surely if its caught going over 30 then it must be illegal no??

[Mej]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Mej (maybe) found it cheaper to do the accelerated access test than to get his GSXR restricted for 6 months.

160 all in!! glad i did, hated 33!!!

[Mej]

Originally Posted by BBadger

Why would you need to dyno a moped.
there "ment to be restricted" to 30mph on L plates at 16 so surely if its caught going over 30 then it must be illegal no??

probably, but there were a few about when i was younger, not sure if the italjet are restricted but there was one around my way that was capable of 60+ my little 50cc was derestricted not that i knew it i just it was fast, could get 55 out of it, never got pulled though.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by fastdruid

I've heard tales of a mobile dyno at least one police force use, mainly for mopeds which allegedly does bikes up to 33HP as well.

Here we go http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Ne...estedbypolice/

Druid

I got stopped by the Met for a license and insurance check and they had a dyno set up on the pavement.

Cop in question was quite up-front and admitted the dyno was more for scooters, and they wouldn't bee keen to put a full-sized bike on it, but they could.

[hindle8907]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

In theory the offence committed is the same as riding on your CBT with no L-plates... You wouldn't seize a bike for no L-plate... Or at least, I wouldn't!
.

this happend to me and it was only the front one ... had come off after (Jet-washing) lol

105 quid to get back out i went to the station produced and was at the impound before the bike had even arrived i was livid.

and i was in full gear ... and was polite ...

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

And if there were grounds to think it was unrestricted..? Seized? Despite being shown evidence to the contrary?

Yeah, 110mph (or a 50mph wheelie or whatever) is definite evidence. A hunch is not, IMO, reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Maybe your rider looking worried has just heard all bollox from FI international and restricted it himself anyway. He's worried because he doesn't have a cert. but the bike is legal.

[embee]

Just a couple of notes.

First, a big hand to the various ocifers who are posting on here, you get plenty of stick but your interest is appreciated by me, and many others I'd wager.

With the developments in EU laws and directives, life is going to become a total nightmare. Laws are all well and good but of no use if they become unenforceable or are so complex as to be bewildering to those tasked with the enforcement (in this case it is a simple thing like whether a restriction "plate" is actually needed or not). This also leads into the scenario of an offence being committed not by carrying out some action but by failing to have a piece of paper (which of course already applies in many situations, Part P Building Regs for example).

When Police stop a vehicle surely they don't require it to be subjected to an MOT test because they think it "might" not pass one even though it has a valid cert in force. A valid MOT doesn't assure roadworthiness other than when the vehicle was actually tested, but the Police don't sieze it and test it just on the off-chance do they?

There's also the issue of the individual not being able to determine whether they are complying or not. The roadside emission compliance testing fiasco a few years ago exemplified this. Many people were fined due to the vehicle failing a tailpipe test even when they had recent MOT passes, the owners had no means of determining whether the vehicle was within the limits, but were guilty anyway. That is not just law. I believe this practice was stopped. If you have a cert saying a 33BHP restriction has been fitted but when tested it comes in at 33.1 BHP, is the individual to be convicted and punished? How can they know they were committing an offence? It's a philosophical aspect of law making and enforcement.

Off at a tangent, just found this reference to non-compliance of Chinese bikes imported into Europe. So do we prosecute the owners/riders of these bikes for the non-compliance? As far as they know the bikes have certificates of conformity.

Big Government, big state, big brother.

Originally Posted by embee

....
Big Government, big state, big brother.

That's certainly how it feels to me these days

All seems to be a bit like an MOT-------Only actually valid at the time of testing
You can come out and fit illegal number plates cans and lights within the hour after test but you still have the valid certificate.
Have the 33BHP ECU fitted and the bike dyno'd but you can change it as soon as you leave the centre.
It is only a bit of paper[or as the case may be a sticker] but not worth a carrot.
I think that in this instance the police officers overstepped the mark unless they are qualified traffic examiners.
The police force have specially trained officers for such instances as quoted in the original post but is sounds like they,the two constables and the skipper were forming opinions they were not qualified to make under Judges Rules as even the skipper had to get advice from a 3rd party. This makes me think that they were very unsure of what they were actually doing
They could have called for a qualified examiner to attend or at the very least been more informative to the OP regarding the procedure they were pursuing and issued the relevant paperwork.
I appreciate some of the org members may be traffic and blatant things that are visible become obvious offenses but this is akin to somebody souping up a car without telling their insurance,thereby making it invalid and driving without insurance.
If it is not obvious how do you tell?charge them with a suspected offense and making them prove their innocence would alienate me to the extreme,especially if no offense has been committed