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

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Simply because it's an inconvenience. You've complied with the law, you should not be harassed about it.
When someone gets murdered you don't arrest the world on suspicion of it, you start with some suspects.

But you have to prove you've complied with the law. You have to prove you hold a DL and insurance, I don't have to prove that you don't.

Difference is, I have to prove they committed murder, you have to prove the bike is restricted if I think it isn't. So it's up to you to change my mind. That bit of paper might just change my mind - it certainly won't harm your argument.
How much of an idiot would I look in Court if I seize your bike and then i'm asked "Officer, did my client show you this document detailing the restriction, when it was done, and specifying that it complies with the law", and I have to answer "Yes... but I seized it anyway". I'd get torn a new one by the Mag i'm sure. Compare that with "No, he had no proof whatsoever available to him to dispute any of my reasoning when I gave him the opportunity to provide me with some."

You're right in that you shouldn't have to carry proof on you if the law doesn't say so, but when the alternative is possibly losing your bike I know which of the two i'd consider a bigger inconvenience.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on it I think, but thats my view!

[Nicky S]

261 posts that was a long read lol

mate what are you playing at ... you dont seem very upset that you dont have your bike or anything to prove that the police have it, and the fact they are dynoing it ???? why dont you have a lawery id be geting as much as i could out of them.

also you said that the police rode your bike to see if it was 33bhp ... can they even do this ?

i also find it very strange that you did not get any form of paper work

Originally Posted by Nicky S

261 posts that was a long read lol

mate what are you playing at ... you dont seem very upset that you dont have your bike or anything to prove that the police have it, and the fact they are dynoing it ???? why dont you have a lawery id be geting as much as i could out of them.

also you said that the police rode your bike to see if it was 33bhp ... can they even do this ?

i also find it very strange that you did not get any form of paper work

This whole thread seems a bit odd to me.... !!!

[Nicky S]

Originally Posted by tonyt

This whole thread seems a bit odd to me.... !!!

+1

Originally Posted by husky03

hehehehehehe

i just find it mad that he is not going much about it

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

But you have to prove you've complied with the law. You have to prove you hold a DL and insurance, I don't have to prove that you don't.

Difference is, I have to prove they committed murder, you have to prove the bike is restricted if I think it isn't. So it's up to you to change my mind. That bit of paper might just change my mind - it certainly won't harm your argument.
How much of an idiot would I look in Court if I seize your bike and then i'm asked "Officer, did my client show you this document detailing the restriction, when it was done, and specifying that it complies with the law", and I have to answer "Yes... but I seized it anyway". I'd get torn a new one by the Mag i'm sure. Compare that with "No, he had no proof whatsoever available to him to dispute any of my reasoning when I gave him the opportunity to provide me with some."

You're right in that you shouldn't have to carry proof on you if the law doesn't say so, but when the alternative is possibly losing your bike I know which of the two i'd consider a bigger inconvenience.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on it I think, but thats my view!

We still go back to the real crux of the problem that it is a half cocked law, a requirement that the motorcycle be <25kW, yet with no requirement that the restriction be certified. Fine you can by all means fit the manufacturers restriction device. But who is there to certify that this has actually taken place and that the restriction was tested for compliance. I am by profession a mechanical Engineer, with considerable experience in designing and testing of vehicles prior to them being submitted for type approval. I have acted in a number of cases as an expert witness and the courts have accepted my qualification and experience as being sufficient to express my opinion.
Should I fit an OEM restriction I would be quite happy to give a letterheaded certificate to the effect that the bike had been fitted with the manufacturers OEM restictor on such a date. Would you as somebody who never had heard of me be willing to accept that I had done what I said and was a competent person to do so. Or more likely you would simply view that the rider or his mate etc had cobbled together the certificate as an excuse to get round the law.

Until such time as the law itself actually requires that the restriction be certified and the method of certification we are left with a situation that is impossible to police. You fit restriction, either by OEM methods, 3rd party methods or reuse existing restrictions or their design. Nobody is in a position to state that at that moment in time the bike was unable to exceed 25KW of power.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Would you as somebody who never had heard of me be willing to accept that I had done what I said and was a competent person to do so. Or more likely you would simply view that the rider or his mate etc had cobbled together the certificate as an excuse to get round the law.

I would factor that proof into everything else in front of me before making a decision. Personally i'd take the rider at his word if he produced a document, it's not crime of the century if he's lying to me, but as I said previously if for every person who pulls a fast one on me a couple of geniune honest people get to keep their bikes, thats a good result.

It's interesting to hear from someone who obviously knows quite a bit not only about the mechanics of restriction but also the testing of them, so cheers for your posts, they've been really informative. And you're right, it's a grey area at best.

Well after this fiasco if i was on restricted liscence i would carry any proof of fitting in my wallet, as you say Fishtits it can't hurt.

blimey, I read 27 pages and its not sorted yet... yeesh

[Nicky S]

Originally Posted by Iansv II

blimey, I read 27 pages and its not sorted yet... yeesh

lol i did the same