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

wonder what the out come is ???
so basicaly no one knows what to carry around with you lol

Originally Posted by Lozzo

It would help if the officers involved had foillowed proceedure correctly and knew the law before acting improperly in this case.

Ok, which aspect of the legislation on vehicle seizure for driving other than in accordance hasn't been complied with?

Originally Posted by jacksuzukisv650

wonder what the out come is ???
so basicaly no one knows what to carry around with you lol

The law states you should carry your insurance and driving license (+ counterpart), and thats it. But no-one does and I think it's written into law than you're allowed a 7 day period to produce before being stuck on for it.

Carrying 'proof' of restriction isn't a legal requirement.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

Ok, which aspect of the legislation on vehicle seizure for driving other than in accordance hasn't been complied with?

You tell us what the prerequisites are and why they have not been complied with.

Fishtits your a copper, the rest of use still cant believe what happened, to you its the norm to us uk citizens it sounds all too crazy, legislation this and that, until like you you know the rules and regs it just sounds mental...

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by tommo891

Fishtits your a copper, the rest of use still cant believe what happened, to you its the norm to us uk citizens it sounds all too crazy, legislation this and that, until like you you know the rules and regs it just sounds mental...

Exactly, it sounds bleedin' unfair, people expect a punishment to be applied based on due process.

Seizing vehicles is a punishment with no trial. I don't expect that approach to result in anything more than massive antipathy towards the police. (Since this being at offices discretion IS a police problem, directly)

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Seizing vehicles is a punishment with no trial. I don't expect that approach to result in anything more than massive antipathy towards the police.

Amen

Constable in uniform - yes (I assume they were in uniform?)

has reasonable grounds to believe the rider is driving other than in accordance with a license - yes (it is for a Court to decide if the Officer's grounds are reasonable but it is assumed the Officer rightly or wrongly believes the bike to be unrestricted)

and has requested to see both the DL and counterpart entitling the rider to ride that vehicle and a suitable license has not been produced - yes (the Officer believes the bike to be unrestricted, therefore the rider must produce a valid license for an unrestricted bike)

then the Officer can seize the vehicle under s165 of the RTA '88.

Thats all the law says.... It doesn't say the Police have to prove it's unrestricted prior to seizure, the Officer just has to believe it's unrestricted.

[yorkie_chris]

"Reasonable grounds"? You can't be serious that a hunch constitutes reasonable?

Originally Posted by tommo891

Fishtits your a copper, the rest of use still cant believe what happened, to you its the norm to us uk citizens it sounds all too crazy, legislation this and that, until like you you know the rules and regs it just sounds mental...

Yeah I accept that point, but then people will rant and rave and state the Police aren't following law and procedure, then I assume they must know the law and procedure themselves to make that statement..?

It does seem very unfair, but bare in mind whilst the OP has been inconvenienced in having no bike (and some would argue that's the worst bit of the whole process!), he hasn't been prosecuted for any offences yet!