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

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Trixy750

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

Indeed.

Fact is, his bike did not "fail" the test. The test failed the bike!

You right, them letting him ride the bike which was higher powered than his license would be a minefield.

Like I say, guaranteed they know/knew full well the bike was legal.

"his bike did not "fail" the test. The test failed the bike! "

Very good ! I like that.

[yorkie_chris]

Heh.

You right in your earlier post too, this is a sore point. These c**ts knew they'd dropped a ball, so drummed up a dodgy dyno result in the hope of putting the frighteners on him enough that he didn't complain about the ridiculous treatment he'd received.

Sore, you bet.

[embee]

You do indeed raise pertinent questions Trixy, but this is a classic example of a lack of joined up thinking in the legislature and enforcement bodies, primarily with the legislature.

The Police's responsibility is to ensure that the operator of a motor vehicle does so in accordance with their licence, remember that a licence is exactly what it says, it doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want, it allows you to do certain things clearly specified, hence "licence". It is nothing to do with the Police whether a bike produces more (or less) than 25kW, that is not their task. If it does then a restricted licence holder is not permitted to ride it, if it doesn't they are, that's it.
As the Police members have said, in cases of this nature it is effectively up to the licence holder to prove or demonstrate that they are complying, and I would argue in layman's terms that a simple statement of fact regarding the device fitted to the bike should be sufficient, if the Police don't accept it then the rider is charged and the case goes to court. This is where the legislation lets the whole thing degenerate into uncertainty, there appears to be no recognised means of demonstrating compliance (certificate with legal standing, plating of bike, registration with DVLA etc etc).

In drawing up the legislation it would appear that the issue of how the compliance can be demonstrated has been totally overlooked, thus making the task of enforcement all but impossible. The way net power is determined for Type Approval is clearly defined in the Directive, but by the nature of these things it is a very involved and complex method and realistically beyond the scope of any "casual" test. I'm not even sure whether the "25kW net power" requirement as referred to in the licence terms actually defines how that net power should be determined at all, maybe it does somewhere deep in the bowels of some Statutory Instrument.

It's like asking the Police to catch drink-drivers but not giving them the equipment nor methodology for actually measuring blood-alcohol levels other than leaving it up to each officer to do what they think is appropriate.

In the case of an officer allowing FB to continue to ride his bike, well we go back to the first principle that it's up to the rider to comply with his licence, the Police can then challenge him (again) if they wish. The fact that their (arbitrary) test came up with a number is effectively irrelevant, because it neither proves FB was guilty in the first place nor that he is committing any offence by continuing to ride because it was not a recognised test which was capable of proving/disproving anything (it was the equivalent of sniffing someone's breath for alcohol, it wasn't even up to the standard of the roadside breathalyser which at least has to be an approved device/method/operator but isn't sufficient to provide evidence to convict if I understand it correctly).

Whether this larger issue will ever be tackled satisfactorily remains to be seen.

It's complicated init !

Given the difficulties of accurate dyno testing (for the reasons you have given) it would seem unlikely that any rider could ever demonstrate that their bike complied. Even if they turned up at the Police station report in hand I doubt that the Police would trust it.

The one thing that HAS been proven in this case tho. The black box WAS restricted. Cos it was way down on power and there was no way it was the result of being a bit out of tune.

This legislation/enforcement issue doesn't look as if it will be resolved any time soon. Even a future court case might not resolve it (might make it worse) if expert witnesses are not called.

I didnt read ALL 80 pages, only interested in the events by Flamboy! The police should be utterly ashamed of themselves and are lucky that the local paper has not picked up on this story. To think that these officers are employed to serve the community and are supposedly the professionals - I would expect that a PC would not reply to my phone calls as they are usually very busy, but for an Inspector or Sergeant to do the same cannot be defended.

The police should take a good look at themselves and their actions and change their procedures because from all that I have read, I would not trust any of these officers with anything more serious. Disgraceful.

I think I would take this to the local MP armed with the sort of info that embee and others have provided. Because its an impossible position. FB has the approved black box which as you say should be sufficient. But the Police say it has failed. FB can do nothing to resolve it for all the reasons you have given. This is surely something the MP can look into ( and its a free service ).

I'm not suggesting using the MP to have a go at the Police (that won't help) just the bad legislation part.

[Red Herring]

At the risk of complicating things further I'm not sure we can argue that a simple examination of the part number on the ECU should be sufficient to prove a restriction. There are plenty of threads discussing engine tuning where it has been explained how simple it is to have the ECU re-programmed so I would venture to say it can't be that hard to simply plug in a restricted ECU and make it produce what you want? The same argument can be levied against any suggestion of certification. It's all very well producing a certificate that states the bike was restricted on a certain date six months ago but how does that "prove" it's still restricted now? The facts are, whether we like it or not, that the only way the police can establish if a bike is restricted is to have it examined, and to do so whilst maintaining any kind of evidential continuity will involve it being seized. The legislation does allow them to do so, but they need to act with due proportionality which is why it generally only happens if the motorcycle is involved in a fairly serious incident. I think the burning questions this thread seeks to answer are firstly were the actions of the police proportional to the offence suspected and the circumstance, and secondly did their examination meet evidential standards?

[yorkie_chris]

Seems to me the only solution is to completely ignore any certification and only investigate it further when someone is, I think the correct legal term, is completely taking the p*ss.

Not let PC Penis and his mates deprive someone of their transport for god knows how long on a complete whim. Yes most people would get away with ignoring it, and they'd always have in their minds "well I'm not restricted, so I'd best behave".
IMO if 33 was enforced too "well," you'd have more of the loonies having to do a runner.

We have to remember that between the police and any prosecution sit the CPS. Plod can try to scare folk as much as they like but the fact remains thousands of bikes (Suzukis) are fitted , will be fitted with similar ECU based power restrictors. The CPS would not be just going up against FB they would be going up against Suzuki GB. Who certainly can afford such legal advice to severely embarrass HM constabulary and her CPS.

If plod thinks he has given FB a good scare then it will be job done and retire with pants still on.

All documents are "legal" or have a legal element.

If you purchase a restricted ECU and fit it then you have complied. If it is proven that you have then tampered with it or replaced it then you have not complied. The purchase document is a legal document. It is not for you to prove its a genuine restricted ECU it is for the CPS to prove it is not! The ECU will be so marked and Suzuki will be able to identify it as such....some thing I am sure plod checked prior to spending a load of dosh sticking it on a dyno.