Visors! BEWARE!

I think the point that is trying to be made here is 2 fold.

1) If the authorities (in this case the police) feel that an item is evidence to in an accident or criminal event then they have the power to seize such an item, although I think they have to give you some kind of reciept.

2) Although the visor in itself is not illeagal, its use during the current weather conditions may be seen as wreckless or dangerous as it was not suitable. In which case they can nick you. (Like wearing sunglasses at night when driving - Sunglases are not illeagal, using them in the dark whilst driving is...)

I can work that out and to many I guess I would be "generally educated"... No mater how much education you have you can still have a lack of common sense. I know as I have to train Graduates on a regular basis

.

Andrew,

I am not questioning your integrity or your honesty or indeed whether you’re a law-abiding citizen. I work within a legal framework, I have never ‘made up my own law’ nor do I know anyone else who has done so. As for the theft act, it has been amended on a number of occasions…let other people worry about that, I am not going to try and explain the definition of theft as it would be a waste of my time.
You seem to missing the point with regards to the accident and seem only focused on the visor. Lets get this straight; it does not matter whether the visor is legal or illegal. When the accident occurred a crash investigator would have taken over the investigation and would have collated every bit of data, from weather conditions, to position of the bike, skid marks, injuries caused, debris (to mention but a few). He would then assess all this information and rule out things like mechanical failure, rider error etc, etc, etc this would include looking at the visor as a contributory factor….if he did not have the visor then he would not be able rule this out. (You must have seen CSI Miami)

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.

Very true, people seem to forget this....

And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.

I decided not to mention this, or the one where he was racing those two other bikers...but we won't go there

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

As someone charged with enforcing criminal law, I feel qualified to comment.

We are allowed to retain items pertinent to our investigations if we believe an offence has been committed. I suspect that this is the case here.

Just a thought................could it be that the policement who retained Sincs' visor has done so with a view to demonstrating to the Court that it wasn't a factor in in the accident - something that could work in Sincs' favour? After all, we do not know what the car drivers solicitors are claiming.

All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.

Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?

And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.

It was hardly a hit and run. If the guy wants to walk into my moving bike then good luck to him, but I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or ****ed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).

Originally Posted by fraser01

Very true, people seem to forget this....

I decided not to mention this, or the one where he was racing those two other bikers...but we won't go there

Racing two other bikes is hardly crime of the century!! Besides which, one can know what is right and wrong and still take the wrong path if they think they can get away with it. We all do that, I'm sure frazer you do to.

If police take away items they believe could be evidence shouldn't the owner be told rather than receive part of the item back without explanation?

Originally Posted by andrewcharnley

It was hardly a hit and run. If the guy wants to walk into my moving bike then good luck to him, but I'm hardly going to waste my time to stop and ask him if he's ok am I. Especially when he's drugged or p*ssed and swinging a fishing rod (or had been).

Not sure that the police or a court would see things in quite the same way... anyway how do you know that he was OK. It's not a waste of time, it's the law. Can't see that being drunk or swinging a fishing rod has anything to do with it. Anyway what did you do with the few minutes it would have taken to stop & check all was OK?? Sorry Andrew but I do think you should have stopped.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?

Do you seriously want an answer to this?

Wooooooooooaaaaahhhh!

I never meant for this to be a cop bashin thread, but each to their own.

Jabba, the case was NEVER going to go to court as they were not going to press charges against me (why the **** should they? It was a 50/50 accident!). The ONLY reason they didnt press charges was because of the extent of my injuries.

SCUSE ME, OLD FASHIONED GIT HERE.. WHAT HAPPENED TO A GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT? **** happens not everyone is to blame, so why always try to blame someone?

This is my complaint against the Police & justice system in general.

As for the conditions: they were dry, fairly bright and visability was excellent. The only thing they could say is that they took it because the acident happened under trees. So what, are they going to say a smoked visor is illegal if the sun goes behind a cloud, and therefore you must stop until the sun comes out again?

Sometimes the Police can be so anal, and bend the law just because they are ****ed off, and Jabba & Fraser, say what you want but this is the TRUTH! For instance, one same rozzer will book someone else for speeding one day, and the next they will let it slide. Why would this be?

Anyway, I'm off to fight for an insurance payout on a GENUINE MOTORING ACCIDENT, which will be next to impossible to get because someone ALWAYS HAS TO BE BLAMED!

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

Do you seriously want an answer to this?

I do

Takai Terror...

eeep. I've got one of them. Just had a look and the visor is marked with an E3 symbol. Anyone know what that means? Also is Hein Gericke at fault for selling a helmet with a visor not stamped with the British certificate? Would they be responsible to make reparations?

Never thought to check the visor. Assumed that as it was being sold at a shop like Gericke it would be fully legal.