Greenham common - child's petrol go-kart
Discussion
insurance, MOT etc doesn't apply to all mechanically propelled vehicles.
Electric push bikes for instance.
Average 200w 15MPH without assistance (how they calculate that is anyones guess - I have one)
If what you say is generally true slider, how come these little prats on mini motos that drive me INSANE some evenings don't get hammered by the law?
Electric push bikes for instance.
Average 200w 15MPH without assistance (how they calculate that is anyones guess - I have one)
If what you say is generally true slider, how come these little prats on mini motos that drive me INSANE some evenings don't get hammered by the law?
Not allowed. Its Common Land, and as such does not have vehicular rights of way on it.
There are some notice boards that say stuff like that just down the road from Tesco's, however I wouldnt have thought if you were with your child and were not making a nusance, you would probably get away with it.
A lot of local police also take their dogs to the common for excercise (i usually head off there to eat my sandwiches at lunchtime (It saves sitting at mu desk or having to speak to the people I work with!))
There are some notice boards that say stuff like that just down the road from Tesco's, however I wouldnt have thought if you were with your child and were not making a nusance, you would probably get away with it.
A lot of local police also take their dogs to the common for excercise (i usually head off there to eat my sandwiches at lunchtime (It saves sitting at mu desk or having to speak to the people I work with!))
catso said:
If what you say is generally true slider, how come these little prats on mini motos that drive me INSANE some evenings don't get hammered by the law?
Because it's not profitable to pursue...
Ive seen a couple of them in the Impound yard recently - I recall reading something in the local papers about getting 1 warning and then its impounded
bryan35 said:
insurance, MOT etc doesn't apply to all mechanically propelled vehicles.
Electric push bikes for instance.
Average 200w 15MPH without assistance (how they calculate that is anyones guess - I have one)
If what you say is generally true slider, how come these little prats on mini motos that drive me INSANE some evenings don't get hammered by the law?
They get hammered by me when i come accross them at work.
The example of a MPV was a general one as there are many definitions of different MPV's.
A mechanically propelled vehicle can also be propelled by electricity.
The Pushbike example you give is still a mechanically propelled vehicle but it is not catered for under insurance legislation or the MOT legislation. (bear in mind that there are many definitions of vehicles and classes of vehicles)
Somes MPV's are motor vehicles. The go kart is not a motor vehicle untill is is made, intended or adaped for use on a road. And if it is used on a road it becomes a motorvehicle and then requires insurance, MOT and D/L etc.
Go Peds are the same. They were not made for use on roads and as such are not motor vehicles. When one is used on a road it becomes a Motor Vehicle for the purpose of legislation.
I hope that made sense.
If a goped is on the road it must have insurance, mot and D/L as well as other rules such as construction and use. They can be dealt with by BiB. If i see one at work it gets dealt with and generally a Section 59 warning will be given also if it is being ridden anti socially. They will also be required to produce their docs or reported on the spot for the offences. If they continue after my advice then ill quite happily deal with them at the station.
Gareth
Pagey said:
bryan35 said:
If what you say is generally true slider, how come these little prats on mini motos that drive me INSANE some evenings don't get hammered by the law?
Because it's not profitable to pursue...
Ive seen a couple of them in the Impound yard recently - I recall reading something in the local papers about getting 1 warning and then its impounded
Yep thats the Section 59 / 60 anti social use of a motor vehicle.
As for not profitable - alot of officers dont actually have an interest in traffic and some dont know the legislation in relation to if it is or not a motor vehicle. But believe it or not we do deal with alot of these things but its a nightmare finding them when a MOP call them in as inevitably they have long gone before we get there. If i see them at work they get dealt with. Not all officers are traffic orientated or minded.
Gareth
On our local common opposite my house where theyve confiscated a load of mini-motos and 50cc bikes after giving them one warning.
It doesnt even have to be the same vehicle according to our local bobby! If they have warned a person for doing it then next time, even if he is on someone elses vehicle they can still take it!
>> Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 26th October 17:36
It doesnt even have to be the same vehicle according to our local bobby! If they have warned a person for doing it then next time, even if he is on someone elses vehicle they can still take it!
>> Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 26th October 17:36
blindswelledrat said:
On our local common opposite my house where theyve confiscated a load of mini-motos and 50cc bikes after giving them one warning.
It doesnt even have to be the same vehicle according to our local bobby! If they have warned a person for doing it then next time, even if he is on someone elses vehicle they can still take it!
>> Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 26th October 17:36
Yep the warning relates to the person. So if fred is warned in A123BCD and continues then vehicle seized.
If fred is doing the same in A456FGH the the vehicle seized.
The warning lasts for 12 months as well.
Gareth
where is the line drawn for 'anti social'?
I mean chavs doing donuts in morrisons clearly is, as is blatting along the pavement, but what about the type of neighbour who gets kicks out of reporting people for treading on cracks in the pavement for instance?
I'm presuming Mr Officer would have to observe the behaviour for himself and not take it on hearsay?
I mean chavs doing donuts in morrisons clearly is, as is blatting along the pavement, but what about the type of neighbour who gets kicks out of reporting people for treading on cracks in the pavement for instance?
I'm presuming Mr Officer would have to observe the behaviour for himself and not take it on hearsay?
bryan35 said:
where is the line drawn for 'anti social'?
I mean chavs doing donuts in morrisons clearly is, as is blatting along the pavement, but what about the type of neighbour who gets kicks out of reporting people for treading on cracks in the pavement for instance?
I'm presuming Mr Officer would have to observe the behaviour for himself and not take it on hearsay?
Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.
They key point is believeing - so you would need definiate evidence such as cctv footage or seeing it with your own eyes.
If it was suspect then you could take it from second hand evidence.
Basically, if you can see it happen or have seen it happen then you have the powers, third hand reports would not be enough in this case.
Gareth
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff