Drunk 10 yard micro cycle rider.
Discussion
Telegraph said:
Micro-cycle rider is cleared in drink case
By Richard Savill
(Filed: 30/09/2003)
A man who rode a 12in micro-cycle after consuming alcohol was cleared of
drink-driving when a court ruled that the miniature motorbike was not a
vehicle as defined by the law.
Two policemen saw Tony Cassidy, 28, stall the cycle, which had a small
petrol engine, after he took it on a road outside a pub for about 10
yards. He then walked back to the pub with the cycle under his arm.
Cassidy failed a breath test and was found to be more than twice the
drink-drive limit. He denied drink driving and having no insurance in
Exeter in April, and was acquitted of both offences on Friday.
The court heard that the cycle had no gears, lighting, indicators or sound
warning system and was not capable of DVLA licensing.
Agree what he did was technically illegal (S4 not S5) and rightly so. Despite this is it really worth the time and effort of taking this guy to court for 10 yards on a motorised scooter?
XM5ER said:
No it wasn't and with all due respect to the BiB who post on here, these guys are the ones who give you a bad name. You should give them a good kicking. Surely a good bollocking in the pub would have been enough.
why was a bolicking in order he was cleard . It was not ilegal.
he should have a claim from police now as I take they aressted him.
No outlaw. It was illegal.
Silly plod did him under S5 not S4.
For an S5 drink drive you have to show the vehicle to be a motorvehicle - which is defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle made or adapted or intended for use on the road.
If they'd done him for an S4 offence (unfit to drive through drink or drugs) they would only have needed to show it was mechanically propelled and it wouldnt have mattered about the S5 offence.
So he was guilty. Just of a different offence.
Still waste of plod time IMHO.
Hopefully some plod will be along shortly to explain otherwise.
Silly plod did him under S5 not S4.
For an S5 drink drive you have to show the vehicle to be a motorvehicle - which is defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle made or adapted or intended for use on the road.
If they'd done him for an S4 offence (unfit to drive through drink or drugs) they would only have needed to show it was mechanically propelled and it wouldnt have mattered about the S5 offence.
So he was guilty. Just of a different offence.
Still waste of plod time IMHO.
Hopefully some plod will be along shortly to explain otherwise.
Interesting, My kids have a 60cc mini-motocrosser, which has no lights, is not road legal etc.
Now if I were able to use this to get home from the Pub (
x many!) without losing my licence..........
Incidentally, I lived for many years in Italy, where sub 50cc bikes (and 3-wheelers) can be ridden by 14yr olds with no licence required. My boss at the time lost his licence for speeding and used a moped to get to work through the ban, as far as I know this is (was) perfectly legal. Mmmm....
Now if I were able to use this to get home from the Pub (
x many!) without losing my licence.......... Incidentally, I lived for many years in Italy, where sub 50cc bikes (and 3-wheelers) can be ridden by 14yr olds with no licence required. My boss at the time lost his licence for speeding and used a moped to get to work through the ban, as far as I know this is (was) perfectly legal. Mmmm....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff