Legal advice please

BDG

BDG

New member
Coming back from RTL follwing MartinH we turned off the A65 to use one of Martins very nice little short cuts. This proved to be a very lucky move as just down the road there was a police and Ministry of transport checkpoint (as has all ready been mentioned briefly in one of the RTL postings)

I've just been speaking to one of the lads at work who was stopped at this checkpoint on Sunday. He had to wait for 2 hours in the Q of over 50 bikes (no cars were stopped) in a large layby awaiting their for 1 of 2 examiners to check visors, number plates, exhausts, and free motorcycle safety check.

There was no discrimination against sports bikes, everything from BMW's, Pan Euro's, Harleys and sports bikes were benefitting from this check.

I fully appreciate it is great if someone on a stolen bike is caught (no Datag check though) or an accident is prevented by finding an unsafe bike.

However my questions (preferably to someone who knows what they're talking about, any police folk, solicitors, judges, or motorcycle riding lawlords please, rather than i've got a mate who's a bar room barrister) is it OK to select one group of society, i.e. bikers rather than cars as well for this type of not so random check.

Also if stopped and you feel that waiting 2 hours in the Q to be checked is unfair because you have to get home to watch Coronation Street, could you argue the case that as an illegal, one legged, partially sighted immigrant from Mars, who must get home to cash his giro, can you claim some breach of human rights and bog off home.

I presume not, unless you want to get your collar felt, but just wondering if there is a valid reason to sday i'm not staying for a couple of hours.

I should add that my Duc does have termis on, but numberplate is legal, as is my visor.
 
I've never been stopped in such a stake out (yet) but if it happened to me I'd be very angry indeed.
They may have a right to stop you at random although I think that they are stretching these rights a bit. Is there not some requirement that suspicion of an offence is involved? I don't know how it would stand but do they have any legal right to detain you? If any inspection is not dealt with within a reasonable time, say 5 minutes, have they any right to stop you going?
When they are stopping every motorcycle and holding them for as long as it takes then it is downright discriminatory. Unfortunately we can't claim discrimination on grounds of race, sex or religion but bikers are certainly an easily identified group. I would start by writing to my MP but you are probably likely to get a reply about it being justified on the grounds of safety etc.
Now I know that the local chavs up my way get a hard time from the police but how would motorists like it if every one of them was stopped and held in a queue for a couple of hours while the police checked them for tinted windows that are too dark, loud exhausts, blue leds and illegal number plates?
It would certainly be good to a get a definitive legal opinion on this matter covering the legal aspects both in England and Scotland, remember that Scottish law is different in many aspects.
 
http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/index.htm

This is the crowd responsible it appears that this years campaign is to hit hard at the "Leisure Riders"

Contact them via their web site and demand an explanation and contest the time taken as I am pretty sure that somewhere in the laws it states that a road check should be expected to take a reasonable amount time before the rider can leave (or you can demand to be seen immediatley) unless ofcourse they are aware of a visible defect that requires a DoT man to checkover.

Also ask for their defination of a road side check/ stop/ search procedure as it is the same for Motorcycles and cars etc. The helmet is an item of clothing so is also a seperate stop and search procedure and you can obviously ask for this to be undertaken in another venue - this should pause them to stop and consider their next actions for a few minutes???.

All said and done it seems that the Traffic Coppers are this year (and with the aid of the Government) forcing bikers that use their bikes as pleasure vehicles to boost their own residual tax funds. Ask them why they never use their man power in such force in your local estate were they will found all manner of mini/trail/stolen motorbike being driven with no licence, no insurance,no tax,no crash helmet, no exhaust, etc, etc..... It could be that there is no easy money there, they will have to start investigating, it's probably half full with illegals and it won't get the local 'Superintendant' on telly talking @@@@e.

As a postcript to this I have just sent an email asking for clarification regarding the motorcycle casulties/deaths asking for a further breakdown as to how many of the accidents(as a percentage) were attributed to other road users.........I wonder if they will reply?
 
Last edited:
It was luck we turned off Shaun! I hate using the A65 at the best of times but summer weekend is a nightmare on there. I usually avoid using it and take the longer way home either via the Trough of Bowland or the Ribblehead route to Settle and then the back roads that I took you on. But was knackered on Sunday and wanted to get home quickly. Been a spate of accidents up there recently hence the police prescence. Only saturday before last the road was closed and traffic diverted on the back lanes, caught a glimpse of a bike lying on its side on one of the straights and a lot of flashing lights. I take it very easy on the 65 as you may well have noticed Shaun as there are so many little places where the police can hide and observe any indiscretions.

Nice little back road that you can perhaps use in future. I wonder if the lad on the 400 made it home alive?

As for being kept for 2 hours well surely thats not legal? I think a line about having to be home for a dose of insulin or suchlike may work who knows. I would be totally disgusted to be kept for so long and surely it must be classed as being detained by the police? But on suspicion of what?
 
im surprised they didnt dehydrate and die !

thats never happened to me yet up here in Scotland, hope it never does.

/ian
 
Their only excuse is that they're just bigotted @@@@@@@s IMO. No need for it and no point in it, except to wield the big frightening stick.

They ought to go and do the drivers of 4x4's who can't see where they are going and pull out on bikes - think you know what I mean! One did it on me on the way home after Steve's accident. Hope the @@@@@@@ gets well @@@@ed over.

It would be nice to see them one day have a purge on caravans and trailers on that road. Those things are rolling death traps pulled by blind, deaf, inconsiderate, incapable morons. They are not tested, taxed, insured, trained or qualified to handle them - think of the @@@@ that would be thrown at us lot if we were the same. And just think of the size of the @@@@ing tailback.

Sorry, ranting over! Don't know the legalities!
 
Somebody somewhere on here must be a motorcycling solicitor or know someone who is! Surely no other minority group could be treated this way.
 
/QUOTE=MartinH/.....Been a spate of accidents up there recently hence the police prescence. Only saturday before last the road was closed and traffic diverted on the back lanes, caught a glimpse of a bike lying on its side on one of the straights and a lot of flashing lights......./QUOTE

Not wishing to divert the thread but that statement Martin kinda accepts the actions when in actual fact if you apply the same rule to the M6 then you could kiss goddbye to making any progress at all. Just consider how many times recently you hear of another crash on M6 causing massive tailbacks on any stretch from J16 to J35. Sorry for the distraction Shaun, I'll be off now then.

Interesting pdf file found whilst researching:
Devon doc
 
Last edited:
I always carry a printed copy of this section of the Road Traffic Act when I'm out on the bike. Clauses 3, 6, 7 and (particularly) 8 are the ones that are of most interest. ;)




67.—(1) An authorised examiner may test a motor vehicle on a road for the purpose of—
(a) ascertaining whether the requirements imposed by law as to—
(i) brakes, silencers, steering gear and tyres,
(ii) the prevention or reduction of noise, smoke, fumes or vapour, and
(iii) lighting equipment and reflectors,
are complied with as respects the vehicle, and
(b) bringing to the notice of the driver any failure to comply with those requirements.
(2) The examiner may drive the vehicle for the purpose of testing it.

(3) A vehicle shall not be required to stop for a test except by a constable in uniform.

(4) The following persons may act as authorised examiners for the purposes of this section—
(a) a certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner appointed under the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,
(b) a person appointed as an examiner under section 68(1) of this Act,
(c) a person appointed to examine and inspect public carriages for the purposes of the [1869 c. 115.] Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,
(d) a person appointed to act for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State,
(e) a constable authorised so to act by or under instructions of the chief officer of police, and
(f) a person appointed by the police authority for a police area to act, under the directions of the chief officer of police, for the purposes of this section.
(5) A person mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) and (f) must produce his authority to act for the purposes of this section if required to do so.

(6) On the examiner proceeding to test a vehicle under this section, the driver may, unless the test is required under subsection (7) or (8) below to be carried out forthwith, elect that the test shall be deferred to a time, and carried out at a place, fixed in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act, and the provisions of that Schedule shall apply accordingly.

(7) Where it appears to a constable that, by reason of an accident having occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road, it is requisite that a test should be carried out forthwith, he may require it to be so carried out and, if he is not to carry it out himself, may require that the vehicle shall not be taken away until the test has been carried out.

(8) Where in the opinion of a constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, he may require the test to be carried out forthwith.

(9) If a person obstructs an authorised examiner acting under this section, or fails to comply with a requirement of this section or Schedule 2 to this Act, he is guilty of an offence.
 
Century, velly interesting reply, thanks.

Is this Scottish or English Law, as it has been pointed out that there are some differences, or is it not in the case of the Road traffic Act
 
that's great - is it sufficient to have a copy, rather than the original? If so and I copy and paste from here will that in itself do? I would love to wave that under their noses.

On Sunday when I was coming back after scraping Steve up I think I would have done something I might have regretted had I been stopped. My mind wasn't totally with it and reason might have gone out the window.
 
BDG said:
Century, velly interesting reply, thanks.

Is this Scottish or English Law, as it has been pointed out that there are some differences, or is it not in the case of the Road traffic Act
Click to expand...

Its pretty much the same Shaun except the bit about white flags and red crosses.........See previous thread...........;) ;)
 
Rockjock - you don't even need a bit of paper. I only carry it to make sure that, should I need it, I get the detaisl exactly right. My memory is like a sieve.

BDG - not sure about the Scottish/English thing but I would have thought the RTA applied to both sides of the border. I've never heard of anyone adjusting their driving habits when they cross the border because they're subject to different laws in Scotland and England.
 
good enough for me at this point, I will follow your example, it is amazing when confronted by uniform how you can easily get flummoxed!
 
rockjock620 said:
good enough for me at this point, I will follow your example, it is amazing when confronted by uniform how you can easily get flummoxed!
Click to expand...

Nurses uniform?

Oi BDG stop hijacking your own thread:(
 
Point 5 would be the one I'd use on a random stop, bet yer average traffic plod don't have that with them.
 
Just thought that myself Mike. Also what about section three......"except by a constable in uniform" - would that exclude a Sergeant or higher rank? It would certainly exclude non-uniform I guess.
 
rockjock620 said:
Just thought that myself Mike. Also what about section three......"except by a constable in uniform" - would that exclude a Sergeant or higher rank? It would certainly exclude non-uniform I guess.
Click to expand...

It would have to be someone in uniform. I'd suspect - although I've not checked - that 'constable' is defined elsewhere in the Act as any police officer of whatever rank.
 
Just a little hijack but what exactly is full uniform nowadys I remember back in the 70's it was said that if they didn't have a helmet or cap on they couldn't process you on the roadside?
 
I'm guessing but that may be true. don't they always make sure they put on their headgear when they step out of the car?
 
alane said:
/QUOTE=MartinH/.....Been a spate of accidents up there recently hence the police prescence. Only saturday before last the road was closed and traffic diverted on the back lanes, caught a glimpse of a bike lying on its side on one of the straights and a lot of flashing lights......./QUOTE

Not wishing to divert the thread but that statement Martin kinda accepts the actions when in actual fact if you apply the same rule to the M6 then you could kiss goddbye to making any progress at all. Just consider how many times recently you hear of another crash on M6 causing massive tailbacks on any stretch from J16 to J35. Sorry for the distraction Shaun, I'll be off now then.

Interesting pdf file found whilst researching:
Devon doc
Click to expand...

Alane, I'm not condoning the police behaviour as I think holding people for 2 hours is totally disgusting. Was just bringing up the fact that as soon as the weather got nice bikers were dropping like flies up here and in most cases unlike Steves accident the fault was with the bikers as most of the accidents did not involve other vehicles. The police have to do something or at least be seen to do something but what they have been doing is not acceptable. I myself now try to avoid riding my favourite roads at the weekend not because of the police but because of some of the other riders who really have no idea how to ride safely.
 
MartinH said:
Alane, I'm not condoning the police behaviour as I think holding people for 2 hours is totally disgusting. Was just bringing up the fact that as soon as the weather got nice bikers were dropping like flies up here and in most cases unlike Steves accident the fault was with the bikers as most of the accidents did not involve other vehicles. The police have to do something or at least be seen to do something but what they have been doing is not acceptable. I myself now try to avoid riding my favourite roads at the weekend not because of the police but because of some of the other riders who really have no idea how to ride safely.
Click to expand...


I'll vouch for the last part about some of the other riders Martin, like that complete knob on the NC30
 
Shaun, I seem to get it all the time these days up there. But usually they are coming the other way and running wide into my path. That bit where he overtook when we were sat behind those cars was so dodgy as anyone coming the other way on a bike could easily be doing 80-90mph at that point. Heaven knows what the scene would have been had it been some quick lads on bikes coming round there rather than the 4x4 dribbling along at 30mph that he nearly ran into.
 
These tactics are discriminatory I agree but I would guess you'd get short shrift if you decided to leave. Under the road Traffic Act any Police officer in uniform irrespective of rank, hat/helmet or otherwise has the power to require the driver of any motor vehicle being driven on a road at any time to stop. He can check the roadworthiness of the vehicle/machine in relation to the construction and use reg's - tyres/exhaust/lights etc. If authorised under Sec. 67(usually traffic officers) they will have a nice little laminated card detailing their authority as an examiner. I don't want to open a can of worms but hope this clarifies the situation a bit.

I quite agree that thesetactics are heavy handed but as previous replies have alluded to - sometimes we are our own worst enemies!

Mac.
 
Hi Mac agree on what you posted there...........

Have been chugging through some of the Road Traffic Act this afternoon yep a right bag of worms could be opened and as for the new Serious Crime Squads powers with motor vehicles it just ain't worth thinking of.

However reading into it there is a reasonable time or stop expectation within the regs and I reckon if you are polite and decent and your vehicle appears roadworthy you can demand that the checks are undertaken at a venue of your choosing with an independant auditor/witness.....I assume your solicitor.

If nothing else the question should be asked if you are in a half hour or more lineup..
 
MartinH said:
Alane, I'm not condoning the police behaviour as I think holding people for 2 hours is totally disgusting. Was just bringing up the fact that as soon as the weather got nice bikers were dropping like flies up here and in most cases unlike Steves accident the fault was with the bikers as most of the accidents did not involve other vehicles. The police have to do something or at least be seen to do something but what they have been doing is not acceptable. I myself now try to avoid riding my favourite roads at the weekend not because of the police but because of some of the other riders who really have no idea how to ride safely.
Click to expand...

didn't want to appear confrontational Martin, just trying to open up the debate to the fact that the decision to apply this roadcheck alleges to have been based upon the number of accidents involving motorcyclists in that area. Whilst I can agree in part with the roadside checks I also think the police are incapable of applying the rules fairly and justly across all areas of the public, because if they were then we would see large areas of motorway access roads (or more to the point service areas) also subject to roadside checks.
 
I can't remember how I got pointed in the direction of these regulations in the first place. But I do remember the advice was to get the bike inspected at your house and that you were more likely to be successful in getting away with an infringement if the police authority that stopped you is not the same one that polices the area where you live.

Logic was that your local rozzers are not going to be best pleased if another force calls them up and suggests they might want to drop whatever they're doing and take a look at some loud pipes on a bike. :) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom