Court Case Verdict

Pulled up alongside a peglegged bloke on a T-Max at the lights the other
day...

 

If he hasn't got a leg to stand on, then he's entitled to use the bay.

Stop explaining yourself Bully, we're already convinced you're a wanker.

Theo

 

Bloke in our local branch rides with an artificial right leg. He's had
his R100 from new, and is coming up to the one million km mark.
---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]


'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

I know a one legged bloke who rode a choice Knuckhead chopper. Even had
the disabled parking tag to hang on it.

Chuckled once when he passed me on his Norton Commando, no leg fitted,
just a pair of crutches hanging off the left side like a pair of
scrambler pipes...

 

Arrrr, he said, me poor parrot keeps blowing off.

-----sharks (postman pat just smiled knowingly)

 

I met a bloke on a Guzzi once who only had one arm and one leg. He was
cheating though, he had a sidecar on it, and it was a Convert, so he didn't
need to use the clutch.

Theo

 

We have a 1%er locally riding a very nice late model Harley with
springer and he has no left hand / wrist, seems to have an extension
that somehow connects to the handlebar and with a right hand clutch ,
gives it stick and lots of it .

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:42:25 +0900

That's Pogo.

Connie's been in bits for ages, the frame finally gave up. He's got a
GT1000 outfit now, and is slowly re-building Connie.


Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:21:33 +1000

There was a guy doing pre-65 trials in the UK who had a similar setup.

Saw a picture of him in Classic Bike riding a trials bike over some
very gnarly country.

Zebee

 

I met him in Sydney in 1982/3

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:22:07 +0900

And I just re-read and missed the "one arm" bit. So it's not Pogo.

Shouldn't be surprised, a Convert is an obvious bike for someone
missing bits.

Zebee

 

Knew a bloke the same except he rode a Harley trike...

 

Nope. Can you prove otherwise?

 

Can he walk 100metres ok?

 

If you still think you did nothing wrong why did you go to court and
plead guilty to the offence? You can't have it both ways.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Can he walk 100 metres? Yes
Ok? Not really.---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]


'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

In retrospect he became aware that he was parked in the wrong spot, and
would clearly not do it again. His explanation as to the confusion to the
court was accepted and the signage was considered ambiguous. No presence of
a guilty mind. The court found in his favour.

Simple really Nev, or Nev's really simple, take your pick.

Boxer

 

No but the presence of the sign indicates that someone needed the space
enough to convince the Council to allocate it. (They don't just put them
there 'cause they're nice).
Unless you can prove no-one's using it you'll just have to accept the
Council's decision that it's being utilised.

 

But of course that contradicts the position he's adopted here that it's
unused 'cause disabled people don't ride bikes.
Hence the "can't have it both ways".

 

Nothing retrospective about it Boxer. His initial position was that he
knew he was parking in a handicapped spot and that he thought that was
an ok thing to do so long as the penalty was $60 or so and he has never
given any indication that he thought that parking in a handicapped spot
was the "wrong spot".

As for poorly marked or ambiguous signage, that's his story now, but I
seem to remember the only thing he thought poorly marked about the
signpost when he got the infringement was that it didn't mention
anything about him getting a $380 fine.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX