The law about motorcycle combinations and helmets.

I think you ought to have a look at some of the other
scooters-with-a-roof.

You're still talking bollocks if you think the law has been changed.

 

Nope. When dealing with terminally thick goits, be honest.

So I rig up a plastic (or even fabric) awning, with some nice side
curtains, and I don't have to wear a helmet.

That's according to your definition.

Get real.

 

When did I say any law has been changed?

Brian

 

Well the following is fairly unambiguous in its wording, making it
quite clear that you believed the law did not require a helmet:

"Indeed some 2 wheelers (such as the BMW C1) don't (currently) require
the rider to be wearing a helmet, on the basis that they are riding
*in* the vehicle rather than on it"

 

I'm not making any definitions, and I'm struggling to understand your
hostility. All I'm doing is explaining the reasoning behind the
acquittal, as stated at the time. You don't have to agree with that
reasoning, but its not my reasoning. I've never said any law has been
changed, and I've never said that I agree with the interpretation
that's been made. But the fact is that it *has* been made, in court,
by the people whose job it is to interpret the law and pass sentence,
which in turn means that at least the law is ambiguous to some.

I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any case, certainly not
since the first acquittal, where a defendant has been charged with
failing to wear a helmet on a C1, contested it, and been convicted
anyway.

If you know of such a case, I'd be happy to have the details of it,
and any reasons stated as to why the position adopted in Peter
Parker's case wasn't followed

Brian

 

Well, we live in a democratic society, that society HAS spoken (in
this case through the local 'great and good'), and it has repeatedly
chosen Mr Parker's argument.

Thank goodness that this mechanism works and 'The Law' has functioned,
for otherwise we would have anarchy (and that would never do).

 

Indeed, the law seems *not* to require people riding in a C1 to wear a
helmet, otherwise the acquittals would not be possible. As I said in
another post, I'm not aware of any case (either pre or post the first
acquittal) where a defendant pleaded not guilty in such a case and
was convicted anyway. Are you? If so, and if it was after Peter
Parker's test case, what was the reasoning given for differing from
that example?

That does not mean that any law has been changed, and I certainly
never said otherwise. What has happened is that the law has been
interpreted in a way that hadn't previously been considered, and, so
far, as far as I can tell, with a 100% success rate. Whether that
situation will continue if challenged in a higher court has yet to be
seen. That's pretty much the only point I'm making, but some people
seem to have a problem comprehending that.

Brian

 

Ah. But he was spiderman wasn't he?
Can't have laws applying to superheroes thus applying to mere mortals.

 

Please, can someone give me the citation (reference) for the Parker
case. Was it Magistrates' or Divisional Court? Did the prosecution
not appeal?

--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

 

Rubbish. The law is quite clear - the fact that some courts (and only
magistrates, AFAIAA, who can't set precedents) interpret it
incorrectly doesn't change the law itself.

 

Get real man..a 500kg wheel! Who is gonna fit that when there are
250Kg Panniers which are much cheaper and easier to fit and
remove?

 

So clear that apparently challenges to the law on this basis have been
100% successful?

ie, the people that matter

which is irrelevant unless and until their decision is overruled

Who says its incorrect? AIUI, no one has yet made that determination
at all. You can disagree with their interpretation, but until its
overruled, you can't call it incorrect

Brian

 

I'm not aware of any case where someone has impersonated a python and
forced entry to the House of Commons through the letter-box, either.

Ever heard of a "non sequitur"?

The law is as in the statute books. Not what some beak thinks, nor what
you think - unless you're telling us that magistrates' opinions
over-rule statute.

Now **** off.

 

Wrong. One person was discharged by a jury. Magistrates have no right
in law to create a legal precedent hence it does not apply to anyone
else.

 

Motorcycles with 2 wheels require a helmet. That includes sidecar
combinations. However if the motorcycle has an unladen weight
exceeding 410kg then its no longer a motorcycle and becomes a
motorcar. However it then falls into the totally seperate rules
regarding seatbelts. Dont fall into the trap of thinking that a
combination is the same as a trike - they are totally seperate things

 

Nope - thats a totally seperate part of law

 

Yes it most certainly is. One magistrates court has taken upon itself
to go against the law (for which CPS are in consultation phase). That
doesnt set a precedent and doesnt later the law - a C1 is a motorcycle
and requires a helmet.

 

Theres loads of them - in fact too many to mention

AFAIK he is the only person who has been acquited. The reason no other
court has adopted the same position is because its clearly not the
law.

 

http://www.nabd.org.uk/adaptions/trikelaw.html


This took some serious research but is spot-on. Rather too much to
post here though!

 

The law says "on", some courts appear to be saying that "on" does not
mean the same as "in". I fail to see either why you think that's an
"interpretation", and if so why you think it is "incorrect", or indeed
why you think bigbrian is wrong.

You, TOG, Bear et al can slag bigbrian off all you like - it doesn't
alter the fact that the law is only meaningful as it is interpreted by
the courts, and they are interpreting it the way bigbrian says.

So there!