The law about motorcycle combinations and helmets.

I know - very bad form. Reading JP's posts (a man who knows) it
appears that bigbrian got his facts wrong, and that I have just
spouted a load of cobblers.

Nothing new there, then.

 

<VBG>

Move along here, nothing to see.....

 

I told him the same thing. Perhaps he'll listen to you.

What *is* it about uk.legal that, for what is supposedly an erudite ng,
it attracts the most terminally thick, clueless, argumentative gonks?

 

As the saying goes, "theres a lot of people with nothing much to say
who are saying it very loudly"

 

Nobody can be sure of the law until a court interprets it. Some
magistrates may have decided that the C1 is a motorcycle but that
doesn't set a precedent any more than the decision of those magistrates
who decided it isn't. IIUC the Court of Appeal is the lowest that can
set a precedent so, until the matter is decided there, individual
magistrates courts are free to decide for themselves.

 

<G>

Indeed.

 

You seem to have added 4 superfluous words at the end of that
sentence...

 

The 1800 with ABS is listed as 799 pounds dry, so you can't count the beer
in the panniers.
410kg = over 900 pounds.

 

One down from a schlemiel.

 

Ah right. Um, thanks.

 

bigbrian fascinated us all by saying...

Good old Nosey. If you know him, ask him if he's got the tenner that he
owes me for the Mk1 Capri alternator I lent him in 1982.

--
Lozzo
'95 Kawasaki ZZR1100D, '97 Kawasaki GPZ500S, '83 Honda CB250RS
Big Zed Little Zed Dead shed
New to ukrm? : www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
"He's not big and he's not called Tony"

 

So not far off, then. Another year or three and the wing will
officially be a two-wheeled car.

 

goit n. Geek; gork; gink; gonk. Another versatile ‘g’ insult. from
http://www.viz.co.uk/profanisaurus/propagesA_Z/page_g.htm

 

I saw one a couple of munce ago, and the guy was wearing a brown wooly
Rasta hat. Top chap.

--
Platypus
VN800 Drifter, R80RT
DIAABTCOD#2 GPOTHUF#19
BOTAFOS#6 BOTAFOT#89
BOB#1 SBS#35 ANORAK#18 TWA#15

 

I've heard tell of someone who registered a 2wd Ural combo as a trike to
get around the RHS chair prohibition.

--
Platypus
VN800 Drifter, R80RT
DIAABTCOD#2 GPOTHUF#19
BOTAFOS#6 BOTAFOT#89
BOB#1 SBS#35 ANORAK#18 TWA#15

 

Your example qualifies perfectly, thank you.

Yeah, right.... whatever you say. Your intellect and your
predictability shines through with every post. Congratulations. I have
no doubt that you're actually proud of how you come across.

Brian

 

Who said otherwise? And the magistrates courts that have gone against
that decision are..........where?

Brian

 

No, I meant a cosmetic third-wheel, that more blatantly took the piss, one
with multicoloured LED's for example, could use it as a tax-disc holder or
even an ashtray:->

You'd have to be mad though not to wear a full-face helmet if driving
anything without a windscreen.

Not long after I had my bike I learned the value of a helmet and visor
when I drove through a cloud of midges without one;;;;-(;;

It was thanks to this first valuable lesson that I was actually wearing a
full-face helmet when I later went for a 'bit-of-a-spin' round some
local 'fast' country lanes.

I was doing about 60mph when I felt a terriffic blow to the front of my
visor and heard an almighty bang. It felt like a brick but it wasn't, it
was a large pheasant/partridge type bird which had obviously flown,
completely unseen, directly across my path.

I 'just know things would have been very different' if I had not been
wearing a 'skid-lid'.

Not much choice about it today though it seems;-/

 

You clearly don't understand how to interpret a statute. If it says "on"
that doesn't cover "in", and that's all there is to it.

 

Use of the word 'clearly' is usually a sign of a dodgy legal argument, as
we know in the trade. I am a patent agent, but this is a good general
principle!