The law about motorcycle combinations and helmets.

I remember a customs man at weymouth asking my father if the duty on
his LHD BMW had been paid when he had a tax disk right in front of his
nose (You can't tax a car till you pay the duty!)
IDIOT

 

See earlier posting, which I note you ignored.

I can fix up some nice drapes and curtains on my bike, and enclose
myself in a nice chintz cocoon, but if I went helmetless I'd get nicked,
and I'd expect to.

It's a bike - you sit on it. With the possible exception of the Ecomobil
and the Quasar (and helmets were worn in/on the Quasar), that's the
case.

Now do a web search and find out what Ecomobils and Quasars are, and try
and learn something before coming across as an even bigger **** than you
do already.

You lose.

 

Has it occurred to you, oh Brainless one, that practically *everyone*
who rides these things wears a fucking helmet?

That's why there is very little dispute over it.

You lose.

 

See earlier posting in this thread.

 

Except that apparently you won't get convicted if yer bike's a C1 and you
are nicked in Bedford.

If this were a contest of childish abuse you'd get my vote.

Tony

 

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 16(4): A person who drives or rides on a
motor cycle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty
of an offence; but notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law no person
other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of
an offence by reason of the contravention unless the person actually
committing the contravention is a child under the age of sixteen years.

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 185(c): "motor cycle" means a mechanically
propelled vehicle, not being an invalid carriage, with less than four
wheels and the weight of which unladen does not exceed 410 kilograms

Tony

 

So that covers riding the C1 without a helmet. Case proven.

I'm not pointing at you, y'understand, but uk.legal seems infested with
twonks who post utter crap and then spend endless hours trying to argue
themselves out of the holes they've just dug.

 

And that's different from ukrm how, exactly?

 

After it has been tested in court a law comes to mean whatever a court
says that it means - no more and no less. The fact that your reading of
the wording of the Act differs from the way that the courts choose to
interpret it is a matter of supernatural indifference to anyone else.

This thread is cross-posted between two groups. You may know as little
about the law as I do about weaving through traffic, but I understand my
own ignorance and you have yet to come to terms with your own.

Tony

 

It's only been _one_ magistrates court who've misinterpreted it, and
they can not set precedents in any way at all.

I do think you ought to read Neil's CV some time...

 

No one has claimed that a precedent was set and, with all due respect to
the fine legal minds of the bikers from urm, there has been no
misinterpretation until a higher court says that there has.

If you think that, then tell me where to find it or send a copy to me.

Tony

 

And JP's quote, elsewhere in this thread:

"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."

See above. I trust JP absolutely on this. He knows more about road
traffic law than you, or I, or (I guess) anyone else in this thread.

It all boils down to this: it's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a
helmet. A BMW C1 is a motorcycle.

Quite why uk.legal seems to think it necessary to debate the issue is a
matter of (to use your own mis-used adjective) supernatural wonderment

 

In fact, JP has said they can't.

So the law stands. It's illegal.

 

If JP believes that a jury sits in the Bedford magistrates court, then
your trust in his legal knowledge is badly misplaced.

Tony

 

OK, I've had a quick look up and down this thread, but I can't find where
JP has said that a jury sits in Bedford magistrates court.
Could you point me to this quote?

 

Either that was a non-sequitur or he believes the magistrates court has a
jury. And if it was a non-sequitur, and if he knows of some verdict by a
higher court which was sitting with a jury, then why mention that there
was no precedent in the acquittal because magistrates can not create them?

Maybe you or he would offer other possible meanings.

Tony

 

Seen. (later...)

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Really? Are ungrammatical laws still valid?

less:
in smaller quantity (not number)
--Chambers


--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Sorry, I had taken your question seriously. As this is a cross-post I'm
not yet familiar with who to answer and who it is best just to ignore.

Tony

 

What *is* the point of this prevarication?

Riding a BMW C1 without a helmet is illegal.

End of story.

And neither you, nor anyone else, can prove otherwise.