The law about motorcycle combinations and helmets.

Go get 'em Ivan.

FFS!

 

Yes, Agreed. I stand corrected.

The same place as a lot of uk.legal denizens. Looking like a prat.

 

Not quite right. They can prove that on at least one occasion there
has been an illogical, even idiotic, interpretation of the law.
However, I would have thought that only an idiot would promolgate that
interpretation.

I'm not sure where that leaves your protagonist.

 

That, according to my calculations, is 8 hundredweights in Imperial
weight. Now a Goldwing or a Yamaha Venture cannot be much short of
that and if you fit a sidecar it has to be well over.
--

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"

 

Instead of converting 410kg to hundredweight (whatever they are), why
not just reference the weight of a Goldwing or a Yamaha Venture
(whatever they are) in kilograms. This way, you'll be able to prove or
disprove your theory.

 

snip

Are you perhaps saying that the 'Law' relating to such matters is completely
out-of-touch with today's reality, or Magistrate's and Judges etc. are?

 

Really Tony, could you explain further?

 

No, he's pointing out a grammatical error, but evidently your
appreciation of English (to judge from your post) is too poor to notice.
;-)

 

*nice*

 

Have I missed something? Been whooshed?

 

I'm a *what*?
I was asking a serious question, I thought I must have missed a post
somewhere because you said:
"If JP believes that a jury sits in the Bedford magistrates court, then
your trust in his legal knowledge is badly misplaced."

Now, I hadn't seen anywhere that JP had said this about Bedford
magistrates court and I still can't, hence my question. You know, the one
in which I asked if you could point me to that particular quote. On the
other hand, I have seen a posting by JP where he quotes: "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".
I can't see any words here which refer to Bedford magistrates court.

Do you have dyslexia?

 

Uh oh! another digruntled Harley-owner......

 

ITYMissplet 'trolled'.

 

Hmnnn Jon Grunewald seems to be recommending the TFBD
(Tin-foil-beanie-deflector) for all?

Seemingly, contrary to your (legal) advice?;-/

Unusual two have two solicitors disagree something eh?

 

<fx: Looks blank>

 

Whilst it may be true that the magistrates hearing those specific cases ruled
that way doesn't mean that they all will. Precedent is not set in magistrates
courts. So, currently, it is not true except that in "more than one" (how many,
btw?) case the magistrate has acquitted. If an identical case appeared before
another magistrate, it is up to him/her which way to rule.

 

Yes, but in practice they'd be guided as to what another court has
ruled. I still don't know of a case decided since the Peter Parker one
where someone has contested the charge, cited the Bedford decision in
defence, and been convicted anyway.

Brian

 

Try riding through a pheasant

Oh, you did. They're hard little fuckers, aren't they?

Pigeons aren't as hard, but round my way, they're full of grain and explode on
impact. Which is nice.
But only if you like that sort of thing.
Which I don't.

 

Heh - I`m quite happy to be proved wrong!

 

What part of it? The law requires riders of a "motorbicycle" as
defined under the protective helmet regs (rather than the motorcycle
definition contained within the RTA88/91) to wear a protective helmet