Legal advice please.
 

Coming back from Raid the Lakes foillowing MartinH we turned off the A65 to use one of Martins nice little short cuts. This proved to be a very lucky move as just down the road there was a police and Ministry of Transport checkpoint.

I've just been speaking to one of my lads at work who was stopped at this checkpoint on Sunday. He had to wait for 2 hours in the Q of over 50 bikes (no cars were stopped) in a large layby awaiting their turn for 1 of the 2 examiners to check visors, number plates, exhaust, and free motorcycle safety check.

There was no discrimination against sports bikes, everything from BMW's Pan Euro's, Harleys and sports bikes were benefitting from this check.

I fully appreciate it is great if someone on a stolen bike is caught (no datag check, or the likes of though), or an accident is prevented by finding an unsafe bike.

However my questions (preferably to someone who knows what they're talking about, any police folk, solicitors, judges or motorcycle riding lawlords please, rather than my mates a bar room barrister) is it OK to just select one group of society, i.e bikers, and if stopped but you feel that waiting 2 hours in the Q to be checked is unfair because you have to get home in time to watch Coronation Street, could you argue the case that as an illegal, one legged, partially sighted immigrant from Mars, who must get home to cash his giro, can you claim some sort of breach of human rights and bog of home.

I presume not unless you want your collar felt, but just wondered if there is a valid reason to say i'm not staying here for a couple of hours.

I should add that my Duc does have termi's on, but numberplate is legal as is my visor.

Sorry I dont have any constuctive advice, BUT hell everyone talks about SWEDEN being a POLICE STATE but we as bikers, NEVER have this problem with the police. I brought my bike from the UK and had it swedish registered and it had the 50 mm Termi s on and no probs, My thoughts are that here they worry more about speeding than if you have loud exhusts, or tinted visors or small reg plate.We might have crap weather most of the year but at least when we ride we dont have to worry about the boys in blue. I think they do a great job here.

As far as I understand it, it's an offence to ignore the instructions of a police officer and they can do you for that if you just ride off home?

Surely, at the very least, you should be able to ask for some sustenance...say, a KFC???

I'd argue that to detain you for two hours just for a safety check is worthy of a complaint.
It is correct that it is an offence to refuse to stop when indicated to do so for a roadside check by the police ( and VOSA too )
Having stopped you can ask that the officer or person who is to undertake the test produce to you their authority to test and inspect vehicles - no authority, no test.
There's a fair bit more involved in relation to what can and cannot be done under these circumstances but having carried out numerous similar tests myself ( not focussing on one form of transport I hasten to add ) I would say that taking what Shaun was told at face value the Police would find it very difficult to defend detaining a number of vehicles for such a length of time.
you generally run it so that there is one vehicle waiting for each tester whilst they work on the current one....

Put a compliant in and see what happens , all it costs is a letter !

Out of curiosity, were people being given tickets for illegal exhausts?

Quote s.67(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 at them. Tell them you want the roadside test deferring. Tell them no accident has occurred owing to the presence of your vehicle on a road, that your vehicle is not apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed and that you are not obstructing any authorised examiner. Then tell them where and when the vehicle will be available for inspection giving a seven day window within the next 30 days. See how they react to that!!!!

Here's the relevant section

Testing vehicles on roads

Testing of condition of vehicles on roads.

67.—(1) An authorised examiner may test a motor vehicle on a road for the purpose of—
(a) ascertaining whether the requirements imposed by law as to—
(i) brakes, silencers, steering gear and tyres,
(ii) the prevention or reduction of noise, smoke, fumes or vapour, and
(iii) lighting equipment and reflectors,
are complied with as respects the vehicle, and
(b) bringing to the notice of the driver any failure to comply with those requirements.
(2) The examiner may drive the vehicle for the purpose of testing it.

(3) A vehicle shall not be required to stop for a test except by a constable in uniform.

(4) The following persons may act as authorised examiners for the purposes of this section—
(a) a certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner appointed under the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,
(b) a person appointed as an examiner under section 68(1) of this Act,
(c) a person appointed to examine and inspect public carriages for the purposes of the [1869 c. 115.] Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,
(d) a person appointed to act for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State,
(e) a constable authorised so to act by or under instructions of the chief officer of police, and
(f) a person appointed by the police authority for a police area to act, under the directions of the chief officer of police, for the purposes of this section.
(5) A person mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) and (f) must produce his authority to act for the purposes of this section if required to do so.

(6) On the examiner proceeding to test a vehicle under this section, the driver may, unless the test is required under subsection (7) or (8) below to be carried out forthwith, elect that the test shall be deferred to a time, and carried out at a place, fixed in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act, and the provisions of that Schedule shall apply accordingly.

(7) Where it appears to a constable that, by reason of an accident having occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road, it is requisite that a test should be carried out forthwith, he may require it to be so carried out and, if he is not to carry it out himself, may require that the vehicle shall not be taken away until the test has been carried out.

(8) Where in the opinion of a constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, he may require the test to be carried out forthwith.

(9) If a person obstructs an authorised examiner acting under this section, or fails to comply with a requirement of this section or Schedule 2 to this Act, he is guilty of an offence.

(10) In this section and in Schedule 2 to this Act—
(a) "test" includes "inspect" or "inspection", as the case may require, and
(b) references to a vehicle include references to a trailer drawn by it.


Here's schedule 2 of RTA 1988 which deals with deferring Road Side Tests

SCHEDULE 2
Section 67.
Deferred Tests of Condition of Vehicles
1. Where the driver is the owner of the vehicle, he may at the time of electing that the test shall be deferred—
(a) specify a period of seven days within which the deferred test is to take place, being a period falling within the next thirty days, disregarding any day on which the vehicle is outside Great Britain, and
(b) require that the deferred test shall take place on premises then specified by him where the test can conveniently be carried out or that it shall take place in such area in England and Wales, being a county district or Greater London, or such area in Scotland, being an islands area or district, as he may specify at that time.
2. When the driver is not the owner of the vehicle he shall inform the examiner of the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the owner shall be afforded an opportunity of specifying such a period, and such premises or area.
3.—(1) Where under the preceding provisions of this Schedule a period has been specified within which the deferred test is to be carried out, the time for carrying it out shall be such time within that period as may be notified, being a time not earlier than two days after the giving of the notification.

(2) Where no such period has been specified, the time for the carrying out of the deferred test shall be such time as may be notified, being a time not earlier than seven days after the giving of the notification.

(3) Where premises have been specified under the preceding provisions of this Schedule for the carrying out of the deferred test, and the test can conveniently be carried out on those premises, it must be carried out there.

(4) Where sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply, the place for carrying out the deferred test shall be such place as may be notified with the notification of the time for the carrying out of the test, and where an area has been so specified the place shall be a place in that area.

(5) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the time and place for the carrying out of the deferred test may be varied by agreement between an authorised examiner and the owner of the vehicle.

(6) In this paragraph—
"notified" means notified in writing to the owner of the vehicle on behalf of the Secretary of State, and
"notification" shall be construed accordingly,
and any notification under this paragraph may be given by post.
4. The owner of the vehicle must produce it, or secure its production, at the time and place fixed for the carrying out of the deferred test.
5.—(1) References in this Schedule to the owner of a vehicle are references to the owner of the vehicle at the time at which the election is made under section 67(6) of this Act that the test should be deferred.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) below, if at the time at which that election is made the vehicle is in the possession of a person under a hire-purchase agreement or hiring agreement, that person shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle to the exclusion of any other person,
(b) if at that time the vehicle is being used under an international circulation permit, the person to whom the permit was issued shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle to the exclusion of any other person.

In other words they were all blagged!
sean
Last year 7 of us were riding one sunday morning through the police state of "West Mercia" england welsh boarder!

We all went around an island and 1 police bike followed us up the road!
after about 5 miles he overtook us and went up to the lead rider and flagged him to follow!
at the next island the officer turned left and so did the rest of the lads and they all followed him in to an industrial est.
I thought sod that carried and carried on!
2 miles up the road I was pulled by a squad car.
The bobby asked why i did not follow the police bike?
I replied that the bobby had gesticulated to the lead rider to follow!
and at notime did he make his intentions to me !
so I carried on!
The squad car driver told me I did the right thing, most riders get nicked by not knowing the law!

squad driver was ace and even radioed to the biker cop that he could ot find me LOL cool cop, love it.

Unfortunately, much like any "game" you need to know the "rules". Don't always assume that those who appear to be in charge of the game know the "rules"

BDG.

I would write and send by reodrd delivery a letter making an enquiry about the events you were involved in.

I believe ChrisW is right abouty the possibility of deferment of any "inspection"

Those running game make an assumption that you don't know the "rules"

In this day and age the "rules" are so complicated that it is very difficult to remember what they are and be able to trot 'em out verbatim. However the plus side to this is that those running the game are often no better at knowing the rules and can be defeated in the game by someone who who knows the "rules" better than they do.

Like any game If you get beaten due in some part to a lack of knowledge of the "rules" it cam pay off to be better prepared for the next game.

PS its no good calling on the ref. AKA the magaistrates, on the whole they don't know the rules any better and almost invariably take the side with the other game officials.

PPS I am supporter of the awkward squad.

PPPS Yes I AM BECOMING a GRUMPY OLD MAN!

There was recently a call to bikers to take steps to make motorcycling a religion, it's not as daft as it may sound and would go some way to making it more difficult for bikers to be singled out for things such as roadside checks, etc, etc.

Ray

How about if we were to all write to the local council saying that we will not now be visiting their area for a weekend break due to the heavy handed police action. This will therefore deprive the local hotel and guest house industry of vital income, as well as restaurants, cafe's, clubs etc. We should suggest that they would benefit from the cash injection and if they cannot do something about the situation then we will have to look for other areas of the country for our holidays.
Maybe a mail shot to local business, hotels etc pointing this out might be an idea.
Pressure from local councilors often gets results especially when they are worried about loosing votes.