Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


OH BALLS!! (Another S59)

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Kris
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:36 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Unmarked Black Fireblade (05 model??) with plod dressed in all black filmed me slpitting lanes on the A2 eastbound.

Watch out all. Mad Mad Mad

[edit - just for cov who lives miles away]

Oxford sports tailpack, Black and grey lid, tankbag etc.. Until he parked up you would have no idea it was plod. Sad
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com


Last edited by Kris on 19:41 - 15 Aug 2012; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

WannaBeDude
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:37 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

No clues attal ... Just fire blade and all black ...
____________________
Jogging on, destination living.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

DrDonnyBrago
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:39 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Kris wrote:
Unmarked Black Fireblade (05 model??) with plod dressed in all black filmed me slpitting lanes on the A2 eastbound.

Watch out all. Mad Mad Mad



You got a S59 for lane splitting??

Wtf is wrong with the police.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kris
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:46 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

DonnyBrago wrote:


You got a S59 for lane splitting??

Wtf is wrong with the police.


Apparently it is careless driving liable to distress others. Wouldn't mind but I was taking it easy and others lane split much faster on that stretch. Confused
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

U_W v2.0
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 May 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:50 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

um dumb question, is lane splitting the same as filtering?

if so dispute it.

if not...er kinda your call.
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrDonnyBrago
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:54 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Kris wrote:
Apparently it is careless driving liable to distress others. Wouldn't mind but I was taking it easy and others lane split much faster on that stretch. Confused



If it was that careless, why didn't he try for a due care and attention? Instead he did you for something that requires no evidence, you can't appeal and can't defend yourself against.


Pretty sloppy tbh.

What exactly were you doing, fast "filtering" between two lanes of moving traffic?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrDonnyBrago
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:55 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usually_Wrong wrote:
um dumb question, is lane splitting the same as filtering?

if so dispute it.

if not...er kinda your call.



S59 is a lazy bit of trumped up bullshit, abused as a catch all by incompetent slap heads.

You can't appeal them.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:55 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usually_Wrong wrote:
um dumb question, is lane splitting the same as filtering?

if so dispute it.

if not...er kinda your call.


You can't dispute it.

A PCSO could give you a section 59 because they think the colour of your bike is likely to cause offence and there is precisely fuck all you can do about it.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

U_W v2.0
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 May 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:57 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

ah okay.

section 59 sounds really familiar to me for some reason. dont suppose its what they'd issue for riding a push bike at night without lights is it?
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kris
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:03 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

DonnyBrago wrote:
If it was that careless, why didn't he try for a due care and attention? Instead he did you for something that requires no evidence, you can't appeal and can't defend yourself against.

Pretty sloppy tbh.

What exactly were you doing, fast "filtering" between two lanes of moving traffic?


4 lanes of rolling cars. Lanes 3 & 4 rolling at just under 70mph. I was scything through diagonally when the opportunity arose. On the straight sections I perhaps went between 2 parallel cars. Never went over 80.
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Maccydee
Renault 5 Driver



Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:03 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Kris wrote:
Unmarked Black Fireblade (05 model??) with plod dressed in all black filmed me slpitting lanes on the A2 eastbound.

Watch out all. Mad Mad Mad

[edit - just for cov who lives miles away]

Oxford sports tailpack, Black and grey lid, tankbag etc.. Until he parked up you would have no idea it was plod. Sad


So he wasn't in uniform?

I always believed that a section 59 could only be issued by a 'constable in uniform'. I've taken that to mean literally, I.e if he isn't then he couldn't issue a section 59. I might be wrong but that was my understanding.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Maccydee
Renault 5 Driver



Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:05 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

SECTION 59
Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance:
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which —
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are —
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any
premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power
conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers
conferred on him by this section unless —
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

WannaBeDude
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:05 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not about living near there, it's interested in their changes, like used to be white lid and some blue stuff.
____________________
Jogging on, destination living.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Kris
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:05 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Maccydee wrote:

So he wasn't in uniform?


Nope, hence why he had to show me his warrant card.
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Maccydee
Renault 5 Driver



Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:07 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Kris wrote:
Maccydee wrote:

So he wasn't in uniform?


Nope, hence why he had to show me his warrant card.


I just post what I believe to be the act above, it clear states in uniform. I'd see if that gives you any scope to have it removed.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DRZZack
Two Stroke Sniffer



Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:10 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which —
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).


In full black eh?


EDIT: JUST REALISED IN THE TIME IT TOOK ME TO POST THIS ABOUT 10000 OTHER PEOPLE POINTED IT OUT


Last edited by DRZZack on 20:12 - 15 Aug 2012; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

waffles
World Chat Champion



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:10 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

A chum of mine (who occasionally posts on here) successfully fought a S59 ticket, it took him a long time to do and I think cost a bit of cash also but it is possible to do. I'll ask him what the circumstances of his when he gets back from holiday.

I guess the upside is that they stay with the bike and not you so you could sell the bike on and no have to worry about having your bike seized. Sucks though Sad
____________________
Theory test - 19/8/09, CBT - 11/10/09, MOD 1 - 16/8/10, MOD 2 - 27/10/10
Past rides Yamaha XT125X, Triumph TT600, Honda XR250
Current rides Suzuki GSXR 600, Honda MSX125
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:18 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
A PCSO could give you a section 59 because they think the colour of your bike is likely to cause offence and there is precisely fuck all you can do about it.


Indeed... "alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public".

Some members of the public are "annoyed" merely by the existence of bikes. Whether that's reasonable of them or not is not a condition of Section 59.

I'm wondering if word has come down from on high to start having a laugh with S59 and see what they can get away with.

Here's a thought. Since S59 is very carefully worded to avoid the tiresome legal bother of actually accused anyone of committing an offence, what's the statutory obligation to provide your name? Thinking

waffles wrote:
I guess the upside is that they stay with the bike and not you

Um, no.

PRA 2002 Section 59 (5) (d) wrote:
the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect [of] the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.


I don't know where the idea came from that it stays with the vehicle, except possibly in the de facto way that it's being administrated.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike


Last edited by Rogerborg on 20:22 - 15 Aug 2012; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

U_W v2.0
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 May 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:20 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Here's a thought. Since S59 is very carefully worded to avoid the tiresome legal bother of actually accused anyone of committing an offence, what's the statutory obligation to provide your name? Thinking


probably bugger all, they'd just note your registration and send the demand for it to the registered keeper most likely.
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:24 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Here's a thought. Since S59 is very carefully worded to avoid the tiresome legal bother of actually accused anyone of committing an offence, what's the statutory obligation to provide your name? Thinking


They can just apply it to the vehicle. Doesn't matter who was driving. In fact, it can follow a vehicle after it's been sold.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:26 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usually_Wrong wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Here's a thought. Since S59 is very carefully worded to avoid the tiresome legal bother of actually accused anyone of committing an offence, what's the statutory obligation to provide your name? Thinking


probably bugger all, they'd just note your registration and send the demand for it to the registered keeper most likely.

A Section 172 demand requires an accusation of a specific offence. Section 59 is carefully worded to avoid that (as long as you stop). That's not to say that they wouldn't try it anyway.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

waffles
World Chat Champion



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:28 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:

waffles wrote:
I guess the upside is that they stay with the bike and not you

Um, no.

PRA 2002 Section 59 (5) (d) wrote:
the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect [of] the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.


I don't know where the idea came from that it stays with the vehicle, except possibly in the de facto way that it's being administrated.


Well, I have learnt something new then. It has always been explained to me that they are issued against the vehicle rather than the person riding that vehicle.... Cheers for clearing that up Roger Thumbs Up
____________________
Theory test - 19/8/09, CBT - 11/10/09, MOD 1 - 16/8/10, MOD 2 - 27/10/10
Past rides Yamaha XT125X, Triumph TT600, Honda XR250
Current rides Suzuki GSXR 600, Honda MSX125
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:28 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Here's a thought. Since S59 is very carefully worded to avoid the tiresome legal bother of actually accused anyone of committing an offence, what's the statutory obligation to provide your name? Thinking


They can just apply it to the vehicle. Doesn't matter who was driving. In fact, it can follow a vehicle after it's been sold.

I don't see which part of Section 59 allows for that.

Of course, that may be how it's actually being applied, but that doesn't make it right, or lawful, to do so.

It'll take someone facing a force down in a well publicised case to sort it out, mind.

Not sure I really want to risk crossing the border for BCF BBQ 2012.2 now. Wink
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike


Last edited by Rogerborg on 20:29 - 15 Aug 2012; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

multijoy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:29 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

Kris wrote:
Maccydee wrote:

So he wasn't in uniform?


Nope, hence why he had to show me his warrant card.


That's the very textbook of 'not in uniform' - there's absolutely no scope for him to wriggle out of that.

I would be inclined to look for a firm of solicitors who 'specialise in actions against the police' and get a consultation. If you just want to be rid of it, I'd drop a note to the local Chief Constable, quoting s59 and the fact that he wasn't in uniform.

However, I do wonder if the s59 notice has been put on file - it's not like a traffic copper to not go for the substantive offence, so it's very possible that he's said s59 to just put the wind up you.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:31 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: OH BALLS!! (Another S59) Reply with quote

multijoy wrote:
it's not like a traffic copper to not go for the substantive offence, so it's very possible that he's said s59 to just put the wind up you.

Sanctioned detection, box ticked, target hit, no dicking around with the tedious old fangled "justice" system.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 13 years, 133 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.11 Sec - Server Load: 0.93 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 140.09 Kb