Do you need a restriction certificate?

[Paxovasa]

Am in a discussion with someone and they think that you need a certificate that says the bike is restricted.

I think that the onus is on the police/insurance company to prove the bike is not restricted and so you don't need a certificate.

Who is right?
____________________
Suzuki GSF600 K3 (in the fastest colour, black).

[johnsmith222]

you are right.

Your friend has been mislead by robbing bastards international.

[Davo]

Legally there is no requirement to have a 33bhp certificate in relation to a driving licence. The bike just has to be 33bhp and under a certain power to weight ratio.

The reason people believe you do is because they've been conditioned by mis-informed dealers (driven by F1's propaganda)

An insurance company could apply the condition to your policy that you need to submit proof, but a dyno printout would suffice, but that's a contractual condition not a legal requirement (if that makes sense)

If the police suspect you of riding a bike that exceeds 33bhp they have the power to seize the bike for the purposes of testing.

[Paxovasa]

Thanks for confirming what I thought
____________________
Suzuki GSF600 K3 (in the fastest colour, black).

[Yarri]

Im one of few people who had experience with this, so i'll share.

I been stopped by a copper on a lovely sunny sunday last year when i had my gixxer 600 and without even realising this copper started going on that my rear tyre thread was over the limit blablabla, he didn't even measure the thread depth or anything but i kinda knew that tyre was soon to go.

Anyway copper had isued me with a producer note that i had to produce a proof of tyre being changed as well as 4 other things, these are: license, insurance, mot and section 10 which he stated was my restriction certificate (which obviously i didn't have) which he hasn't stated on the paper.

So to cut long story short, i got my tyre changed and went to local nick, produced all the documents, big lady in reception asked me what did i have to produce in section 10, i played stupid saying i have no idea blablabla, so she said as its hasn't been stated no furter actions will be taken.

Well, this could be 1 off situation but i always thought that coppers have no idea about bikes and restrictions at all, some do, some don't, so there ya go.

Hope this helps
____________________
Theory Passed: 23/10/2008 49/74 Bike Test Passed: 05/01/2009 1 minor
Theory Car Passed: 22/07/2009 48/74 Car Test Passed: 22/10/2009 2 minor
Few minutes of life of the biker could be more interesting then the whole lifes of many people

[Sam_Y_93]

What if I was pulled over handed a producer asking me to show my restriction certificate in the next week or so and I show one from two owners ago. Its not in my name so it wouldn't count right?
____________________
Bikes Past: Yamaha Aerox (sold) Yamaha R125 (written off)
Bikes Current: Honda VFR 400 (awaiting restoration) Honda CB600f F-4
Theory passed July 21st Mod1 passed August 3rd Mod 2 passed 26th August

[Chippa]

[Mr Hammers]

[Sam_Y_93]

Err yeah restricted

Point is it says on that certificate that if its not in the current owners name then it isnt valid, but had it have been restricted when I bought it that would mean for a valid certificate I would have to pay to get it done again.
____________________
Bikes Past: Yamaha Aerox (sold) Yamaha R125 (written off)
Bikes Current: Honda VFR 400 (awaiting restoration) Honda CB600f F-4
Theory passed July 21st Mod1 passed August 3rd Mod 2 passed 26th August

[Kickstart]

Hi

Yep, no different to the police asking for a certificate to prove that you were not speeding.

The certificate is not a valid legal document, irrespective of whose name it is in. It is just FI who try to claim that it needs to be in your name, at the same time as admitting it is no more valid than a receipt.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[stinkwheel]

[Sam_Y_93]

Makes me feel much safer Plus I dont tend to ride that quickly so I have no reason to be pulled over, and if I am it will be a polite "of course it is restricted officer sir"
____________________
Bikes Past: Yamaha Aerox (sold) Yamaha R125 (written off)
Bikes Current: Honda VFR 400 (awaiting restoration) Honda CB600f F-4
Theory passed July 21st Mod1 passed August 3rd Mod 2 passed 26th August

[Doovy]

view in here for more opinions and fake certificate download: https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=206095
____________________
Yamaha RXS 100 > Honda CD 250 > Honda Hornet 600 > Honda CBR 600RR > Yamaha RXS 100 > Kawasaki ZX6R J2 > Yamaha FZ1

[0l0dom0l0]

this is an interesting read

https://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=150503

to be on the safe side, i got my bike dynoed after fitting a kit myself. cost me £30 for the kit, and £35 for the dyno.

i am aware i didnt need it, but if anyone ever asks, its there for backup!

[Teflon-Mike]

I dont believe that there is ANYTHING in the RTA or C&U Regs that give a 'Restriction Certificate' ANY legal standing what-so-ever.

And as FAR as I'm aware there is NOTHING in either bit of legislation that DEMANDS a rider on an A2 licence has ANY form of proof that the bike is A2 Complient.

Same as the 125 Provisional Restriction, there is nothing that says you have to have some sort of proof the bikes 14bhp.

Same as the HGV catagories, which I'm none too familiar with, but as far as I'm aware a 'rig' can have one catagory unloaded and another loaded, or depending on the trailer, whether it has all its wheels down and 'stuff'... M6-Barge Pilot probably explain in more detail... but you get the idea.

The ONUS is entirely on the driver to ensure that they have a valid licence for the vehicle that they are riding / driving.

Up to the POLICE to PROVE you have commited an offence under either the Road Traffic Act or the construction & Use Regulations etc etc etc.

So, IF they have cause to believe that the moped you are riding ISN'T restricted, they can stop you.... if you were doing 40+ on it.... as the C&U say that a moped cannot exceed 32mph, they have pretty good grounds, AND proof......

At WHICH point, they have to decide WHAT bits of legislation you are breaking.

In the case of a De-Restricted Moped, the first thing is IF its still registered as a MOPED, then you have a failure to notify DVLA of change of class, then under the C&U regs probably a HOST of offences, becouse as a Moped, it enjoyed some excemptions to the regs applied to motorcycles, which if its de-restricted it has become..... AND in the act of De-Restricting it, and changing class, there's the possibility that it PROBABLY ought to have been submitted for Single Vehicle Approval as a 'radically altered vehicle'. Sounds daft, but jumping classes, its no different to cutting up a car to make a trike or that kind of thing, and actually far more clear cut than taking an old sports-bike and turning it into a hard-tail chop!

So theres any number of pottential offenses in there for riding a de-restricted moped, that HASN'T been re-registered, and 'approved' as a motorcycle.

Even if you are over 21 and have a full A1 licence to ride a motorcycle, they probably have plenty of cause to hammer you, but of 16 & on a provisional, riding a de-restricted 50 is actually racking up MORE offenses than simply jumping on your mates R1 and taking it for a raz!

MAIN ones they would do you for, though is riding without a valid licence, (for the vehicle you were riding) AND riding without valid insurance.

If it was insured as a 'Moped', then the cover you have bought is for a bike that meets legal defanition of a moped, not something de-restricted to make it a motorcycle, which ven though you have failed to notofy DVLA and go through appropriate re-registration process, it still IS, if it does 40, regardless of what it says on the V5.

Actually two or MORE offenses in there, becouse they could also do you for obtaining insurance by deception, and possibly a few others, whether 16 or on a provisional or not.

BUT the police HAVE to proove you were breaking the law. In teh case of a 40mph moped, pretty clear cut, unless its a pre-77 50, and unmodified, where theres some exception.

125 on a Provisional, or 33bhp on an A2, STILL up to the Police to proove that the bike you are stopped on does not comply with the requirements of your, licence.

But BIT more tricky for them, as there is nothing in the C&U regs that impose a speed restriction on a 125 Learner-Legal, its entirely on the power rating & weight of the machine, as it is for an A2 rstricted 33bhp bike.

There is NOTHING in the C&U regs or the RTA regs to differentiate a Learner Legal 125 from one that isn't, or ANY bike from one that meets 33bhp A2 licence requirements.

There is NO catagory in the registration system for them, or in the marking requirements, as there is again for Goods-Vehicles where there is the 'plating' system.

So they have less justification for pulling you, but if they SUSPECT that you dont have a licence for the bike you are riding they CAN confiscate it for the purpose of thier investigatuions...... ie weigh it, dyno test it, which is about ALL they can do, to proove the bike doesn't meet the requiremnts of your licence entitlement.

But since they dont tend to have calibrated Dyno's at the station, they tend NOT do do that, they'd rather try and get you for something that they can much more easily proove....

As said, the ONLY standing a restriction certificate HAS is IF its a requirement of your insurance.

In which case its simply part of your contract with them. No different to them asking for a Certificate of Installation for a Thatcham alarm or imobilier.

AND merely supplying them a restriction cert, ISN'T full adherance to your contract of insurance, your declaration is that the bike IS restricted, and will REMAIN restricted throughout the duration of the policy.

Again, making false declaration to obtain insurance is an offense in its own right.

AND did you know.........

Your insurance becomes invalid IF you are speeding!

Actually your insurance becomes invalid whenever you youse your motor-vehicle for ANY illegal act.

AND the police have the power to sieze your vehicle if it is used for ANY Criminal activity......

Technically, you cannot in law, enter into a LEGAL contract to undertake an ILLEGAL act.

I believe that this was tested by one of the insurance companies MANY years ago, when a car was crashed, being driven by the legal owner AND isured driver, who just happened to be transporting the illegal proceeds of a jewelry heist!

He'd actually blagged the jewlers, and was using his OWN CAR as his get-away vehicle! You DO have to wonder at the criminal mind at times, BUT, seems he was a gentleman blagger, and had taken precautions so he didn't smash & grab and run to his car in a stripey sweatshirt, a stocking over his head, a shot-gun in one hand and a swag bag in the other.....

He'd done the job neatly, locked the shop assistant in a cupboard, and walked out of the jewlers, in a suit, carrying a brief case, walked round the corner, got in his car, then banged into some-one pulling out of the parking space!

Bloke he bumped into was rather irate, and beat-bobby walked up to mediate, and was trying to sort them out, when woman from the jewlers, had wriggled free and ran out the shop screaming, saw bobby, and ran up to him to report the burglary, ONLY to 'identify' the blagger, still sat in his car!

So, jewlery blagger was duly 'done'..... BUT irate car driver he'd bumped into, wanted to claim on blaggers insurance for the damage to his car!

Blaggers Insurance company, insisted that AS the car was being used for an illegal activity (Robbing the Jewlers!), THEY couldn't legally provide cover for it, THERFORE at the time the bloke was hit, the driver wasn't insured, and THEY didn't have to pay out!

AND, the case held up in court!

{This may be urban legand. It may be a 'scenario' from a law-school text-book to illustrate the idea, but either way, it is rather amusing, and enlightening!)

So, a few cautionary thoughts for you.... technically......

IF you are speeding, you are breaking the law, so at THAT instant, you are not insured.
If you are driving the wrong way up a one way street, at that instant you are breaking the law, hence no insurance.
If you are parked on the PAVEMENT or illgelly on a double yellow line.... you are breaking the law..... hence you dont have insurance.......(Actually I believe this one was 'tested' when some-one had thier car 'towed' for illegal parking & claimed it was 'stolen' to get it back. Think there are a few instances, both with police authorised removers on double yellows, AND private contractors removing vehicles from private car-parks)
If you are over the legal limit for blood-alchohol...... you are breaking the law.... hence not insured....
IF you have recreational pharmeseuticals about your person, you are 'transporting an illegal substance'... breaking the law, hence aren't insured.....

There are probably a few THOUSAND minor laws you can break in such a way, BUT they can use ANY of them, IF THEY WISH to do you for riding / driving without valid insurance!

Yup...... an awful lot of plod, AREN'T 100% up on 'the law'..... they are 'policemen', not Lawyers.....

But SOME-TIMES we need to be thankful for small mercies..... if they DID know more, they could REALLY fuck things up for us!

TWO curiouse anomolies of these revalations for you to ponder:-

1/ IF you have a head on accident whist speeding......... at the moment of impact you slow down....... considerably........ So while you might NOT have been insured the moment BEFORE you strck the other vehicle...... at the INSTANT of impact..... your velocity was nil, therfore you were NOT speeding..... there-fore you MUST be insured....... but AS the crash was the CONSEQUENCE of your 'illegal activity' regardless of velocity at the moment of impact...... your not insured

2/ IF you crash whilst driving, it is almost certain that you could REASONABLY be charged for 'driving without due care & attension', or failing to have full control of your vehicle....... If SO, you are breaking the law....... ALSO crashing into some-one or something, CAN be construed as the civil offence, 'causing damage through negligence'..... in either instance, an insurance company COULD claim that you were breaking the law, and therefor refute ANY claim for damages........ as you're NOT insured

WHY do Insurance companies Pay out for accidents?

BECOUSE, while these loop-holes exist, Third-Party (AND ONLY THIRD ARTY) Insurance is a requirement of teh Road Traffic Act, and THAT states the circumstances for which it MUST be provided......

And under CONSUMER Law..... a product or service MUST be 'fit for the purpose intended'......

Which is WHY Lawyers can make so much money, trying to untangle all the contradictions of the different legislation, and ULTIMATELY we have Judges, who under English COmmon Law, are SUPPOSED to be able to look at the arguments and apply a little common sense!

which on a different note ALL together, is why I support the independence of the Judiciary, and despise the impositions imposed upon thier descretion by EVER more prescriptive legislation..... but that's a different debate!
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'

[Kickstart]

[jbond]

Has anyone ever heard of any case of somebody being done for riding an unrestricted bike when it should have been 33hp restricted?

There are lots of things you should and shouldn't do. And there's lots of things that are stupid. But then there's reality where nobody has ever been caught. Ever.

Personally, I wish people would spend the first couple of years after passing their test on some underpowered trail bike so they could work the stupidity out of their system at relatively low speeds. But if you want to learn how to ride safely on a 400 or 600, you might as well just ignore the restriction law and go ahead because you are very, very unlikely to get caught.

If it all goes horribly wrong, don't blame me. It's your choice what you do, not mine.
____________________
https://www.notobikeparkingfees.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/banner2.gif

[G]

[Crazy Assed Goose]

If they took your bike to dyno it, I can easily reach my 2 rear cylinder plugs on my bike, could I pull them out and the is my restriction since it wouldn't make more than 33bhp but would probably still run?

[Kickstart]

Hi

Doubt it would be OK for you to ask for a few moments to pull the plug leads off before they took it away (and suspect that something like that would give a very obvious misfire and be so easy to correct that even if it was under 33hp it could be argued that it is no more a restriction than just failing to open the throttle fully).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[HD]

So what can they actually do if they prove your bike is above 33bhp? Take your bike? Criminal record? Fine?
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3

[Kickstart]

Hi

Basically do you for driving otherwise than in accordance with your license (basically driving without a license).

However the law is very badly worded so proving it in court against a decent legal bod would be difficult (law just says net power output, but doesn't detail anything about how that is measured, and a dyno can be very easily fiddled).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing