 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Andy J |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
Andy J
Banned
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Andy_Pagin |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Andy_Pagin
World Chat Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike
tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 16:10 - 01 Aug 2012  Post subject: |
 |
|
I don't know why people think that the DSA provide bikes for tests; be like booking the exam to be a brickie and turning up without your own trowel, but many do, apparently.
Had one student at school years back book his test, then turn up the following weekend when we were giving CBT and start ranting, because he'd booked his practical, and turned up at alloted time where he did his CBT expecting examiner & bike to be there.... and finding a very perplexed care-taker at the comunity centre instead!
NO! DSA don't supply or offer bikes for you to do tests on.
Nothing says you have to have ridden test bike before tests, though probably helpful if you are familiar with it.
As for how to get DAS bike to test centre; well a DAS lesson is a convenient way to do it; as only way you can legally ride bike there yourself.
BUT; DIYing it, if you can arrange a DAS eligible bike, and insurance cover to ride it, nothing stopping you taking it to test centre on the back of a trailer or in avan, or getting a qualkified & insured fellow to ride it, maybe with you following in a car or on the pillion.
Next best bet, is if you have a car, and insurance policy that provides 'Any Vehicle' 3rd party extension for vehicles not owned by policy holder, but driven with owners concent.... which is common, but you DO have to check the small print..... some provide limitations, and may state any CAR or they may have express clause, limiting cover to vehicles you have FULL licence entitlement to ride.... Then you might 'Borrow' a mates bike for test (Cant be your own)
Next: If you are going to get your own big-bike; then nothing says you HAVE to have a licence to insure it, though many insurers can be 'peculiar' about it.... So buy your own big-bike, insure it, and then rent or borrow van or get mate using 3rd party 'extension' cover to ferry you to test.
There are many ways and means. Though often 'awkward', hence the convenience of a DAS lesson being the more usual expedience.
____________________
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?' |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Andy_Pagin |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Andy_Pagin
World Chat Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:26 - 01 Aug 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike wrote: | Next best bet, is if you have a car, and insurance policy that provides 'Any Vehicle' 3rd party extension for vehicles not owned by policy holder, but driven with owners concent.... |
But make sure the bike is insured by someone. I saw a poor sod get raped by the police on one of those 'Police Action Camera' shows, he had a 'any other vehicle' fully comp policy, but was driving a mates' car that his mate hadn't insured. £200 on the spot fine.
____________________
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa, hey-hey,
the men in white coats are coming to take me away.
Yamaha Vity -> YBR125 -> FZS600 Fazer -> FZ1-S Fazer |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 16:36 - 01 Aug 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy_Pagin wrote: | But make sure the bike is insured by someone. |
If that's a condition of your cover. It likely is, but don't assume. Some of mine have been down the years, some haven't. Yes, I check them, very carefully.
| Andy_Pagin wrote: | £200 on the spot fine. |
In Mega City 1, maybe, but here Plod has no authority to "fine" anybody, on the spot or otherwise. Just because "Oi! Rozzers!" calls a FPN a "fine" doesn't make it so. 
Anyway, what Mike said. I've offered to loan my GPZ to a workmate for his DAS. We'll sort out insurance, ride there on our own bikes, I'll slap Ls on mine, he'll have a go. Nothing ventured.
____________________
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 |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Andy_Pagin |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Andy_Pagin
World Chat Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:02 - 01 Aug 2012 Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy_Pagin wrote: | Point was they said it was a legal requirement that the car had an insurance policy of some form covering it regardless of what the 'borrowing' drivers fully comp insurance said. |
Mmm. They say a lot of things, usually with great sincerity and assurance, but many of which are simply wrong.
| RTA 1988 wrote: | 143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act |
That's the law, in its entirety. Really, that's it, there no super secret part that only coppers and courts get to see and apply. Everything else in there grants exceptions to it.
Just because you saw it on't telly doesn't make it factual either. There's no law against showing bullshit dressed up as documentary, sadly. 
Oh, the coppers will have been told differently, either in training or the canteen, they'll have tugged him because it wasn't on the MID, collared him in good faith thinking they were doing the right thing, and he may even have admitted to the offence and paid up, but none of that makes them right.
Ah, here we go: Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2011]
| The Court of Appeal, comprising Ward LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ and Black LJ wrote: | the certificate produced by the driver was a ‘relevant certificate of insurance’ for the purposes of s. 165A as it clearly stated that he was insured to drive other vehicles with the owner’s consent. There is no requirement for the certificate to make a specific reference to the vehicle actually being driven. [which was not itself covered by any policy] |
The thing is, by this point the case was about whether the vehicle had been seized legally. The CPS had already accepted that it was covered by insurance and dropped the driving without insurance charge. The case was about whether it had been reasonable for the coppers to even believe that it was being used without insurance, and three Lords Justice of Appeal said no, it was not reasonable.
This was because the certificate of insurance said in plain language that it covered other vehicles, and made no condition on there being another policy covering them. However, when the chap was stopped, Plod called the insurer who tried to claim that such a condition did exist. But the Court of Appeal held that the certificate itself is the only thing that a driver can use to prove that insurance exists, either to Plod or to a court. Not the MID, not even what the insurer tries to claim that they actually meant. If they issue a certificate, and don't revoke the policy, then what it actually says on the certificate is definitive and completely satisfies the Road Traffic Act.
So the coppers you saw weren't just wrong. In the context of the actual law, if they were presented with a valid certificate of insurance then they had insufficient grounds to form a reasonable belief that they were right - and that would be true even if the chap's insurer told them that they were right!
The law is what it says that it is, even if everyone believes differently. Ignorance is not an excuse, but that cuts both ways. That's not my opinion, that's from the Court of Appeal.
____________________
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 |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 13 years, 236 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
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.
|
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: 0.19 Sec - Server Load: 1.37 - MySQL Queries: 14 - Page Size: 62.47 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating