Wife being fobbed off by the police?

[Merc-C180K]

I think they've relaxed the law on canabis somewhat... But that's still illegal... Isn't it...?

 

[robert.saunders]

No wait, I am really confused now....

Join the club

 

[glojo]

My wife on the other hand is writing to the DVLA and has now got an insurance claim form to complete so her insurers

Excellent news and as I suspected. Wish your wife good luck from me and I hope this has a happy ending. If the insurance company have taken this on the perhaps you might want to save a few bob and not bother with the DVLA, but I do wish the police would get involved in these issues. The evil person that done this will probably know the police don't care and at the moment they will think they have got away with it.

Just to reverse the 'Get Sp!ke' debate:

What's the difference between a police officer saying a car that fails to stop after being involved in an accident is not really a police matter and Sp!ke saying his noisy exhaust or small number plate is not a police matter?

I and others have jumped down Sp!ke's throat for his attitude regarding his interpretations of our laws, but where is the condemnation of the police regarding their appalling, lackadaisical attitude to-wards hit and run accidents? How can it be an offence to fail to stop if the police fail to act?

Well done to your wife and please keep your cool tonight as things may or may not go your way.

Regards
John

 

[prprandall51]

This wasn't meant to be a "Get Sp!ke" campaign. In fact, regardless of the laws that Sp!ke considers unimportant, I have every sympathy with him and his wife over this matter and belive the Police should be involved. It is disgusting that they don't assist him in resolving this since, in my opinion, a crime has been committed (failing to stop after an accident).

Indeed, I will go further. I think that what has happened to him is a much more serious matter by far than the issue of number plate sizes, visors and exhausts. If the police had to choose between enforcing those laws pertaining to numberplates, visors and exhausts and the matter of who hit Sp!ke's car, I would vote for them to investigate Sp!ke's car, since it is the more serious matter - the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of the end (etc.).

Still don't like small numberplates, loud exhausts and tinted visors, though. And I still think that laws have to be respected - or at least accepted - no matter how much we may personally object to them.

Philip

 

[glojo]

Still don't like small numberplates, loud exhausts and tinted visors, though. And I still think that laws have to be respected - or at least accepted - no matter how much we may personally object to them.

Philip

Hi Philip,
I totally agree and your right in every respect, Sp!ke is getting the short straw and there but for the grace of whats'it go all of us.

We need our resident police officers to explain how failing to stop is an offence, yet they don't want to know when anyone complains about this act?

If I hit a police car and drove off, would the police not bother prosecuting me? If they would then the question remains.

Regards
John

 

[MBManInKen]

This wasn't meant to be a "Get Sp!ke" campaign. In fact, regardless of the laws that Sp!ke considers unimportant, I have every sympathy with him and his wife over this matter and belive the Police should be involved.

I fully agree with all three points above.

However, I'll also say that two wrongs don't make a right and so I don't think that anyone else (even the police) being in the wrong is a justification for then ignoring the law oneself.

<<And I still think that laws have to be respected - or at least accepted - no matter how much we may personally object to them.>>

Indeed - we are free to question them in terms of debate and lobby for change, but it can't be a free for all society in terms of abiding by the law.

 

[prprandall51]

Hi Philip,
If I hit a police car and drove off, would the police not bother prosecuting me? If they would then the question remains.

Regards
John

Hi John, the thought of this scenario really made me smile. Thank you.

Sadly, whilst I hold the Police in the highest esteem, it is unlikely that the same attitude would be taken in such a situation as clearly Sp!ke has seen with regard to his car.

 

[Sp!ke]

I know this thread has deviated somewhat and whilst not wanting to get wound up by the current anti Sp!ke brigade I do feel that there are some very misinformed comments being bandied about.

The whole numberplate/exhaust/visor thing came up because of a relaxation in enforcement and to some extent the law.

My exhaust was wholly illegal a short while ago but now it is perfectly legal. There has been a complete u-turn in the law on exhausts.

My tinted visor is again perfectly legal to use during daylight hours. The law as it stands officially prohibits visors without a ZA stamp on the visor but if the crash helmet is not purchased in the UK then it doesn't need either the BSI stamp or the ZA stamp on the visor as long as its design was for motorcycle use. My crash helmet was purchased online from Japan so needs no markings to remain legal. The ACPO guidelines which instructs officers on a national motorcycle enforcement strategy and the Police instructors on the Bike safe scheme see that tinted visors are a positive benefit as long as they are only used in daylight conditions. My tinted visor is never used in winter and never used unless it is in bright sunny conditions. It is not used to 'look cool' as some have inferred.

My numberplate, whilst not completely adhering to the letter of the law, now passes an MOT as the MOT tester now focuses on legibility. The national police motorcycle enforcement strategy also focuses on this legibility aspect, so again, the police have no problem with my numberplate. (Plodd excluded)

So the people who don't like any of the above, well tough. It is very unlikely you or anyone else can do anything about it as the powers that be have made the above acceptable whether you like it or not.

To keep on reiterating that I am breaking the law on the above elements seems an entirely pointless exercise unless of course the real reason for the continued flack is to vent some anger.

I'm not the one that needs to chill out or pull my neck back in I can assure you, its not me that has an issue here. It's a certain clique on here thats having an issue with what I do, despite the fact that legislation now permits it.

The fact that this same gaggle are trying to draw parallels between the above and the unfortunate event my wife suffered is..... well its either a pretty lame attempt at trying to cause friction or its some very ill thought out logic.

I now consider the whole visor/numberplate/exhaust topic closed and will not be making further comments on it.

 

[MBManInKen]

There is a word that describes the condition when you think everyone is out to get you .

Seriously, I doubt if anyone here is posting differing opinions for any other reason than to engage in debate. I certainly am neither motivated by anger nor any other such emotion. Surely, it's still a free country where we are all allowed to have our own opinions?

 

[prprandall51]

My exhaust was wholly illegal a short while ago but now it is perfectly legal. There has been a complete u-turn in the law on exhausts.

Really? I guess your exhaust was really annoyingly loud a short while ago but now it has gone amazingly quiet. That is incredible.

The law has not had a U-turn, it has been altered to take a more pragamatic approach to enforcment. This is a pity, in my opinion, but I will let that one go. But you are only kidding yourself if you think you anti-socially loud exhaust is now acceptable.

My tinted visor is again perfectly legal to use during daylight hours. The law as it stands officially prohibits visors without a ZA stamp on the visor but if the crash helmet is not purchased in the UK then it doesn't need either the BSI stamp or the ZA stamp on the visor as long as its design was for motorcycle use. My crash helmet was purchased online from Japan so needs no markings to remain legal. The ACPO guidelines which instructs officers on a national motorcycle enforcement strategy and the Police instructors on the Bike safe scheme see that tinted visors are a positive benefit as long as they are only used in daylight conditions. My tinted visor is never used in winter and never used unless it is in bright sunny conditions. It is not used to 'look cool' as some have inferred.

Fine, so long as you are always carrying an untinted one in your backpack.....

My numberplate, whilst not completely adhering to the letter of the law, now passes an MOT as the MOT tester now focuses on legibility. The national police motorcycle enforcement strategy also focuses on this legibility aspect, so again, the police have no problem with my numberplate. (Plodd excluded).

It has already been pointed out that you have benefited from the fact that the third party in your wife's incident was bearing a full-size (and thus fully legible) plate. How you can be so chuffed about your under-sized plate in the course of this particular discussion beggars belief.

So the people who don't like any of the above, well tough. It is very unlikely you or anyone else can do anything about it as the powers that be have made the above acceptable whether you like it or not.

But they haven't. Nobody passed legislation approving of these things, they have simply changed the way the rules are enforced. If your bike was irritatingly loud before, it still is. If your number plate could not be clearly seen before, it still can't. If your visor was tinted too strongly for safe riding before, it still is (and you still won't see the kid on the crossing when you suddenly pass into an area of heavy shade).

To keep on reiterating that I am breaking the law on the above elements seems an entirely pointless exercise unless of course the real reason for the continued flack is to vent some anger.

Yep. I am venting my anger at bikers and other motorists who drive / ride around in an antisocial fashion and are so ***** proud of it.

...

I now consider the whole visor/numberplate/exhaust topic closed and will not be making further comments on it.

Shame, I would love to hear your views on how your exhaust has become so quiet.

 

[DansSlk]

Oh for god's sake not another arguement.

Sp!ke, sorry to hear about the car man i hope the whole thing is sorted asap.

I really hate people who do things like that, if it was just an accident fair enough they happen but i was always taught to take responsibility for my actions.

 

[Merc-C180K]

...

Equally, if I am using a tinted visor during sunny daylight hours as opposed to wearing sunglasses, again I am technically breaking the law but by doing so I am making it safer for myself and other road users and once again there is no possibility of a potential victim of my crime.

If you abide by rules and laws without question then more fool you. I was brought up to engage brain.

I know this thread has deviated somewhat and whilst not wanting to get wound up by the current anti Sp!ke brigade I do feel that there are some very misinformed comments being bandied about.

The whole numberplate/exhaust/visor thing came up because of a relaxation in enforcement and to some extent the law.

Relaxation in enforcement is not a change in law...

My exhaust was wholly illegal a short while ago but now it is perfectly legal. There has been a complete u-turn in the law on exhausts.

My tinted visor is again perfectly legal to use during daylight hours. The law as it stands officially prohibits visors without a ZA stamp on the visor but if the crash helmet is not purchased in the UK then it doesn't need either the BSI stamp or the ZA stamp on the visor as long as its design was for motorcycle use. My crash helmet was purchased online from Japan so needs no markings to remain legal. The ACPO guidelines which instructs officers on a national motorcycle enforcement strategy and the Police instructors on the Bike safe scheme see that tinted visors are a positive benefit as long as they are only used in daylight conditions. My tinted visor is never used in winter and never used unless it is in bright sunny conditions. It is not used to 'look cool' as some have inferred.

So you have gone from admitting its illegal to now saying its only illegal sometimes, and remains legal through a loophole in the law?

My numberplate, whilst not completely adhering to the letter of the law, now passes an MOT as the MOT tester now focuses on legibility. The national police motorcycle enforcement strategy also focuses on this legibility aspect, so again, the police have no problem with my numberplate. (Plodd excluded)

So you admit your number plate is illegal, but the fact it doesn't adhere to the letter of the law...

So the people who don't like any of the above, well tough. It is very unlikely you or anyone else can do anything about it as the powers that be have made the above acceptable whether you like it or not.

To keep on reiterating that I am breaking the law on the above elements seems an entirely pointless exercise unless of course the real reason for the continued flack is to vent some anger.

No its to highlight the fact that you admit its illegal and yet flagrant the law regardless while still defending your stance as you were brought up to 'engage brain' and 'more fool anyone who abides by the law without question', and you manage to bring it up even when advised not to do so as it doesn't go down well...

I'm not the one that needs to chill out or pull my neck back in I can assure you, its not me that has an issue here. It's a certain clique on here thats having an issue with what I do, despite the fact that legislation now permits it.

Legislation over looks some of the illegality. It does not permit nor condone it.

The fact that this same gaggle are trying to draw parallels between the above and the unfortunate event my wife suffered is..... well its either a pretty lame attempt at trying to cause friction or its some very ill thought out logic.

Actually its well thought out simple logic.

I will break it down for you.

You are glad that the car which hit your wifes had a standard number plate which was visible to the witness, and that fact has allowed you to track down the perpetrator of the crime. You do agree with that statement yes?

You have a bike with a non standard, small plate, which is designed to not be as visible as the required standard plate. You agree with that statement yes?

Would you be unhappy if the plate on the perpetrators car was illegible? missing? designed to be hard to read...? I call unfair play on your behalf...

I now consider the whole visor/numberplate/exhaust topic closed and will not be making further comments on it.

Comments in red above

 

[Benzowner]

Just for you guys disputing the tinted visor thing, if I wear sunglasses behind a clear visor when riding by motorcycle I am not breaking the law, however, if I wear the same sunglasses with an open face helmet no visor, I am breaking the law. Now to make matters worse, my prescription glasses are sun reactive, so they tint even when it starts getting dark. Hence the relaxation in enforcement. A well thought out law

 

[andy_k]

Now to make matters worse, my prescription glasses are sun reactive, so they tint even when it starts getting dark. Hence the relaxation in enforcement. A well thought out law

surely most of these glasses which have more than a 50% tint are classed as not suitable for night driving?

 

[Sp!ke]

Just for you guys disputing the tinted visor thing, if I wear sunglasses behind a clear visor when riding by motorcycle I am not breaking the law, however, if I wear the same sunglasses with an open face helmet no visor, I am breaking the law. Now to make matters worse, my prescription glasses are sun reactive, so they tint even when it starts getting dark. Hence the relaxation in enforcement. A well thought out law

Sorry this is not correct. You can wear your sunglasses whenever you like with an open or closed face crash helmet.

There is no legislation on glasses or goggles of any kind. You can even wear a welding mask if you like. The law only references visors attached to crash helmets sold in this country.

 

[andy_k]

surely there is legislation on goggles?

They have to comply with British standard and have a kitemark

 

[Sp!ke]

Nope, there is a reference to a minimum amount of light but no kite mark required.

 

[andy_k]

you sure?



"A visor or goggles are vital to protect your eyes from wind, rain, insects and road dirt. All visors or goggles must comply with a British Standard and display a BSI kitemark, or they must comply with a European standard which offers a level of safety and protection at least equivalent to the British Standard and carry a mark equivalent to the BSI kitemark (ECE 22-05)."


source

 

[Sp!ke]

Your right, I stand corrected.

I must be getting confused between glasses and goggles. Its been a while since I wore goggles.

 

[glojo]

Your right, I stand corrected.

I must be getting confused between glasses and goggles. Its been a while since I wore goggles.

That's what I was guessing. I have seen bikers wearing an open faced helmet and just 'normal' glasses. Frightening.

Good luck,
John