Do you want the Road Tax system to change? Do you have thoughts on the potential changes to the Road Tax system? | No thanks
Police Theft? - Mike Harvey
My son had his motorcycle impounded by the police this morning. It's one of those minimalist types with everything unnecessary removed. (An 1127 GSXR engined streetfighter for those that are interested). He was stopped because of a percieved number plate infingement- visibility is slightly impaired by the seat unit, and whilst there, they had a look round it and and decided it was dangerous because it has no lights fitted. It's a summer bike, and he never goes out when it's dark or dusk. They also said the brakes were dangerous because he has a clear plastic pipe instead of the original master cylinder reservoir, as used in racing- not 'E' marked. They said they would have to take it away to have it dyno checked to ensure the engine was not too powerful for the bike. Well I know how powerful it is, it's been done. 130 bhp at the wheel. So what? Brakes and front forks/rear damper are upgraded to cope. The bike is absolutely mint, superbly maintained, perfectly safe, recently MOT'd, and I think the police have acted in a totally ridiculous manner, even though they complimented him on his safe riding and speed! Can anyone help with advice on construction and use regs re. the so called offences, no E mark, lack of lights, and power output. As a qualified motor engineer myself, and as a lecturer in motor car and motorcycle engineering, I would like to challenge their view that the bike is dangerous and contest it, but I don't want to challenge a technicality I cannot argue with.
Thanks and regards,
Re: Police Theft? - Bill Doodson

I cant help in respect to the law on wether E marking is required or not as I have never heard of it. Are your sure that its wasnt CE marking they where talking about, have a look at, which may shed some light on the issue. Bikes have normally got away with a lot less in the way of regulation than cars and it certainly does not have to have lights or indicators fitted if it's only used during daylight hours. It sounds as if your son got pulled for the plate and maybe they just threw in the master cylinder as something no one can easily challenge. Were the police traffic or normal beat type?

Sorry I cant be more help but this sounds like victimisation to me.

Re: Police Theft? - Mike Harvey
Bill, it was a speed trap (not speeding) but he phoned for traffic to come from Derby. Gave me time to get there and try to pour some sense into the situation, but to no avail. Mike
Re: Police Theft? - Tom Shaw
The only light legally required on a bike during daylight hours is a stoplight. As for the engine beig "Too powerful for the bike", never heard of any regulation like that. I would be thinking about a solicitor.
Re: Police Theft? - Mike Harvey
Knew there was someting else Tom, the stoplight. His is LED's like on the back of new cars. They didn't like that either. Thanks for your views
Absolute Joke - Guy Lacey
To be honest - I think those of you saying "the only lights required during daylight hours..." are talking nonsense.

Any vehicle in use on the public roads, day or night, must have a valid MOT Test Certificate and to do so it must have working dip and main beam lights plus rears. Ask any decent enduro/trials/motocrosser and they will tell you.

To have seperate legislation regarding roadworthiness of vehicles for day or night use is pure fantasty - what happens when thick fog descends at 11am?
Re: Absolute Joke - Mike Harvey
Guy, I've managed to find the Road Lighting Regulations on the government's website tonight, and section 4 (3) states quite clearly that "Nothing in the regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to:- (a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp".
I appreciate that it is common sense to have lights, but here I'm asking for knowledge of the law, not best guesses. There are daft regs regarding the MOT test too, for example, if you have a cracked or broken windscreen, you can take it out and go for MOT test. It cannot fail, as it is not a "reason for failure".
Daft but true. Thanks anyway, and regards,
Re: Absolute Joke - Keith Bassett
The Construction & Use regulations state :

'The Construction & Use regulations require motor vehicles to be equipped at all times with such lighting equipment and reflectors as would enable them to be driven at night without breaking the law. The law does not apply, however, to vehicles such as racing cars which are not provided with any lighting equipment at all because they are never intended to be driven at night.

It is a good defence to show that the contravention was due to a defect which had just occurred or, where the defect had occurred some time previously, that steps had already been taken to have the defect remedied, providing that the vehicle was not at the time being driven during the hours of darkness.'
Re: Absolute Joke - Dave
I beleive there is such a thing as a daylight only MOT.
Re: Absolute Joke - Dwight Van-Driver
Hi Mike..
There is an offence of of having the rear no plate (non required at the front) not easily distinquishable under M.V. Reg and Licensing Regs (has been covered in earlier thread)

As stated under Reg 4(3) R V Lighting Regs 1989 - nothing in these Regs shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between SUNRISE and SUNSET to
a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamps (Scramblers). So providing lights have never been fitted and not used after dark - no offence.

Vehicles propelled by a spark ignition engine first used after 1.10.82 the design, construction and equipment requirements (EC stamped parts?) are covered by EEC Directive 78/665 or EEC Reg 15.03 which I do not have access to.

Sect 67 Road Traffic Act 1988 - gives the Police power to test a vehicle and if one in their opinion is so defective that its should not proceed without a test forthwith. (not always practical to test at roadside and may require removal to suitable place?)

A number of precedents have supported the need to preserve evidence to prove cases.

As to power output I cannot understand unless the question of Driving Licence entitlement is involved.

Your concern in understandable but with respect there is only your account and rational judgement cannot be made without access to all the facts. I think that a calm and reasoned approach to the officers involved or their supervision may resolve the queries you pose.

Sounds as if the 'bike looks somewhat out of the norm and bear in mind many 'hand made' bikes have been found to contain stolen parts - ask any Stolen Vehicle Squad. What would have been your reaction if your sons bike had been stolen and recovered in a similar incident :- )

Finally do not forget that you have the right to lodge a formal complaint at your local nick.
Re: Absolute Joke - THe Growler
If every part of a m/c is supposed to be covered in CE/EC marks whatever, what about my Hog? That's a US import and is legally MOT-ed and registered. Not a CE mark in sight. Nor would I want there to be one, defacing a fine piece of US iron.
Re: Police Theft? - Mark (Brazil)

Try this stuff...(not links, cut and paste etc etc........)

I think if you start with those and follow a couple of the links, then you will find all the stuff you need.

However, I would suggest that you start with a telephone call or polite visit to the Police Station concerned. If there is any "excessive enthusiasm" involved you will probably find it fixed quite quickly, although this might not satisfy your sense of fairplay, it will probably be the most productive.

I have tons more references to Motor Legislation if you don't find what you are looking for in the above - just let me know.

Re: Police Theft? - Dave
Mark (Brazil) wrote:

> However, I would suggest that you start with a telephone call
> or polite visit to the Police Station concerned. If there is
> any "excessive enthusiasm" involved you will probably find it
> fixed quite quickly,

If they got a Traffic Rozzer to look at it I suspect they will be on a sound legal footing, I'm afraid.

Doesn't make it fair or right, of course.

A hay bale loory lost control near me on Sunday. AN HGV on two wheels is not something yuo want filling your windscreen. Luckily I'm alive. I couldn't help but notice the lack of rozzer interest in overloaded lorries compared to their zealous enforcement of other motor 'crime'.
Re: Police Theft? - Mark (Brazil)

> If they got a Traffic Rozzer to look at it I suspect they
> will be on a sound legal footing, I'm afraid.

Oh, I'm sure you're correct. That's why I said about contacting the Station since you will then be speaking to a non-traffic guy. Also, enthusiasm happens quite a lot, and can be dealt with, even when it is "legal".
Re: Police Theft? - Rebecca

CE marks and E marks are very different, the E mark relates to 'Gaseous Pollutants' and can be found in ECE 15.03 as mentioned above.

EC 78/665 was an amending directive to 70/220 - all 314 pages of it - so I'm not posting it here!

Another link that Mark (Brazil) might like to add to the collection is All the regulations are updated and consolidated.

It's not free because it pays my mortgage, but Mike, we do have different rates for academic institutions, and I don't mind looking up the odd specific thing (for nothing) if it helps.
Re: Police Theft? - mike harvey
Thanks Rebecca. The link does not work on your email address, so cannot respond directly. Your kind offer of help will be remembered and not abused! Just while I'm on, I'm confused about the E mark, Head lamps and windows, and other components, are 'E' marked, in a circle with a number like 11, 9 or whatever. I thought it was European type approval, and the number related to the issuing country, 11 being the UK. Is this the same as the gaseous substances, or am I using the incorrect terminology for the marks I'm thinking about?
Regards and thanks again,

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car