Mate has a court summons for driving without a license and insurance!

He will get 9 points for driving with no insurance, and further points for riding a vehicle he isnt qualified to drive.

Oh look, someone being done for something which apparently "everybody does" and never gets caught.

You will also get the same fine for riding a derestricted 125 on "L" plates.
 
SB118 said:
Didn't know it had been changed, always been 6-8 in my experience.
Click to expand...

Its 9 last time I saw , thats what the last letter I saw for a no show in court because they sent the summons letter to the wrong address for one of the lads at work.
 
Phoen1x said:
Completely agree. All thoughts about whether its a silly law or not aside, it is the law. If you get caught, take your lumps and get on with it. Its the same as doing 80 on the motorway, 70 is perhaps a silly limit these days, but if you get 3 points for knowing the limit is 70 and yet doing 80 then fair enough, surely?

Crash or no crash, fault or no fault, none of this matters, if he is cherged with riding other than as allowed on his license then the crash is a non-event, he is being charged for the license (and/or resulting insurance issue) not the crash, its just that the crash allowed him to get caught.

I have no view one way or the other on the law, but if you break a law, and get caught, tough im afraid.
Click to expand...

Thankfully speed limits while in place are slightly flexible (depending on who's giving out the points/fines) as far as im aware the police generally wont persue speeders if they are at a speed of (speed limit + 10% + 2MPH)

So if you were doing 35 in a 30 your done, 34 in a 30 is generally ok
79 in a 70 zone is generally ok, 80 and your done.

this is mainly to take into account that a majority of car speedo's are not 100% accurate, i know mine is 3-5mph out.

As for the OP's mate, hard luck he's gonna loose his licence and also get a fine, can count on a 6-12 month ban. rules are there for a reason.
 
I think the fact that he's been involved in an accident is irrelevant, it’s just resulted in him getting caught.
I’m surprised to hear he’s being pursued for driving a motorbike over 33bhp, it was unheard of when I past my bike test 4 years ago. I paid £200 to have my CBR400 to be restricted and subsequently removed it 6 months later as it was boring (Still had the paperwork to prove fitment), my second bike I never bothered to do (But to be honest I can’t remember whether I was through my 2 year restriction by then).
A lot of people would be pleased to have the book thrown at him, but how many people here had scooters or RS125 de-restricted? Because this is the same scenario.
Also I think I’m not alone when I say that I had my last car remapped and neglected to inform my insurance company of it.
 
Tdh1987 said:
A lot of people would be pleased to have the book thrown at him, but how many people here had scooters or RS125 de-restricted? Because this is the same scenario.
.
Click to expand...

It certainly is, and its a risk they all run, although strangely they all believe the police will never ever ever ever ever check to see if a vehicle is restricted.

Well, they do, I've always told them they do, and these are the consequences of being caught.

You get royally bummed by her majesties constabulary.
 
He deserves a ban for being an idiot.

I had a 33bhp license, honored it because I valued it, did my two years (which flew by) and have a full license as a result...

To everyone who say 'he was only doing 40 - not his fault' etc, he was effectively riding without a license and thus no insurance. There are no excuses I'm afraid.
 
stockhausen said:
It never is :rolleyes:

Sadly, probably not :mad:
Click to expand...

It surely wasnt my fault when a Mondeo pulled right out and through my lane while travelling at 50mph with NO excuse. But no big deal, i was only thrown 50mph over the front of his car and my bike split into 2. But im a biker so yea i must have been breaking the law...
 
There's some right plonkers here trying to justify this...

So he was only doing 40mph when he crashed... yeah, but are you trying to say? Surely if he only ever wanted to go 40mph, he would have never derestricted his bike. You're only going to derestrict your bike for one reason....

And those complaining about the bike restriction laws, bikes are a hell of a lot more dangerous and speed can be achieved a hell of a lot more quickly so I think it's more than fair... You already get the benefits of being able to beat any supercar for £10k :p
 
Moley said:
OK Firstly, I know nothing about the trailer incident so can't comment.

Secondly, I didn't put it across in any such way. He has a license which limits him on the power of bike he can ride until such a time as he has gained enough experience to move up to a higher power level. He is not qualified to drive the higher power level vehicle and therefore is not allowed to drive one on the public highway. He chose to ignore this, he has to take the consequences - thank god he didn't kill himself or anyone else as a result of his arrogant attitude to the conditions imposed on him having a license to start with.

The accident as it happened may not have been his fault, but as I stated earlier the courts will take the view that he simply should not have been on the road on that vehicle. Same as a drunk driver or someone with no license at all should not be on the road in any vehicle. Therefore the accident is his fault - had he been on a vehicle that he was qualified to drive then it would not.

Simples.
Click to expand...

+1, even if a lot of people dont agree.

If I decide to drink 7 cans of stella, hop into a car that I'm neither licensed to or insured to drive, then someone pulls out in front of me - would I not deserve everthing that was coming to me?

Maybe the accident on its own wasnt his fault, but the lack of insurance and license is so he needs to accept the consequences. Just because it was a bike he was otherwise licensed to ride, with the restrictor removed, doesnt make it any different - he still has no license for it and therefore no insurance. "Everybody does it" doesnt tend to get you far in court...
 
Foghorn Leghorn said:
Nice to see the holier than thou crowd are alive and well :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh I just love people who post this.
Yes they are alive and well and the best thing - yes, we can stand up high on our pedistal and look down upon you.

Some of us aren't stupid enough to break the law and those that do aren't stupid enough to get caught.
It's not a matter of being "holier than thou" it's simply a matter of not being as dumb.
 
stoofa said:
Oh I just love people who post this.
Yes they are alive and well and the best thing - yes, we can stand up high on our pedistal and look down upon you.

Some of us aren't stupid enough to break the law and those that do aren't stupid enough to get caught.
It's not a matter of being "holier than thou" it's simply a matter of not being as dumb.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Foghorn Leghorn said:
Don't think any of us ever rode a restricted 125 whilst we we're on L plates ;)

Nice to see the holier than thou crowd are alive and well :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I didn't.
I ran a restricted 125cc until I passed my test a short while later. Then bought a 250cc.
Very few people I knew ran derestricted 125s. Those that did, knew the risks though.
 
a.hay said:
He deserves a ban for being an idiot.

I had a 33bhp license, honored it because I valued it, did my two years (which flew by) and have a full license as a result...

To everyone who say 'he was only doing 40 - not his fault' etc, he was effectively riding without a license and thus no insurance. There are no excuses I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Rilot said:
I didn't.
I ran a restricted 125cc until I passed my test a short while later. Then bought a 250cc.
Very few people I knew ran derestricted 125s. Those that did, knew the risks though.
Click to expand...

Fairy nuff, absolutely everyone I new on a 50 or 125 deresricted them :D

and yes, we all new the risks/didn't care/were stupid (delete as applicable).

stoofa said:
Oh I just love people who post this.
Yes they are alive and well and the best thing - yes, we can stand up high on our pedistal and look down upon you

Some of us aren't stupid enough to break the law and those that do aren't stupid enough to get caught.
It's not a matter of being "holier than thou" it's simply a matter of not being as dumb.
Click to expand...

Good, love you too sweety :D , and yes some certainly come across that way.

I do have to check sometimes that I haven't logged onto to a middle aged Daily Mail readers forum by accident, the amount of self righteous indignation can be hilarious :D.

Everyone breaks the law at some point, I should imagine the majority of car/bike drivers/riders break the law every day, don't think they're all dumb though. Very curious how this chap got caught out though, not easy to check if the bikes restricted or not without dismantling it. Did he dob himself in by accident? that would be dumb....

Fog
 
Last edited:
my only issue is with the insurance thing, I've seen a fair amount of grief caused to family and friends from being involved in accidents with uninsured drivers.

Knowingly riding in a way that invalidated his insurance is my only issue in this whole thing.
 
The other issue is the license restrictions are there for a reason. As a generalisation, it is because they havent got the experience to ride a more powerful bike safely.

In the same way I could probably figure out how to drive an HGV, I'm not licensed to do so - therefore I couldnt possibly do so safely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom