Did a day out in Kent today getting some instruction from Rapid Training, where serving traffic police motorcyclists pass on some of their knowledge. I would highly recommend it.

Labels: diary, motorcycles

Westminster Council

Presumably incensed by people sucessfully appealing wrongfully imposed charges for parking motorcycles in motorcycle bays, Westminster Council are apparently now going to change the rules so that they can just charge people for parking motorcycles in motorcycle bays.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Valentino Rossi investigated for tax evasion

Not only is he struggling to find a way of overcoming a dominant Casey Stoner in this year’s MotoGP, but according to this, Valentino Rossi is also being investigated for tax evasion, with potential nine figure(!) fines. Where did it all go wrong? He should have a word with Lester Piggott.

Labels: motorcycles, news

Footway parking

It seems that I am not the only one fighting the London councils on their petty parking tickets. Unfortunately for this guy, having taken it all the way up to the High Court, he had his over–literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement rejected by Lord Justice Moore–Bick and found himself liable to pay some 100 parking tickets plus costs.

I believe that I have fallen foul of the prohibition in question myself. It sounds very much like Penalty Charge Notice Code 62, which prohibits parking on the pavement. Only in London is there this general prohibition on parking on the pavement. Elsewhere, parking on the pavement is allowed unless specifically prohibited or an obstruction is being caused. This means that on a reasonably wide pavement out of London, you are usually OK to park a motorcycle, but in London you will get a ticket if a warden passes by.

It sounds like this bloke must have run a defence based upon a literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement, which is “Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)”. Because his bike was up on the stand, with both wheels off the ground, I assume he argued that there was no infringement. However, the judge apparently decided that the “motorcycle can quite properly be said to be parked on the pavement, even if neither wheel is directly in contact with it”.

As a matter of interpretation, that is clearly the only common sense approach. Otherwise, one could park on the pavement with impunity by jacking the car up, or even by making sure that there was a sheet of newspaper under each tyre. Still, one has to admire the balls of this guy for running up a hundred parking tickets (£10 grand’s–worth) and fighting all the way up to the High Court based upon his conviction that such a technical defence would suceeed.

Incidentally, my own route to seeking to get off was to obtain plans from the Land Registry in the hope of showing that, although parked, I was not “on any part of an urban road” but rather on private property. Sadly, the plans availed me not on that occasion, showing that the wall against which I was parked marked the limit of the private land, so I decided to pay up at the 50% discount for early settlement and live to fight another day.

Labels: driving, law, london, motorcycles

Speed camera

Got flashed by this very sneaky speed camera when I went out to Canary Wharf today. My own fault for not spotting it, but this illustrates the dangers of driving to places to which you do not usually go. If you’re coming out from underneath Canary Wharf, just after you filter into the Limehouse Link tunnel, watch out for this one, because it is not obvious until you see the white lines on the road and it’s too late. Unless you are a bad driver and take the spot of tarmac 20ft in front of your vehicle as your focal point when driving through a tunnel. A long 14 days waiting for the ticket now begins.

Update:No ticket so far. Starting to think I got away with it (28/06/07).

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Speeding

So the House of Commons Transport Committee wants to limit the speed of motorcycles because they are dangerous and cause pollution.

Sounds fair enough, you might say. What is the possible justification for a vehicle being able to go over 70mph when that is the maximum permitted speed? The trouble with this is that it is an accepted part of living in a free country rather than a police state that many of the laws are drafted in a draconian way on the understanding that it is in fact perfectly acceptable to break them whenever you like as long as you don’t take the piss.

However, it has now become technologically possible to enforce many more of the laws absolutely than in the past. GPS in every car, linked to speed limit map and engine management system could prevent people from ever breaking the speed limit. Maximum speed limits at the top end could be just the beginning. They’ve already banned guns on an arguably shakier premise (in that despite its potential to be used for unlawful reasons, a gun can at least also be used for lawful reasons: there is no lawful reason for a road–licensed vehicle to do more than 70mph).

More and more CCTV cameras go up in London every day and before long it will be possible to nick and send out fixed penalties to each and every person who at any time commits a parking offence, traffic violation, piece of bad driving, or who spits gum on the floor or has a smoke when it’s raining in a “semi–enclosed area to which the general public habitually has access” (bus shelter). What’s the problem: if people aren't supposed to do it, they should expect to get punished for it. The problem is that it’s not how this country has historically worked and absolute law enforcement of relatively minor laws is absolutely an encroachment on day–to–day freedom.

Labels: driving, motorcycles, UK politics

Westminster suck even more than Camden

Wankers! Westminster Council have rejected my written representations as well! Unlike Camden, Westminster give no reasons for the rejection, but jump straight to the increased fine and threats of bailiffs. I know they say that you should beware a war on two fronts, but I thought this one was a slamdunk. I am going to have to appeal it. What a bloody waste of time, though. I think it’s a disgrace.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Is this lid cool or what?

Labels: motorcycles

A motorcyclist is making a Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Claim for injuries suffered in the process of running over and killing a 12–year–old who was playing chicken on a dual carriageway A–road.

The CICA is set up to provide compensation out of public funds to victims of violent crime. This is said to be the first time that a person has tried to claim compensation from the CICA for injuries sustained as a result of an accident in which the ‘guilty’ party died. A particular difficulty seems to be whether or not a ‘violent act’ can be said to have been committed against the motorcyclist.

I can’t see why his claim should not be allowed to succeed. If the kid had deliberately run out for a prank and caused the motorcyclist to crash and be injured, but without the kid being hurt himself, it seems to me that there is a decent arguable case for section 20 OAPA 1861 grievous boldily harm on the basis of recklessness (subject to the additional complication of establishing that the person committing the offence knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong — required when an accused is between the ages of 10 and 14), with a corresponding claim for CICA compo. The fact that the kid managed to kill himself in the course of committing the act which consitutes the violent crime is neither here nor there with respect to the motorcyclist victim. Sad of course that the kid died, but that is no reason why the motorcyclist should be denied his compo.

Labels: law, motorcycles