Beware out there

Beware boys and girls, the police is out there to get us.
My two riding buddies, local ones, have been stopped by the police and both have been slapped with ASBO "section 59", and had to reluctantly sell their bikes.

Details?.

What was the problem that had them stopped and charged?.

yeah more info would be good.....No insurance mot or tax would be fittng for an asbo ??

Why would you have to sell after a section 59? I thought they confiscate the vehicle, you pay the fine and get it back? I'm particulary interested in why they got the section 59 as I'm local to the area too.

My interpretation is the pigs give you a warning first for the offence, and this is recorded.

If you are then pulled again, then a section 59 / 60 is used and the vehicle is removed from the owner provided it isnt kept in your house.

So as the others have asked, "what were they doing to get 59'd"?

More we need more info if its coz they exhuast to loud if so i fuc_ed we want more plus why dont them:jack go and fined the fuc_ers that done griffs place over makes me uke you get more in this **** hole if you are low life scum us hard working pep get fuc_ed thats my rant sorry ::angry

The previous week they were stopped, whilst riding with me, for illegal plate, illegal exhaust and the lack of a rear reflector.
On the following week they were followed by an un-marked car, pulled over, for spirited riding, and section 59'd for causing distress, despite having standard plate, exhaust and reflector. Section 59 can allow the plod to confiscate your veehicle and turn it into coke cans, if you are caught out with it. As the section 59 is on the ride and bike, the only way to get rid of it, is to get rid of the bike.

So does this mean whoever buys the bike, as got a strike against them?

SORRY BUT IF THEY PUT THINGS BACK TO NORMAL WHY DID THEY HAVE TO SELL THERE BIKES :dunno

stefano said:

As the section 59 is on the ride and bike, the only way to get rid of it, is to get rid of the bike.

Click to expand...

The section 59 is issued to the rider and the bike. In essence it means that for a duration of 12 months if the rider is stopped in control of any vehicle, be it bike or car, then the police will have the power to seize the vehicle regardless of ownership. I've yet to see it tested court wise, but that is what they have the power to do. This also relates to the bike, so selling it actually makes no difference and the section 59 will continue to the new owner. Again, i've yet to see this tested in a court.

Sussex as I know from 9 points worth of experience are very quick to issue section 59. Be aware that the section 59 does not have to be served to you in a written form. The police are only required to make it verbal.

For anyone that wants to know the in's and out's of section 59, here it is in it's glory.



Seizure of motor vehicles

Section 59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are—
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section—
“driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
“motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
“private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

this is a vague piece of law that to be honest not many old bill are aware of and use...

the only ones who do are traffic and or keen traffic orientated officers...

but unless i missed it in training the section 59 warning applies to rider/driver not a vehicle but they could put a pnc marker on that vehicle to highlight to officers that a rider previously on that bike has been given a sect 59 as this will help via anpr and moving vehicle pnc checks as you dont know who is riding before you stop and speak to them...

seems in this case they was given it for their riding as the exhaust would fall under a construction and use offence and not anti social behavior....

i would challenge the seizure if they are sure they didnt do anything wrong as surely if their spirited ride was that bad they would have been reported for driving without due care or dangerous riding !!

makes you wonder why we bother being legal if we didnt have ins and tax or reg the bike to owner we could go for it and leave them like all the tea leaves do

Deano, whilst not questioning what you have said, I think maybe you'd like to re read section 59 and revisit the idea that it is only traffic officers that know about it, not ignoring the fact of course that you are more likely to be stopped by a traffic officer, marked or unmarked.

ACPO recommended the use PNC to ensure registering of a section 59 against a rider/driver and vehicle, BUT it is not a requirement of the law. Note also that section 59 was advised by ACPO to be utilised in respect of exhausts should the exhaust be the source of the anti social behaviour.

From what I understand from what Stefano has said, no bikes were seized. They would however have been told that after being verbally issued with a section 59 that if they were stopped again then under section 59 the police would have the power to seize the vehicle in question. Which by the way, is any vehicle they drive or ride, not just the one they were originally stopped on. You can challenge a seizure, and as you rightly say you would expect in such cases a prosecution to be made for an actual driving offence. However, this is not stipulated as a condition in section 59......as shown in 1 b as this is not a driving offence.

(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public

Fortunately not all forces use section 59 in the same way as Sussex.

On an up note, my 12 months is finally up, so my rsvr and I should now be ASBO free :doug

Oh and Mr Sussex unmarked rider if you happen to be reading, should there ever be a next time, do try to remember that you shouldn't cross double white lines when overtaking and you also shouldn't be forcing oncoming vehicles to swerve to allow your path to catch up with a bike one car in front of you that you have already set up a road block for that you have considered to be riding oh so dangerously........****** :jack

deano said:

but unless i missed it in training !!

Click to expand...

What training was that Deano ?

caterpillar said:

Deano, whilst not questioning what you have said, I think maybe you'd like to re read section 59 and revisit the idea that it is only traffic officers that know about it, not ignoring the fact of course that you are more likely to be stopped by a traffic officer, marked or unmarked.

ACPO recommended the use PNC to ensure registering of a section 59 against a rider/driver and vehicle, BUT it is not a requirement of the law. Note also that section 59 was advised by ACPO to be utilised in respect of exhausts should the exhaust be the source of the anti social behaviour.

From what I understand from what Stefano has said, no bikes were seized. They would however have been told that after being verbally issued with a section 59 that if they were stopped again then under section 59 the police would have the power to seize the vehicle in question. Which by the way, is any vehicle they drive or ride, not just the one they were originally stopped on. You can challenge a seizure, and as you rightly say you would expect in such cases a prosecution to be made for an actual driving offence. However, this is not stipulated as a condition in section 59......as shown in 1 b as this is not a driving offence.

(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public

Fortunately not all forces use section 59 in the same way as Sussex.

On an up note, my 12 months is finally up, so my rsvr and I should now be ASBO free :doug

Oh and Mr Sussex unmarked rider if you happen to be reading, should there ever be a next time, do try to remember that you shouldn't cross double white lines when overtaking and you also shouldn't be forcing oncoming vehicles to swerve to allow your path to catch up with a bike one car in front of you that you have already set up a road block for that you have considered to be riding oh so dangerously........****** :jack

Click to expand...

:dunno :dunnosort of proves my original point not many officers know this legislation very well lol including me hence why i never use it lol

i wasnt aware that exhausts had been included but i suppose it makes sence as the same warning can be used for excessive music from cars etc.

i dont pledge to be an expert by any stretch but it does apear that sussex are making full use of this leg.. i can say from experiance neither the met nor surrey do...very few officers are aware of there powers re this ... i am only aware as i came across it on the intranet at work one day and had a read... the other day my insp asked me about sect 59 as he was trying to find a way of siezing a car.. he didnt have a hope under this leg but proves even officers at insp level dont know most traffic stuff..

but i like to learn so this has been a helpfull thread and will check pnld and refresh my knowledge for the people who fail the attitude test :thumbup

re your comments about the unmarked rider i agree they cant ride in the mannor you have stated and maybe you should have complianed... ?

Ear plugs pls said:

What training was that Deano ?

Click to expand...

old bill training :eatcorn

deano said:

old bill training :eatcorn

Click to expand...

OK cool....bobby or traffic ?????

You the man for advice on offences (getting off them) then....:burnout

caterpillar said:

Oh and Mr Sussex unmarked rider if you happen to be reading, should there ever be a next time, do try to remember that you shouldn't cross double white lines when overtaking and you also shouldn't be forcing oncoming vehicles to swerve to allow your path to catch up with a bike one car in front of you that you have already set up a road block for that you have considered to be riding oh so dangerously........****** :jack

Click to expand...

Priceless!:thumbup:thumbup

Ear plugs pls said:

OK cool....bobby or traffic ?????

You the man for advice on offences (getting off them) then....:burnout

Click to expand...

bobby but the only traffic orientated officer on my team....

since transferring forces nearly 2 yrs ago i dont get much training and or time to concentrate on traffic so am a bit out of the loop.. just deal with druggies gangs and general scum...

i can always give of the cuff advice but for more exact advice i will need to consult pnld for official answers etc

i really must start reading up as i am the one everyone on my team comes to for advice and i am not so sure these days myself :dunno so shows how much traffic stuff they know....

I don't get it at all. What do they class as a noisey exhaust? Do they do a noise test? If an exhaust is stamped but the baffles removed is this still legal as mine only knocks out 99db with them out anyway, yet some gsxr's with standard cans can't pass noise tests at track days? Is there a noise limit for road bikes as its at the MOT testers descretion???????????