South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

I'm currently on a restricted licence but i'm unsure as to what extent the law will go to prove my motorcycle is restricted. If, Hypothetically , I was riding with out the restricters and had no certificate to prove wheather or not the motorbike had been in the past could this present problems if i was stopped by the police?? what exactlly is the law and how is it enforced??

i think if they are being totally anal they could have your bike dyno'd to prove if you are breaking the law,they caould also ask of you to produce the certificate to prove it is 33bhp,if you cant they will give you 5 working days (i think) to produce one.
its a very risky matter and being sensible i would say it would be far less hastle just to get it restricted and be done with it.....however i never restricted my sv650 or tl1000 and never had any trouble even when i got pulled on them,guess its all down to the copper and thier knowledge of the subject.

welcome to the forum - doubt if the onus is on the police to prove the bike isn't restricted if you are stopped - its more likely to be you to prove that it is. Remeber if you are in a smash and they send a good assessor, you could be riding with no license and hence no insurance - lots of points and/or a ban plus a big bill for third party damage. could be expensive if someone steps out in front of you and gets hurt, the insurance company say you havent got valid insurance and you have a big personal injury claim to settle...

chris_1127 wrote:welcome to the forum - doubt if the onus is on the police to prove the bike isn't restricted if you are stopped - its more likely to be you to prove that it is. Remember if you are in a smash and they send a good assessor, you could be riding with no license and hence no insurance - lots of points and/or a ban plus a big bill for third party damage. could be expensive if someone steps out in front of you and gets hurt, the insurance company say you haven't got valid insurance and you have a big personal injury claim to settle...

I totally agree. Keep your bike restricted, you may be lucky and get away with it but if you make one mistake it could cost you absolutely loads and you would have wished that you just had your bike restricted.

Imagine you rode your bike and you made a mistake and hit a person and cause major injury on a pedestrian crossing and they claim £100,000s that you will be liable for.

Hence, I ride my sv650s restricted.

The law says that the motorcycle should not produce more than 33bhp and a specific power/mass ratio that I have forgotten. I am led to believe that you will not generally get checked unless you crash the bike or have an accident that the police/insurance company investigates.

You are not required to have a certificate at all, you could have a throttle stop and that would satisfy the law provided it did not produce more than 33bhp so you would need the throttle stop adjusted on a dyno. Alternatively you can buy the plates used and install them yourself and get a dyno reading.

The 33bhp is a bit ambiguous is it 33bhp at the crank or the wheel? The sv650s makes about 55bhp at the rear wheel so you only lose 2/5 of the power which will 4/25 of the top speed which seems to be about right. That means you my not to restrict bikes that have claimed power outputs around the 50bhp mark without restricting. (I believe)

On the other hand...

you could clip on a Nitro kit,
ride like the devil,
kill 10 people,
act a proper tw*t,
run the Police ragged,
break every speed limit going,
write-off 20 vehicles belonging to innocent people,
have no insurance, tax, MoT or license,
rape 3 sheep, stampeed 10 women,
claim your in exile or 14 years old,

and get off almost scott-free just like on "Police, Camera, Action"!

Or have I got it wrong again

My insurance company wanted a copy of my restricted certificate, I personally would get it restricted at least you have the certificate, and if you decide you want to take them out, least you have a certificate

The police have to "PROVE" that your bike is NOT restricted not you prove to them that it is cause at the end of the day those certificates could be made by anyone. I would say ride restricted cause it just ain't worth the hassle of being stopped fined and points etc if you have an accident even if it isn't your fault. Think of it as time to learn how to ride safely and corner. It's easier to learn basic bike control at lower speeds then after two years you will be able to take out the restrictors and be able to handle your bike safely.

Banditmax wrote:The police have to "PROVE" that your bike is NOT restricted not you prove to them that it is

so what happens if you get a producer on a 33bhp machine/license?

I think Steve has the right idea.

chris_1127 wrote:

Banditmax wrote:The police have to "PROVE" that your bike is NOT restricted not you prove to them that it is

so what happens if you get a producer on a 33bhp machine/license?

Nothing different to any other time. Liscence, MOT and Insurance.

If your bike is impounded it will be tested if you're unlucky. Then you could be done for no insurance and not riding in accordance with licence. Which is a ban, as you'll get over 6 points with no doubt. Plus a massive fine ~£1000. Plus by having no insurance you will have to pay any third party damages personally, which could be huge.

However, the chances of getting caught are tiny. Say you really [censored] someone up on your bike, then its going to be impounded. Riding like a complete and utter idiot whilst being chased, causing a nuisance with it repeatedly and other serious stuff like that will result in it being impounded. Now, chances of that happening?

If you get pulled over, you will most probably get a producer thing. Which means you will have to show some sort of proof that it is restricted. If I were you, I'd make a throttle stop, get it dynoed and get it signed, dated (made official sorta thing) by whoever does it. Dont spend £100s on stupid restriction kits with 'certificates'.

BTW, I am not condoning it at all

I passed my restricted test on 08.04.06. Somehow the restricters never 'fell out' of my R6, partly because they never 'fell' in and I never had any trouble when I got caught speeding, but then it probably depends on the officer. I would say get it restricted and dyno'd so you have the certificate and proof, play about on it for a bit. When you feel comfortable the restrictors can 'fall' out onto the garage shelf.

I claim no responsibility for any accident or consequences as a result of you using my advice.

chris_1127 wrote:

Banditmax wrote:The police have to "PROVE" that your bike is NOT restricted not you prove to them that it is

so what happens if you get a producer on a 33bhp machine/license?

You do not have to produce a 33hp certificate with a producer. It is not a tick box on the producer so they legally can't ask for it. Although they could in effect say if you bring the certificate we won't impound your bike and get it tested cause we suspect it is not a 33hp restriced bike. But then again as soon as youve left that seen they can't tell who has been riding the bike to impound it. Say someone with a full liscense and their own insurance then got on your bike after that point legally they are allowed to have no restrictors in. To be honest this whole restriction law is very dodgy and i think no one really knows the true law.

Banditmax wrote:

chris_1127 wrote:

Banditmax wrote:The police have to "PROVE" that your bike is NOT restricted not you prove to them that it is

so what happens if you get a producer on a 33bhp machine/license?

You do not have to produce a 33hp certificate with a producer. It is not a tick box on the producer so they legally can't ask for it. Although they could in effect say if you bring the certificate we won't impound your bike and get it tested cause we suspect it is not a 33hp restriced bike. But then again as soon as youve left that seen they can't tell who has been riding the bike to impound it. Say someone with a full liscense and their own insurance then got on your bike after that point legally they are allowed to have no restrictors in. To be honest this whole restriction law is very dodgy and i think no one really knows the true law.

We went into this did we not Michael when you got the bandit,and the opinion of the old bill at exeter was you do not need a certificate as such, the certificate thing is a rip off by the manufacturers of the kits. you can legitamtely buy a secondhand kit fit it yourself and you have a restrictor kit fitted which is all the law requires if you read it, a dyno print out too prove it would be useful if you are stopped by a zealous officer of the law, but as said they need to prove th kit is not fitted, you need to prove it is, so if they ask you could take it with them to a bike shop ask the mechanic if it has a kit fitted he looks at carbs says yes it has a kit fitted job done as far as i can see
merv

At this time there is no provision in law to require the production of a cetificate showing the bike is restricted to 33bhp. You can't be required to produce something for which there is no legal provision.
As we all know the certificate is a pretty much a meaningless piece of paper anyway. (although it may make life easier on the roadside in certain circumstances)
There is no provision under the road traffic act to provide for the 'IMMEDIATE' seizure of the bike on the roadside for testing. (except in serious collisions.)
If it is lawfully seized it's then down to the forces vehicle examiner to prove the bike is putting out more than 33bhp.
Having said that Avon and Somerset Police have a rolling road they tow around on a trailer.
I'm not sure how it's calibrated or how they are lawfully requiring bikes to be tested immediately on the roadside as it certainly does not appear to have any legal basis in the road traffic act and would most certainly be open to a legal challenge if they tried to prosecute off this alone.
returning to a basic roadside stop check, If the officer has grounds to suspect your vehicle is not restricted they can require that the vehicle is submitted to a test but they do not have a power to make you have that test there and then. They can require a test but have to give you up to three weeks for a deferred test (you nominate the date). This test must be organised by them at their expense.
Watch this space as this loophole is likely to be closed at some point.