Well, I have just gone and done it - Kalkhoff BS10 ordered today

[oldtom]

And before you resort to "the law is the law" that's not the case in this country - magistrates and judges have a degree of free will and interpretation open to them. "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" is also an incorrect saying.

Well, I live and I learn!

My understanding has always been that magistrates and judges do not have any degree of free will to interpret law, crafted over time and established through precedent and as such, cannot interpret the law in any way.

Where they do have discretion is in the application of any penalty available once guilt has been established with a few exceptions such as the mandatory life sentence for murder.

In magistrates' courts, the bench is usually comprised of lay people who may or may not have only the most rudimentary training in their role. The clerk to the bench is the trained person, frequently qualified as a barrister, has assistants and can guide the bench in all matters pertaining to case law and advise on sentencing guidelines.

As for the last sentence about ignorance, I think I'd prefer not to say to the beak, 'ang on a minute gov! I didn't know the law was like that so you've weighed me off too heavily!' It makes me wonder where these old adages come from.

I'm happy to be corrected in my understanding and there's at least one JP who has contributed to these pages. John Fleet is his name although I'm not sure if he still looks in. He could probably provide gospel on such issues.

Tom

 

[flecc]

Just one comment Tom. Senior courts have the discretion to interpret the spirit of any law where there is any perceived ambiguity. This has become more important in modern times when poorly drafted laws on complex issues have become more common. This function is to determine exactly what parliament meant when the law was passed.

However, this would scarcely be relevant in a matter of what constitutes a motor vehicle, that is crystal clear in both UK law and the EU law adopted by the UK.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

If it's classified in law as a motor vehicle, and an S class e-bike is as I've posted here above, it has to be judged as a motor vehicle.

A court has no other option once it's status as a motor vehicle is specified by quoting the two relevant laws. If it's not registered and plated, the offence is compounded.

Riding an S class e-bike without a battery is exactly the same as gliding a motorbike with engine switched off and/or without petrol, one is still in charge of a motor vehicle. That applies even if walking and pushing a motor vehicle, as a number of cases have demonstrated.

I don't think your're right. It doesn't become a motor vehicle until you put the battery in unless it's already registered as a motor vehicle. From CPS:

"Definition of a Motor Vehicle
The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

"The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles."

...... but not human powered

 

[RobF]

I don't think your're right. It doesn't become a motor vehicle until you put the battery in unless it's already registered as a motor vehicle. From CPS:

"Definition of a Motor Vehicle
The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

"The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles."

...... but not human powered

Which is why ordinary cyclists cannot be done for speeding or careless 'driving'.

All those charges contain the phrase 'you drove a mechanically propelled vehicle'.

There is the ancient offence of 'wanton and furious riding' which has occasionally been applied to cyclists who have been riding in a reckless manner.

The offence is that old the term 'riding' originally applied to a horse.

 

[benjy_a]

> The problem area is when the mechanical propulsion system is either not working or has been removed. The main test is set out in McEachran v Hurst 1978. In that case it was decided:-

> "unless the motor car in question has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life".
>
> McEachran v Hurst 1978 When a mechanically propelled vehicle ceases to be such

> H was found riding a moped along a main road. There was no petrol in the machine and the engine was not in working order. He was using it as a pedal cycle. When questioned he admitted having bought the machine for five pounds, that the engine had never worked whilst in his possession and he was taking the machine to get it repaired. The machine was not taxed or tested.
>
> H was charged with using the vehicle without tax or test certificate. The justices formed the opinion that the moped was no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed.
>
>
> HELD
>
> Appeal allowed. The case was remitted to the justices with a direction to convict.
>
> It was the construction of the machine that mattered and not the use to which it was being put. The moped was constructed as a mechanically propelled vehicle and remained one until it reached the point where there was no reasonable prospect of it being mechanically mobile again. Since H was taking the moped to be repaired, all the evidence pointed to the fact that the machine would remain a moped as it had been originally constructed.
>
> Notes
> The court approved the test laid down in Binks v Department of the Environment 1975 RTR 318. That test being - unless a vehicle has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle, then it will remain a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life.

 

[flecc]

I don't think your're right. It doesn't become a motor vehicle until you put the battery in unless it's already registered as a motor vehicle. From CPS:

"Definition of a Motor Vehicle
The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

"The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles."

...... but not human powered

That would be right if one is to determine what is a motor vehicle Dave.

But in this case an S class e-bike is already predetermined to be a motor vehicle class L1-a. Not having the battery in cannot alter that classification. Each manufacturer's S class model has been type approved and has a certification as that class of motor vehicle.

Additionally there would be an offence of using an unapproved vehicle, not taken through single vehicle approval in the absence of there being specific permission for the use of this class on UK roads.

P.S. Benjy's post illustrates that not having a battery fitted, or any other part, doesn't alter the situation.

P.P.S. Of course where the fast e-bike is a home conversion and not a manufacturer's type approved one, there is a valid legal argument on whether it is a motor vehicle or not when a battery isn't fitted.

 

[RobF]

> The problem area is when the mechanical propulsion system is either not working or has been removed. The main test is set out in McEachran v Hurst 1978. In that case it was decided:-

> "unless the motor car in question has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life".
>
> McEachran v Hurst 1978 When a mechanically propelled vehicle ceases to be such

> H was found riding a moped along a main road. There was no petrol in the machine and the engine was not in working order. He was using it as a pedal cycle. When questioned he admitted having bought the machine for five pounds, that the engine had never worked whilst in his possession and he was taking the machine to get it repaired. The machine was not taxed or tested.
>
> H was charged with using the vehicle without tax or test certificate. The justices formed the opinion that the moped was no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed.
>
>
> HELD
>
> Appeal allowed. The case was remitted to the justices with a direction to convict.
>
> It was the construction of the machine that mattered and not the use to which it was being put. The moped was constructed as a mechanically propelled vehicle and remained one until it reached the point where there was no reasonable prospect of it being mechanically mobile again. Since H was taking the moped to be repaired, all the evidence pointed to the fact that the machine would remain a moped as it had been originally constructed.
>
> Notes
> The court approved the test laid down in Binks v Department of the Environment 1975 RTR 318. That test being - unless a vehicle has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle, then it will remain a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life.

I have some sympathy with 'H', assuming he was telling the truth.

To get the knackered moped to the garage, he would had to have taxed and insured it, and worn a helmet - to pedal at walking pace or even push it.

If it needed an MoT, he would also have to have made a pre-booking for the test, which also limits where he could take it for repair.

Or transport it on a trailer.

 

[flecc]

I have some sympathy with 'H', assuming he was telling the truth.

One could mount an argument against these laws of being in charge on the basis of a discrepancy in interpretation. In the case of a bicycle being pushed, a senior court ruling was that the bicycle was effectively "luggage" and the person pushing it was not riding. Here's the detail:

Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."

On that basis anyone pushing a motorcycle etc is not riding it but is a "foot passenger", a quaint way of saying pedestrian.