Jump to content

Stupid laws and even more stupid police fascists.


Scruffy1

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,huge fan of electric unicycles & took me ages to get one that would go the desired distance and have enough grunt to get me up the steep hills in hastings but I got there eventually, so I was riding along loving my new tesla 2 when this big fat @₩,#jbdjf,strode out into the road and pushed me off damaging my wheel phone and possibly cracking the bone in my shin,there was a witness and was on CCTV but when I reported it to the local police they told me they were going to confiscate my unicycle,I told them in no uncertain terms they would have to prise it out of my cold dead hands and they told me if i wanted the thug prosecuted for assault they would first have to caution me for riding an illegal vehicle and if they saw me on it again that it would be confiscated and i would be arrested,have now sold my pride and joy and quite honestly have no enjoyment in life anymore now,how is this justice and how can I get round the law because I miss my unicycle so much please help me 😞

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy Kirby from the UK was visited by the cops for his youtube ebike videos then got arrested for flying his drones.

id just leave that Country,

move someplace where the dental work is free

heard Costa Rica is always sunny and nice if you pick the right elevation 

your allowed 5kw ebikes with no speed limits, euc's should be just fine there

dont know about their dental policy but they gotta be cheap,

in Panama it only costs $50 to have a baby in the hospital

cracked shin bone is probably only a $1 bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK laws are unfortunately not very friendly for these. If you're set on continuing to ride I'd say your options are avoid the cops or move countries. Some people have had some success with an ornamental license plate that seems to get cops to leave them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increases in the size and power of the state tend to correlate with decreases in the "rights" and freedoms its citizens enjoy.

Funny how agents of your government made enforcement of existing law against an assault on your person conditional based upon the forfeiture of your property without compensation.

Of course by funny, I mean absurd and despicable. And not just any property either, but property that is theoretically enabling "green" transportation, a political agenda many agents of the state claim to be in favor of. What a world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe go see your local Member of Parliament. 

They are available to assist in any concerns of their constituents.

Police are also accountable to the community.

Local newspapers/reporter may also be interested in your story.

Especially if you have video evidence and an independent witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric scooter laws in the UK may soon be changing.

EUC's might thus also be legalized soon.

 

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/move-electric/uk-government-considering-new-vehicle-class-e-scooters

6 February 2022

The UK government will consider creating an entirely new category of vehicle for e-scooters, with its own rules and regulations, if their use is made fully legal on public roads, according to a minister in the Department for Transport.

At the moment, e-scooters fall under the regulations for motor vehicles. At present, it is illegal to use e-scooters on public roads, unless as part of a government-backed rental trial scheme. While it is legal to buy and sell private e-scooters, it is illegal to use them on public roads because they do not comply with the regulations for motor vehicles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ride an illegal vehicle you can't expect things will go well with the police. Your best hope is they ignore you, but if you walk into a police station and bring attention to your illegal activity on purpose you aren't think too clearly.  If you aren't willing to dealing with that legal friction it's best not to ride an EUC. And while you may not like the laws around PEVs in your country the police enforcing reasonable laws aren't fascists. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, goatman said:

Andy Kirby from the UK was visited by the cops for his youtube ebike videos then got arrested for flying his drones.

id just leave that Country,

move someplace where the dental work is free

heard Costa Rica is always sunny and nice if you pick the right elevation 

your allowed 5kw ebikes with no speed limits, euc's should be just fine there

dont know about their dental policy but they gotta be cheap,

in Panama it only costs $50 to have a baby in the hospital

cracked shin bone is probably only a $1 bill

As much as I know this angers patriotic people out there, I have to agree 100%. 

Noone would move solely because of EUCs alone, nor do I really think the OP should do so. It does however, make one think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Increases in the size and power of the state tend to correlate with decreases in the "rights" and freedoms its citizens enjoy.

Funny how agents of your government made enforcement of existing law against an assault on your person conditional based upon the forfeiture of your property without compensation.

Of course by funny, I mean absurd and despicable. And not just any property either, but property that is theoretically enabling "green" transportation, a political agenda many agents of the state claim to be in favor of. What a world.

Sounds to me like a lazy police force not wanting to take on a case they don't like. We'll do it on the condition that...

Despicable is indeed the right word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2022 at 7:07 AM, Big Bad Ron said:

Never never ever go to the police. we are riding in a very GRAY sone. cops are black and white.

Yes - but: Everyone must comply with traffic laws. And just because someone spots an illegal vehicle, or overlooks it, gives no one the right to ignore them and inflict harm on those road users.  Apart from that, it can be very difficult to get through with arguments when you from the beginning are the one who has moved around in the traffic on something that is not allowed (whether it is fair or not is another matter)  My (car)driving instructor once said: You come to a one-way street and have to turn right, which side do you want to look out at? I said: To the left, no one can come from the right .... Wrong!! There could be a drunk Swede driving on roller skates. And you have to stop for him no matter he drives in the opposite direction of traffic and is f****** drunk.

 
Edited by Robse
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Paul A said:

Police priority might be a bit awry if they are more concerned about an EUC, instead of the deliberate actions of a person to injure someone.

Are people thus permitted to harm EUC riders freely?

The police seemed willing to investigate and charge the individual who assaulted the OP. However, you don't get to say to the police "Look at the CCTV evidence of assault, but ignore the illegal activity I was undertaking. I just want you to prosecute the other party."

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VikB said:

The police seemed willing to investigate and charge the individual who assaulted the OP. However, you don't get to say to the police "Look at the CCTV evidence of assault, but ignore the illegal activity I was undertaking. I just want you to prosecute the other party."

 

 

The original poster could have instead looked at the person who pushed him off his EUC, judged how competent he was, and then either given him an educational beat-down or have run away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paul A said:

Maybe approach the Member of Parliament for counsel.

A person intentionally seeking to harm another should not be shielded by the police.

What are you talking about? If the OP wanted to proceed with the investigation the police seemed perfectly willing by his own admission. The fact that they would also investigate the OP's illegal activity is not some horrible behaviour on the part of the police. That's how they are supposed to undertake investigations. You don't get to pick and choose what they investigate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assaulting a person is a criminal act.
Police should not be setting conditions on whether they will or will not act.
It is not the victim pressing charges against the perpetrator.
In this particular case, it would be the Crown, pressing charges.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul A said:
Assaulting a person is a criminal act.
Police should not be setting conditions on whether they will or will not act.
It is not the victim pressing charges against the perpetrator.
In this particular case, it would be the Crown, pressing charges.
 

In order for the Crown to decide on charges the police have to investigate and recommend charges be laid. The police told the OP they would investigate the possible assault, but let him know there would be consequences for his illegal activity as well. The OP declined to go forward and the police didn't investigate. The police have the discretion not to investigate minor incidents like this. Nobody was seriously injured. We don't even know if an assault occurred. It could well be that someone walked into the OP and didn't see them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP stated: 'strode out into the road and pushed me off damaging my wheel phone and possibly cracking the bone in my shin,there was a witness and was on CCTV'.

There is video evidence and a witness.

Not mere hearsay.

Police should be investigating.

Edited by Paul A
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A skateboarding kid gets struck by a car (hit and run), and sent to a hospital, and the police say. Listen kid, we could go after this driver but we'd have to fine you 200$, confiscate your skateboard because you got hit on a public road 3 meters away from the crosswalk and you shouldn't have been there. And we noticed you must have been cutting class at the time so we'd have to report it to your school.

Kid picks letting the driver get away. Everyone's happy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VikB is talking sense, whether people like it or not.

You can't ask the police to investigate one crime whilst ignoring a linked crime. It wouldn't be impartial which is the fundamental rule of law.

Theres a very old English police term which was taught to us in police training to help us remember some laws - 'you can't bilk a bonk'. Which means, if you had received the services of a prostitute and then run off without paying, the prostitute couldn't report an allegation of theft as the as the act of prostitution itself was illegal. Indeed, it's not even a case of both parties being reported, it's a case that the police wouldn't even look at because at the time the theft element wasn't considered a crime if it was as the result of an illegal activity! Things have changed a bit now and both parties would be investigated, although any offences would unlikely get as far as convictions.

In the case of the OP, the same circumstances of the incident would definitely happen in the UK too. The police would willingly investigate (and by the sounds of it, given the solid evidence) report the attacker for assault and I suspect the assailant would definitely receive a criminal conviction. But the OP would also likely receive 3 points for no licence, 3 points for no insurance, have his wheel confiscated and face at least £300 in fines.

For sure, if it were me I would be keeping shtum and be licking my wounds at home, thankful I didn't have many years of increased motor insurance premiums to pay.

Things are taken out of the hands of the people involved if injuries are serious/life changing though. Police will ALWAYS fully investigate on that basis whether the parties wish for it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thief rips the bag away from an old lady that's jaywalking, sending her to the ground. Police let the thief go because we don't want to fine an old lady. That would be an inconvenience for her and the police. They'd have to file a report and you know how long that's going to take trying to get details from a shocked old woman stumbling over her own words. 

Unrealistic? Perhaps. I just wonder how far this kind of reasoning can go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, alcatraz said:

I just wonder how far this kind of reasoning can go?

For the UK, the reasoning is dependant on the severity of the offence and/or the injury. Ultimately (assuming the incident is reported) it would initially be decided by a Sergeant/Inspector, with their rationale written up on the incident for audit. This wouldn't be a trivial matter as potentially it could escalate to a full-on enquiry, so the Sgt/Insp better be sure of themselves (and tbf, they usually are).

In your old lady example, there is an offence of robbery which in the UK is a very, very serious offence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So no officer, anywhere, would be able to 'write the job off' even with the best rationale in the world written by Shakespeare himself.

As regards to whether the old lady would be prosecuted for jaywalking, I very much doubt it given the robbery and injury she likely sustained. It would likely be decided at CPS level (ie outside of the police's decision) that it would not be 'in the public interest' which is yet another factor as to whether 2 people who have committed offences both get punished.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how the word of the law is in UK, but in my country the traffic law is very clear: if you drive an unregistered or uninsured vehicle and get into a crash, the crash will be deemed your fault no matter how guilty the other party actually was. And you end up paying for everything.

That directly describes EUCs as well. No matter if someone broke the traffic law, ran the reds or otherwise, and crashed into me while drunk and speeding… If the investigators found out the speed my vehicle is capable of, I’d be the guilty party of the crash every single time.

 In my understanding driving drunk and speeding would still be the other party’s offenses, but the actual crash would be mine.

 That is one of the reasons we don’t think making EUCs that can achieve 90km/h riding speeds make any sense at all. The laws on PLEVs are in a turmoil and will surely change in the  coming years. There will never ever be a situation where for example the GW/BG Master would be a legal vehicle, nor does it have a single reasonable argument to be even suggested as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be in the public interest to investigate the instigator of the assault on the EUC rider.

It might not be in the public interest to charge/confiscate the EUC of the rider.

 

The instigator has allegedly assaulted a person. 

A violent person at large.

 

Seems to be a subjective opinion in deciding if the police should investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...