I have posted a reply to an earlier forum but thought this needed its own.

Section 59 Warnings are bad news. In this nanny state that we live there is the potential for many of us to have our bikes seized by the police. I am a criminal lawyer and will be looking into this piece of legislation a bit more closely and see what can be done should anyone get one.

Any of you guys need some advice just get in contact.

Read this and be warned:

http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?optio ... Itemid=492

i got one a few weeks ago for giving my ccm to much throttle on the gear change and slightly lifting the front wheel
they said the 59 warning is in place on my bike so if anyone else gets caught on it it can still be taken
and also the warning is on me aswell so if i get caught on someones elses bike doin somethin naughty that bike can be taken with no further warnings
is this right?

howe1601 wrote:I have posted a reply to an earlier forum but thought this needed its own.

Section 59 Warnings are bad news. In this nanny state that we live there is the potential for many of us to have our bikes seized by the police. I am a criminal lawyer and will be looking into this piece of legislation a bit more closely and see what can be done should anyone get one.

Any of you guys need some advice just get in contact.

Read this and be warned:

http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?optio ... Itemid=492

Thanks for the info Howe, and welcome 8)

Good grief!
Id missed out on the relevance of this whole Section 59 stuff!
Thanks Howe1601 for your input. It looks initially like something they dreamt up to clamp down on the Nova/Max Power brigade, but as usual with government, it quite conveniently can be applied across a wide range of vehicle users. Us well mannered, 'pillar of the community' type green laners/TRF members are as vulnerable to whatever mood the nice person with the warrant card is in, as the 'croozers'.
Forewarned is forearmed!
Thanks for taking the time to advise us!
Regards KK

Surely, that as the basis for an offence the criteria is so loosely worded that the mere act of actually starting a vehicle in a public place would be enough to qualify on all three charges[ distress alarm annoyance ].
In which case if the Section 59 can be issued against the person ,can i request the i issuing of one against a certain class of activist Rambliar who see it as their solemn duty to vigour sly wave those viscous
looking lethally sharp , impaling implements at me from time to time.
I would have thought that any law biding activity carried out by any group ,could ,in the eyes of a vehemently opposed group easily meet the terms of a section 59 order.
Any one ever been alarmed by a police siren?
Any one been annoyed by a police helicopter hovering noisily at night?
Any one been distressed at the sight of a high speed police vehicle ?
The charges could be levelled at any one or any activity.

fallenmikethebike wrote: Surely, that as the basis for an offence the criteria is so loosely worded that the mere act of actually starting a vehicle in a public place would be enough to qualify on all three charges[ distress alarm annoyance ].
In which case if the Section 59 can be issued against the person ,can i request the i issuing of one against a certain class of activist Rambliar who see it as their solemn duty to vigour sly wave those viscous
looking lethally sharp , impaling implements at me from time to time.
I would have thought that any law biding activity carried out by any group ,could ,in the eyes of a vehemently opposed group easily meet the terms of a section 59 order.
Any one ever been alarmed by a police siren?
Any one been annoyed by a police helicopter hovering noisily at night?
Any one been distressed at the sight of a high speed police vehicle ?
The charges could be levelled at any one or any activity.

This is so true. Good call mate.