I'd suggest not, since they are selling this:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/152382554532

Edited January 8, 20179 yr by Alan Quay

They say they aren't indemnifying the purchaser in any way though, so it's for the buyer to either use it privately or take risks.

 

As ever it's not illegal to sell vehicles that can't be used on public roads.

.

It seems very strange. If it were being used illegally, you'd think they'd send it to the crusher. I wonder what it was evidence of? Stolen maybe?

They say they aren't indemnifying the purchaser in any way though, so it's for the buyer to either use it privately or take risks.

 

As ever it's not illegal to sell vehicles that can't be used on public roads.

.

True, but if they are not being explicit about any of that.

 

I recently built a bike for a local (reasonably high ranking) police officer. He asked me for 1000w, and I explained the legality issues. He's wasn't bothered in the slightest.

 

In the end I talked him down to derestricted, shunt modded 250w.

 

He uses it for precisely two purposes:

Going to work, and going on pub crawls with me.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

It seems very strange. If it were being used illegally, you'd think they'd send it to the crusher. I wonder what it was evidence of? Stolen maybe?

It will have been stolen/recovered or seized from drug dealers or muggers. Probably came from Plymouth.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

It will have been stolen/recovered or seized from drug dealers or muggers. Probably came from Plymouth.

 

Could be being sold under the proceeds of crime legislation, turning criminals illicit gains into public money.

.

Probably not. If you've watched any of SW's videos, he's usually seen whizzing past the fuzz at 50mph

Going to work, and going on pub crawls with me.

Is it legal to ride a bike while drunk in UK? here in Norway a bike i classified as a vehicle and you're subject to the same law on drunk driving as with a car or motorbike. The cops usually don't care as riding a bike is in many cases the best alternative while drinking, (well, better than driving a motor vehicle) But if you piss off the wrong cop he can fine you and take your driving license for it (if you have one)

Is it legal to ride a bike while drunk in UK? here in Norway a bike i classified as a vehicle and you're subject to the same law on drunk driving as with a car or motorbike. The cops usually don't care as riding a bike is in many cases the best alternative while drinking, (well, better than driving a motor vehicle) But if you **** off the wrong cop he can fine you and take your driving license for it (if you have one)

 

I believe it's the same situation here. Technically an offence, but practically never prosecuted.

 

In theory, if caught over the limit on an illegal ebike (a motor vehicle) you could be in a lot of trouble.

 

As a supplier of quality illegal vehicles to the local constabulary I assume I enjoy an untouchable position. [emoji1]

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

To be prosecuted, you have to be totally, obviously drunk. They can't breathalyse you.

To be prosecuted, you have to be totally, obviously drunk. They can't breathalyse you.

 

Seems like a good thing, then you can have a couple beers and ride home to save a cabfare, If you are totally obviously drunk you shouldn't be riding a bike for your own safety.

Seems like a good thing, then you can have a couple beers and ride home to save a cabfare, If you are totally obviously drunk you shouldn't be riding a bike for your own safety.

 

I know... But I'm almost sober by the time I get home

There is actually a moral dimension to this. I could ride an EAPC so removed from legal description that it would effectively be an unregistered motor vehicle but I don't. That doesn't make a me saint; it simply means I have respect for the law.

 

Tom

Probably not. If you've watched any of SW's videos, he's usually seen whizzing past the fuzz at 50mph

 

The police ignore a very large range of offences, they mainly concern themselves with a narrow range of matters that the government deems suitable to pursue.

 

This police attitude has become indoctrinated now.

 

For example, in my London Borough the council is proposing widespread 20 mph limiting on all but main through roads, consulting the public district by district on this.

 

But the Metropolitan police have said they will not police it. Note they have not said they cannot for manpower shortage or other reasons, they say they will not even attempt to as a matter of policy.

 

The council's own traffic and parking control department won't, they gave up on most parking control long ago, even when asked to act with photos and examples they don't. For example, see the photo below I took minutes ago. Parked wholly across the pavement, on double yellow lines and blocking an entrance, it's been there for at least a day. If I emailed that to parking control complete with number plate and location they won't do anything.

 

So what's the use of laws and regulations? None at all.

 

Perhaps we should follow the example of the town of Cheran in Mexico. The population have taken it over, kicked out the corrupt and lazy officials and criminals, driven out the mayor and now run things themselves.

 

There's a radio program about that on the i-player that you can listen to, here's the link.

 

.

Edited January 9, 20179 yr by flecc

There is actually a moral dimension to this. I could ride an EAPC so removed from legal description that it would effectively be an unregistered motor vehicle but I don't. That doesn't make a me saint; it simply means I have respect for the law.

 

Tom

I see where you are coming from Tom, but moralistic behavior is quickly disappearing from our culture. I believe a change in the way we teach our children at home and in schools, has had a big effect on this.

 

Remember the days when every schoolkid would cack their pants if confronted by the local bobby, then given a clip round the ear if any wrongdoing was suspected. That instilled a respect, and slight fear, of the law, which would make most people question the morality of what they are doing throughout their life.

 

I'm not going to explain what it is like nowadays, as we have all seen examples of the lack of respect we have for the law, as well as our fellow humans.

 

I was watching a few videos on YouTube, where the posters thought it was big and clever, to video themselves whilst quoting the law to a police officer. The general theme was to keep saying " you are a public servant ", as though they had some superiority over the officer.

 

Of course police officers are not always right, and they are only trying to do a most difficult and diverse job, but if society continues to show lack of respect in this way, then who knows what this country will be like in a few decades time.

I believe a change in the way we teach our children at home and in schools, has had a big effect on this.

 

And as part of the teaching, disciplining. We used to be corrected at every age, including smacking etc when necessary, but now it seems children are untouchable since they have "rights".

 

It never seems to occur to the politically correct brigade that rights without responsibilities is permission for any behaviour, no matter how harmful.

 

The sad thing is that this modern way eventually hurts far more than the older ways. A hard smack with lesson learnt at five years old hurts far less than a prison sentence at an older age.

.

And as part of the teaching, disciplining. We used to be corrected at every age, including smacking etc when necessary, but now it seems children are untouchable since they have "rights".

 

It never seems to occur to the politically correct brigade that rights without responsibilities is permission for any behaviour, no matter how harmful.

 

The sad thing is that this modern way eventually hurts far more than the older ways. A hard smack with lesson learnt at five years old hurts far less than a prison sentence at an older age.

.

Playing devils advocate for a moment...

 

Is there anyone else you would be happy to hit as a matter of course because they wont do as you want? Your wife or partner? An employee? A stranger you pass on the street? A prisoner maybe?

 

I received my fair share of smacks growing up and have always thought of it as acceptable practice. That is until I applied logic to the thought process and realised that assaulting another human in the name of 'discipline' is just not acceptable, whoever they are. Moreso for a minor.

Playing devils advocate for a moment...

 

Is there anyone else you would be happy to hit as a matter of course because they wont do as you want? Your wife or partner? An employee? A stranger you pass on the street? A prisoner maybe?

 

I received my fair share of smacks growing up and have always thought of it as acceptable practice. That is until I applied logic to the thought process and realised that assaulting another human in the name of 'discipline' is just not acceptable, whoever they are. Moreso for a minor.

Yep, I'm with you there. I don't hit my son, I don't plan to and I would react very badly if someone else did.

 

Simply not necessary if children are brought up correctly.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

I received my fair share of smacks growing up and have always thought of it as acceptable practice. That is until I applied logic to the thought process and realised that assaulting another human in the name of 'discipline' is just not acceptable, whoever they are. Moreso for a minor.

 

I also received plenty of physical discipline at early ages, including hands caned witn a ruler from 5 years old and the cane from about 8 years old, so I appreciate what's behind the logic you express, even though it has no factual basis.

 

But I believe your concluding sentence is completely wrong, physical discipline is all the more important for minors. The psychology is well understood, the younger we are the more important our sense of self over others. Indeed up to three years old, there is no sense of "other", so appeals on behalf of others interests can have no effect.

 

That's why all higher order animals physically discipline their young at their very young ages, simply because they don't have the "other" learning capacity they gain later.

 

As much as we resent the physical discipline when very young, it does work as the crime and prison statistics of half a century ago and now show only too clearly.

.

Yep, I'm with you there. I don't hit my son, I don't plan to and I would react very badly if someone else did.

 

Simply not necessary if children are brought up correctly.

 

"If" being the key word.

 

I too hate the idea of hitting any child, or anyone for that matter, but I don't ignore the evidence either.

.

I also received plenty of physical discipline at early ages, including hands caned witn a ruler from 5 years old and the cane from about 8 years old, so I appreciate what's behind the logic you express, even though it has no factual basis.

 

But I believe your concluding sentence is completely wrong, physical discipline is all the more important for minors. The psychology is well understood, the younger we are the more important our sense of self over others. Indeed up to three years old, there is no sense of "other", so appeals on behalf of others interests can have no effect.

 

That's why all higher order animals physically discipline their young at their very young ages, simply because they don't have the "other" learning capacity they gain later.

 

As much as we resent the physical discipline when very young, it does work as the crime and prison statistics of half a century ago and now show only too clearly.

.

Before uttering another word, I'd like to acknowledge that this is indeed both a sensitive and emotive subject and I am in no way passing judgement on anyone else by expressing my own views.

 

Ignoring morality for a moment... Flecc, did you ever receive physical discipline for the same behaviour twice? If so, is it not arguable that it was ineffective as a means of teaching a 'lesson'?

 

There have been many hundreds, thousands, (millions even) of social changes over the last half-century. Why link the increasing prison population to changes in attitude to hitting children?

The word 'hit' is maybe a little extreme. It suggests a far more physical action than we are implying here.

 

Smack, yes.

 

I, like flecc, got a smack from the teacher, or my Father, if I wasn't playing the game, and I still see the reasoning behind it. Whether it made me a better person, who knows, but the old cliche stands where it never did me any harm.

 

BTW, I do smack my wife every now and then, but it's usually on the bum in the bedroom and she loves it

did you ever receive physical discipline for the same behaviour twice? If so, is it not arguable that it was ineffective as a means of teaching a 'lesson'?

 

Yes, for one behaviour only, smoking during school hours. But not for many others, crucially including respect for others, so it mainly worked.

 

There have been many hundreds, thousands, (millions even) of social changes over the last century. Why link the increasing prison population to changes in attitude to hitting children?

 

I'm linking crime levels, prison populations and poor social behaviour. All the downsides of those are linked to a marked increase in absence of self discipline.

 

Lawlessness is rife now, and one only has to see this forum to know that. A very high proportion use illegally powered e-bikes, and whether illegally powered or not, even more derestrict for illegal speeds. They boast about it and anyone even mildly mentioning the law gets verbally abused for doing so, all this despite there being very little regulation.

 

Over half a century ago things were much tougher for powered cycling, one had to register, have number plates, pay tax and have insurance, and toughest of all, a full motorcycle driving licence was necessary. Yet everyone complied, in my time in the trade I saw no law breaking of the sort that's so common now.

 

Broadly speaking the same range of punishments existed then as now, indeed they are often harsher now. But one element is different, for decades now we've no longer physically punished the young, and the deterioration in public behaviour has paralleled that.

.

If calling it a 'smack' makes it more palatable for the person handing out the discipline, then that's their prerogative. Once they start introducing weapons to the process, they're just kidding themselves.

Broadly speaking the same range of punishments existed then as now, indeed they are often harsher now. But one element is different, for decades now we've no longer physically punished the young, and the deterioration in public behaviour has paralleled that.

Today it is largely understood that the majority of sentenced abusers were once abused themselves. You know where I'm going here....