Section 59 Warning
Originally Posted by veehexx,Jan 14 2010, 10:30 AM
surely the S with airbox lid off abides by noise regulations (there are covered in MOT, by rarely enforced ime) and thus 100% completely legal even when giving it beans.
(i presume they are going with the VTEC noise rather than anything else)
(i presume they are going with the VTEC noise rather than anything else)
I'm not going to follow it up with letters and such. It's just more hassle, and as it stands I have no fine and no points, so all I've lost is a few minutes of my time. And perhaps a little dignity.
I just thought I'd air my experience, and slight confusion about the interpretation of the law, and how it could/can easily be abused/misused.@Mark; I guess he could probably tie in "reasonable consideration for others" with the perceived annoyance factor.

At least he didn't mention anything about "due care and attention". That would have really boiled my piss.
Originally Posted by M1TT J,Jan 14 2010, 10:33 AM
Oh and it deosnt really mean anything just that you were driving like an idiot in most cases!
It's just easier and better than giving out points for speeding (which they cant prove in this case)
It's just easier and better than giving out points for speeding (which they cant prove in this case)
Annoying that "accelerating quickly" = "driving like an idiot". I suppose that's what they thought. I just thought I was making better progress.
Originally Posted by RevRanger,Jan 14 2010, 10:44 AM
Do they (the police) have evidence to back any of this up?... actually do they need evidence these days!!!!!!?

For S59 offences, at least.
Bored mate i think, or build up some numbers.
Like me and the reg plate incident.
My sister got fined many years ago by overtaking a line of cars then cutting in, in a similar circumstance though you didnt do this.
Like me and the reg plate incident.
My sister got fined many years ago by overtaking a line of cars then cutting in, in a similar circumstance though you didnt do this.
Yeah accelerating "hard" was what mine was for. I hadnt actually broken the speed limit just got there quickly!
And no they dont actaully need evidence as there'snormally two of them and it's your word against theres i guess
And no they dont actaully need evidence as there'snormally two of them and it's your word against theres i guess
Originally Posted by M1TT J,Jan 14 2010, 10:51 AM
Yeah accelerating "hard" was what mine was for. I hadnt actually broken the speed limit just got there quickly!




