Bacon slicers

[Bryanj]

Tractors were exempt the need forfront plates at the same time

[Nurse Julie]

The legislation is completely understandable.
If the bike was registered after 1st September 2001 you cannot display a front number plate.
Any bike registered before Sept 1st 2001, you can display a front number plate, if you wish. This is the info from GOV. UK relating specifically to motorcycles.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[McCabe-Thiele (Ted)]

None of what you have posted is the acual Act of Parliament Julie show me the Act & I will believe.

If you or anyone here can show me the Act & Section that makes displaying a front number plate an offence then I will accept that I am wrong. If there is a legal precedent or case law that has developed that backs up your statement then please produce the extract here so it can be verified for all to see.

[Hence, the prominent expression in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist: “the law is an ass — a(n) idiot”. The law, when applied too rigidly or too flexibly, can be blind to the realities on the ground and the requirements for justice./i]

[Nurse Julie]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/part/II

[Sesman]

Which is great, but have you seen the price of smoked haddock.

[Nurse Julie]

This doc gives all the legislation but I can't seem to copy the link.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[McCabe-Thiele (Ted)]

You are correct Julie The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 it actually quotes a Statutory Instrument 2001 No 561 Part 2 in Section 6 sub section 5 clearly states  the following:-
(5) In the case of a motor cycle or a motor tricycle which does not have a body of a type which is characteristic of the body of a four-wheeled vehicle—

(a)a registration plate must not be fixed on the front of a vehicle if it was first registered on or after 1st September 2001.

However this is a Statutory Instrument ( theses are usually enacted by the Home Secretary) it does not create an Offence that can be prosecuted in the courts on its own. Most but not all Statutory Instruments were connected with legislation for vehicle manufacturers, new types of vehicle classifications, complying with old EU regulations  etc .


Again show me an Offence that is enacted - it will state the parent Act of Parliament,  a penalty that the courts can impose, the mode of court trial  (Summary for most vehicle offences), then I will believe you can be prosecuted for having say the front number plate as a transfer applied  the front fender say of a scooter.

If there is an offence to be found it will most likely refer back to the original legislation dating back to when it was called vehicle excise licence or road fund tax   covering the requirement to display registration marks etc. The so called Kidney Splitter or Bacon Slicer plate would have been described in size & location that we see today on very old bikes.

An old scooter as shown below had a typical type of number plate for such machines. The idea that fitting an adhesive VRM to the fender being somehow unlawful I think is unlikely, likewise to a front fly screen or fairing.

When I worked in Police Prosecutions all those decades ago most Registration Mark Offences obviously including no VED were prosecuted by the DVLA  who much like The Post Office & Benefits Agency prosecuted their own cases. I would hasten to add that I did see the change from when the Polce or County Prosecuting Solicitors were in charge of cases to the implementation of the National & Regionally based CPS system.

PXL_20231015_112100937.ACTION_PAN-01.COVER by Macabe Thiele, on Flickr

[McCabe-Thiele (Ted)]

Just as a POI the DVLA will tell you that if you display a cherrished registration plate with miss spaced letter (usually to try to spell a name or word) as well as being open to prosecution  for not having a VRM that meets the required legislation  you might also loose the right to the registration mark itself, that would presumably be a Civil matter.

A few years ago there was a Ford Convertable with the VRM spaced to read BITCH it was driven by a blonde lass around Derby about 10 years or so ago. There was a circular sent to Police Forces back on the 1980's stating it was not DVLA policy to prosecute such cases as it made the VRM more memorable. That said I suspect their policy has changed, I would not recommend it.

It used to show on DVLA but has now gone.

[taysidedragon]

Its a Triumph, its not suposed to have the ignition and carbs correct, especially on both sides at the same time

Mine's OK, electronic ignition and one carb! (Might have jinxed it now!)

[Sesman]

Hi, Dave.

Yes, I’ve tried a few sources, but all are out of stock. Looks like I’ll have to trawl around the autojumbles.

[Martin6]

This comes up on Mr Google

Do Motorcycles Need Front Number Plates?

Motorcycles, motor tricycles, and mopeds registered on or after the 1st of September 2001 only need to display a number plate at the rear of the vehicle.

If registered before the 1st of September 2001, you are allowed to display a number plate at the front, but it’s entirely up to you.

Gov.UK Quote as below from their website.

If you ride a motorbike or motor tricycle
Motorcycles and motor tricycles registered on or after 1 September 2001 must only display a number plate at the rear of the vehicle.

If you ride a motorbike or motor tricycle registered before 1 September 2001 you can also display a number plate at the front, but you do not have to.

This is why Solicitors make money, the law generally only describes what is a legal requirement (a must), it does not generally go on to say what is unlawful (commonly called illegal). It's interesting that the Theft Act 1968 does not define in the act what is meant by  Dishonest, it does devote quite a lot of text to describe what is Not Dishonest
, it is left for the Jury to decide on facts if the defendant acted dishonestly. Traffic law is quite different in that most legislation is an absolute offence so no fault is involved.

So after 1st September you must (need?) only display a rear number plate it does not as usual cattegorically say it's unlawful to continue to display a front VRM after that date. IIRC the law on registration plates does not come from the Road Traffic Act or The Construction & Use Legislation, it comes under The Vehicle Excise Act. (I am a couple of decades out of touch on current law that is enforced by the Police so correct me if wrong)

IIRC the change in legislation for motorcycles was as a result of pedestrians being severely injured at quite low speeds by the way the front number plate was fitted. If you have a front fairing then clearly an adhesive front number plate displayed on either side or if there is room at the front of the fairing is not going to cause any additional injury.

I suspect that if you mounted an old style number plate on the front mudguard post 1st September 2002 you are in effect trying to defeat the object of the change in legislation to reduce injury,  you might commit an offence under the 'Dangerous Parts' legislation for consideration by the CPS. 

If anyone can find a specific  Act & Section that  makes it an offence to display a front number plate of any type on a motor cycle post 1st Sept 2002 I would find that interesting reading.

Ted, here's the wording from 'The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, PART II':

"(5) In the case of a motor cycle or a motor tricycle which does not have a body of a type which is characteristic of the body of a four-wheeled vehicle—

(a)a registration plate must not be fixed on the front of a vehicle if it was first registered on or after 1st September 2001,
(b)a plate need not be fixed on the front of the vehicle if it was first registered before 1st September 2001."

So, (a) makes it an offence ("must not") to display on post 1/9/2001 Motorcycles.
Part (b) allows you to display on earlier vehicles, but you "need not".

Your comment on the Theft Act, "dishonestly", as you say, the Act has 2 conditions that if either is satisfied are deemed not dishonest. Otherwise the question is left to the jury, but only after they have been directed on the law by the judge. In our legal system, the law is made up of statute (Act of Parliament and delegated legislation, such as regulations / statutory instruments) and 'common law'  from previous court case decisions by judges, also known as 'precedent'. Where dishonesty is a question for the jury and not dealt with by the 2 statutory exceptions, the judge draws on the common law to direct the jury on how they must consider that question. I think the current position for criminal cases is the Supreme Court's definition in R v Ivey (subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020 in Booth & Another v R):
"- what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
- based on those facts, was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?"

I am an anorak! Hope you never need to test this info! 😀 👍

[McCabe-Thiele (Ted)]

This comes up on Mr Google

Do Motorcycles Need Front Number Plates?

Motorcycles, motor tricycles, and mopeds registered on or after the 1st of September 2001 only need to display a number plate at the rear of the vehicle.

If registered before the 1st of September 2001, you are allowed to display a number plate at the front, but it’s entirely up to you.

Gov.UK Quote as below from their website.

If you ride a motorbike or motor tricycle
Motorcycles and motor tricycles registered on or after 1 September 2001 must only display a number plate at the rear of the vehicle.

If you ride a motorbike or motor tricycle registered before 1 September 2001 you can also display a number plate at the front, but you do not have to.

This is why Solicitors make money, the law generally only describes what is a legal requirement (a must), it does not generally go on to say what is unlawful (commonly called illegal). It's interesting that the Theft Act 1968 does not define in the act what is meant by  Dishonest, it does devote quite a lot of text to describe what is Not Dishonest
, it is left for the Jury to decide on facts if the defendant acted dishonestly. Traffic law is quite different in that most legislation is an absolute offence so no fault is involved.

So after 1st September you must (need?) only display a rear number plate it does not as usual cattegorically say it's unlawful to continue to display a front VRM after that date. IIRC the law on registration plates does not come from the Road Traffic Act or The Construction & Use Legislation, it comes under The Vehicle Excise Act. (I am a couple of decades out of touch on current law that is enforced by the Police so correct me if wrong)

IIRC the change in legislation for motorcycles was as a result of pedestrians being severely injured at quite low speeds by the way the front number plate was fitted. If you have a front fairing then clearly an adhesive front number plate displayed on either side or if there is room at the front of the fairing is not going to cause any additional injury.

I suspect that if you mounted an old style number plate on the front mudguard post 1st September 2002 you are in effect trying to defeat the object of the change in legislation to reduce injury,  you might commit an offence under the 'Dangerous Parts' legislation for consideration by the CPS. 

If anyone can find a specific  Act & Section that  makes it an offence to display a front number plate of any type on a motor cycle post 1st Sept 2002 I would find that interesting reading.

Ted,

Your comment on the Theft Act, "dishonestly", as you say, the Act has 2 conditions that if either is satisfied are deemed not dishonest. Otherwise the question is left to the jury, but only after they have been directed on the law by the judge. In our legal system, the law is made up of statute (Act of Parliament and delegated legislation, such as regulations / statutory instruments) and 'common law'  from previous court case decisions by judges, also known as 'precedent'. Where dishonesty is a question for the jury and not dealt with by the 2 statutory exceptions, the judge draws on the common law to direct the jury on how they must consider that question. I think the current position for criminal cases is the Supreme Court's definition in R v Ivey (subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020 in Booth & Another v R):
"- what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
- based on those facts, was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?"

I am an anorak! Hope you never need to test this info! 😀 👍

I am a bit of an Anorak, If I cast my mind back to Panal Ash Police District Training Center in October 1971 as a new recruit you were given a small (yellow?)book that contained about 100 definitions in law that had to be learnt word perfect during the 16 week residential course. We lived in dormatories of about 16 each,  your bed was made into a bed pack every morning for inspection. I learnt how to march (badly), we returned later in service (18-20 months later) for a Continuation Course at RAF Dishforth a shared facilty.

The first definition was of a Police  Constable that you had to learn in the first night, tested the next day in class by the course instructor. I might have missed the odd word out  but it's close enough.
" A Constable is a Citizen, locally appointed, having authority under the Crown, for the protection of life and property, the prevention & detection of crime,the  maintainance of law and order and the prosecution of offenders aginst the Queens Peace."

[Bryanj]

Sorry to pedantic but "King's Peace"

[McCabe-Thiele (Ted)]

Sorry to pedantic but "King's Peace"

I was quoting 1971 Bryan - that's my defence.

Another definition was  "The Queens Peace or shorty the  Peace is the normal state of Society, any interuption of that Peace  or good order was a Breach of the Peace"