The Mad Hat Man

The Mad Hat Man

Well-Known Member
LZIR Despatch Agent
Just seen this on a FB feed. I have no knowledge of its accuracy, however this would, if true, severely compromise LZIR.

“GUILT BY ASSOCIATION & SECTION 59 TICKETS

I’ve been meaning to write this since our Dales weekend. I was told a story by someone I trust and have seen further evidence that this is happening.
The story - a perfectly legal group was out for the day. The person at the back started messing around out of sight of the others. He got stuck. While they were annoyed with him they made the decision not to leave him there - mistake. The whole group got section 59 because of “guilt by association”
Whether this would stand up legally is irrelevant. There is no way to appeal a Section 59. If that vehicle is involved in anything else for a year, even if it’s been sold, it can be crushed.
It seems the police and rangers are tightening up on this.
So be aware, if you are out in one of my groups, and I suspect all our leaders, and do something like this you are on your own. If you are mobile you will be asked to leave the group. If you aren’t, well that’s not the rest of the groups problem.
Same goes for posts for help if you are not on a legal lane.”
 
Wowzers, really interesting....

My first thought was you cant issue that so challenge it... but you are right there is no way to appeal a section 59 issued.

Amazed if anyone on a legal route could be issued it tbh.
 
ER1C said:
Amazed if anyone on a legal route could be issued it tbh.
Click to expand...
Yes they could.
Its a really ambiguous section and covers a big area, Many peeps have fallen foul of it.

Key law: Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002​

Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
1. Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
  • a.contravenes Section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
  • b.is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(Police Reform Act, 2002).....


Being guilty by association is a real game changer if they decide to pursue it, Not ideal at all.


J
 
Used for idiots at car meets at the local DIY stores car parks. Also for tossers who drive off the byways routes knowing full well they shouldn't.
You can also get done for watching/encouraging such actions.
Unfortunately many people at car meets, especially Jap cars I have found, are idiots. Same with many people who think a green lane trip is off roading, also idiots.
 
As well as LZIR, there are numerous FB groups for which an unintended consequence appears to be encouraging some to go laning alone and getting stuck. These people then post their predicament and expect others to come to the rescue. The W3W or grid reference often shows them as being on a restricted byway or off of a legal right of way. Section 59 is a good power to use against these. Hopefully though, its use should not impact upon law abiding users and the case outlined is a one-off.
 
On the upside atleast they have a warning and not impounded on the spot. While it's annoying for the rest of the group it's a good warning for people. Police should have seized the idiots vehicle and warned the rest of them.
Regardless it's a lesson learned for those involved and others will hopefully take note.
 
If the person last in the group got stuck they would be off piste because all other drivers got through. They should have the S59.

Now if I allow them to attach the winch to motor am I liable for any convictions?

Now to start off roading in the dark with night vision goggles,no walkers out to record me & police always put the blue lights on to scare you as if they are called out they think your poaching.
 
If we look at it from the rangers and police view then what they would have seen was some stuck idiot and some others getting him out. What else are they going to think? I am sure they have seen and heard it all before.
Only seen one truck where it shouldn't be but plenty of evidence to suggest that lots of people go where they shouldn't.
Or you can stay at home and watch it on YouTube. Salisbury Plain have particular areas which are sign posted military only and you still get idiots driving it and posting up the videos.
Sad fact is green laning has a bad name, deserved in some cases, and it will never change as far as I can tell.
 
marjon said:
Yes they could.
Its a really ambiguous section and covers a big area, Many peeps have fallen foul of it.

Key law: Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002​

Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
1. Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
  • a.contravenes Section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
  • b.is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(Police Reform Act, 2002).....


Being guilty by association is a real game changer if they decide to pursue it, Not ideal at all.


J
Click to expand...

It seems that can only be used against the vehicle involved or suspected vehicle. However, it could certainly be used against you if you were rescuing someone. That said, if you informed the land owner or even the Police of your intentions before setting off you'd probably be safe. The Police would almost certainly advise it left for proper recovery company with liability insurance etc but at least they would have no reason to suspect yourself of acting irresponsibly.
 
There are threads on other forums, I just found this.


So its not restricted to 4x4 off piste idiots.
It can be given to somebody anywhere, on a complaint with no evidence (it seems).
You can not appeal against it.

J
 
Until plod take it upon them selves to abuse the original intention of sec59. One of my ex bike student was issued sec 59 for swerving a pothole ..........no appeal. No common sense from said plod especially as its now tested in mod1 of the motor bike test. Hazzard avoidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
More Amigo Fun
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Charlie Chester
C
johnnymarrsbarres
Defender 90 tdci alarm question
Replies
5
Views
371
Wimblowdriver
Wimblowdriver
S
leather check strap & my axle box section
Replies
6
Views
1K
Anaconda
A
J
Evoque L538 front foglights
Replies
2
Views
815
james7676
J
andyfreelandy
Freelander 1 Preserving the scarce ! FL1
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
kernowsvenski
kernowsvenski