London Fixed-gear and Single-speed

he has been on my ignore list for ages, but I got an email through the forum from him telling me to piss off. I didn't know you could email through the forum, and what did I do recently?

Have you replied, asked him, what his beef is with you?

probably an admirer.

Why was he on your ignore list?

it was his turn, we take it in turns on the forum to send you abusive messages today was his day.

Nick

he wanted to sue me, because I said his bikes where dangerous.

@nick, at least yours are funny.

Maybe he secretly works for the Plain English Campaign, and its just guerilla action?

Didn't we go through this 8 months ago?

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread3559.html

I'd be interested to see this go to court, given that some of his bikes were illegal on many levels (sold without adequate reflectors, bells, etc).

If he wants to be a dick, phone trading standards and get them to assess the legality of the bikes he's selling. Oh, and as he's trading and has been for a while, anyone want to phone HM Revenue & Customs to check whether he's registered the business with them? He's probably going to face a couple of hundred in penalties (not to mention unpaid tax, with interest) if he's not.

hahahaha!
WAC.

does having an ignore function not make a mockery of the word 'forum'

That's the last we'll be seeing of Mr Hacked(2) then... Nice one, Tom...

If we lived in ideal world, then perhaps so.
Sadly we don't - it helps my blood pressure at times.

yes, but he emailed me through the forum today.

oh and AGCAB (All Grammar Coppers Are Bastards)

you darling man

If he has a problem with you a contacted privately why not deal with it in a private manner rather than bring it inti the public forum.

This private manor looks like a nice place to sort out problems

Swords or Pistols?

Is Hacked(2) demanding satisfaction?

Whatever happened to hacked1?

I see...

maybe it's an old mail that got held in the system?

Something like this, I expect...

or this...

anyone know where I can see what bikes he was building/what all the fuss was about?

1+

man I should be doing my dissertation instead of hunting around a forum but hey :

http://singlespeed.angelfire.com

awhile ago his bikes were singlespeeds with just a front brake,somebody on this forum pointed out the basic error of the bikes he was building. so he added a rear brake to his secondhand overpriced bikes.you cant improve shit ,you start with shit and you end up with shit

Sorry to say this but it isn't against the law to sell bikes without reflectors bells etc. It's only against the law if you say they adhere to british standards.

All of his bikes have fallen over! ;)

true!!!!!!

Are you sure? I know that you can ride them without them, but I thought you had to sell them with them if it was intended that the bike was to be used on the road. If someone would like to point me to the relevant legislation though, I'd be most interested.

Either way, one could certainly argue that any bike that doesn't conform to British Standards is "dangerous" and I would imagine that a court would probably be sympathetic to this way of thinking in a libel case.

well they're second hand bikes, you can sell them in any condition you like, provided you're not misleading the buyer into thinking they are something they ain't

course, once the buyer pedals of on a one braked freewheel bike he's the one essentially breaking the law

I don't think that's quite right. He's selling "reconditioned" bikes which I suspect is something a bit different. This may seem a little obtuse, but please bear with me:

I own a shop, I buy a bike from Trek. I sell it. It needs reflectors, etc.

I own a shop. I buy a bike from a guy that bought the bike from Trek. Does the additional stage mean that reflectors are no longer needed?

I think it's more likely that people forget that when you are selling goods second hand you still have responsibilities regarding them. The fact is that if I sell one bike every 4 years, trading standards (or whoever) aren't going to give a flying fuck. If I'm selling one a week, I think that will take a bit more of an interest.

so far as I know:

the reflectors and bells rule are for sales of "new" bikes. ie: bikes sold as new by retailers.

the rules for the bike once it hits the road are for the rider and are slightly different (bells are not compulsory, red rear reflectors are, orange reflectors only on post october 1985 bikes or something)

this may or may not be exactly right, I'm not going into the detail now as I'm hitting the sack. maybe someone else will delve deeper

OK, that sounds very plausible and is broadly what I thought.

My question is: is there a point at which the restoration of a bike (for the purpose of being sold by someone whose trade is selling bikes) makes it new for the purpose of that legislation?

How could someone dare produce this with so many grammatical errors in it? I hope the Hypocrite Squad takes them away.

it's an interesting question.

bloke who knows nothing about bikes buys one of these re-conditioned efforts, rides off and gets pulled by the police for not having two brakes (or goes under a bus)

who is to blame?

But I'm interested in your point, who can answer this properly? trading standards?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_069866

but where are the rules relating to the sale of second hand bikes by a retailer?

the highway code thing isfor riders, as I mentioned, and not really what we are trying to get to the root of

Here you go:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm

Specifically, Regulation 6 (2) will cover most bikes that any of us would ever buy.

Is there a way to stop people quoting? Because: thank God for a lawyer.

Further pedantry - within 6(2)a, to what extent must the parts on that bike be new to stop it from qualifying as being "supplied before", especially when there has been a fundamental change in the use of the bike (i.e. from geared to fixed)? I guess it is a point for the courts to decide when Hacked sues Chris and/or me.

People shouldn't feel obliged to respond to this post.

Also, CliveO, have some +rep.

No opinion on the legal question, just an opinion of Hacked2- I have never spoken to or of him, then he attacked me on this forum for no good reason that I could think of.

Maybe it's just one of his hobbies Chris?

6 (2) (a) (c) and (d) will cover anything. Remember that the offence is one for the trader to commit and therefore it is his state of mind (mens rea) that counts. Very difficult to show, if all else fails, that he did not think that you were buying a bike for competition or a competition bike.

Thanks for the rep.

Maybe he's trying to recondition y'all? Old habits die hard etc.

He does have a nice wooden floor

The "actus rea" (I think there is a spelling mistake in there somewhere) counts for nothing in this case? I don't care really, I just wanted to demonstrate my very basic knowledge of legal terms.