A man from York said the electric scooter was a motor vehicle by the court


A RETIREE arrested more than 120 times by the police failed to convince a court that his electric vehicle does not need to be insured.

Anthony Richard Bailey, 66, claimed that because his electric “bicycle” was not a motor vehicle, he did not need car insurance.

He told York Crown Court he uses it on the roads and cycle paths for shopping and getting around his area.

He said he had been arrested more than 120 times by police and had not been charged with any offense.

The Recorder of York, Judge Sean Morris, sitting with two magistrates, said: “Is it a motor vehicle?

“Yes, there is no doubt about it.”

They dismissed Bailey’s appeal against his conviction in York Magistrates’ Court for uninsured driving.

The judge said. “It’s not an electric bicycle.”

The vehicle was an electric “scooter” and therefore was not the type of vehicle bike lanes were designed for, he said.

“So be careful,” the judge said.

“I am stunned by the outcome,” Bailey said outside of court.

“I’m going to go away, collect my thoughts and seek further legal advice.”

Bailey, of Ascot Way, Acomb, had denied driving without insurance on the grounds that the DVLA told him the maximum speed of the transport was 15 mph, that he did not need to be registered and have a license plate.

Therefore, he claimed, it was not a motor vehicle.

He said police arrested him on several occasions because they saw him without a license plate.

The judge told him whether or not he was registered was irrelevant.

The transport was mechanically powered, so it was a motor vehicle, he said.

Bailey, who lives on a boarding house, has an artificial leg and arthritis, now has to pay for car insurance, or leave his transportation at home and pay the taxi fares.

He also has to pay a bill of £ 562 and has six penalty points.

The York Magistrates’ Court fined him £ 180 and ordered him to pay a statutory surcharge of £ 32 and prosecution costs of £ 300.

At the end of the appeal hearing he was ordered to pay £ 50 in appeal costs.

The sentence remained unchanged.

Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.