That would be my guess too but my point is that even though the Act allows the use of Sec 59 in circumstances where the vehicle was used on a road, the problem is that resorting to Sec 59 removes any test of the facts and relies solely upon the opinion of a police officer.
Sec 59 has a place. I don't think that it was intended to replace Sec 3 RTA or Sec 34.
I agree that not knowing the full circumstances of this case makes any discussion of the merit of Sec 59, pointless.
Neither do I subscribe to the view that it will be used to target bikes just because they are considered anti-social by some.
In my experience, Sec 59 seizures are very rare. I don't know how frequently the first notice is used though.
Locally (and I don't know if this is common elsewhere) we get groups of anything from ten to thirty Herberts screaming about on scooters in the evenings. They rely on their sheer numbers to avoid being stopped. It reminds me of those wild-life documentaries where a heard crosses a Crocodile infested river in such numbers that it reduces the odds of being eaten.
I can see how Sec 59 would make dealing with these a lot easier but I'm very uncomfortable with any legislation that makes sanction 'easy' and puts the power to punish as well as detect into the same hands. At least the hated camera technology has the saving grace of being technically proven and doesn't rely upon opinion and Fixed Penalties do not remove the option of a hearing in court.
, thats why I said it should be a concern , especially to those who ride in groups as a group of people doing anything that another group doesn't like could be considered anti social. 
