Do cops ever check your bike's LAMS compliance?

**strumpet** · 9th June 2014, 21:09

Originally Posted by biketimus_prime

Is it possible to ride a bigger bike that isn't LAMS approved and still have insurance on it even though you're on your learners?
I know it sounds stupid but I'm genuinely curious as it may not be legal to ride in the eyes of the law, but so is not having registration on your bike and you can still be insured and get paid out in a claim...

I have crashed the car with no wof an it was my fault an insurance still paid out on mine, his and the other that got in the way. No regd and no woof is not a problem unless they find yr vehicle is not wof compliant.
[/U]

**Driftmonkey** · 8th July 2014, 16:47

Buy CBR600RR. Take a nice ride to the post shop, "Hey, my bike has the incorrect rego name, it should be CBR250, not 600.."

Alright sweet *prints new rego*.

Win at life.

**Gremlin** · 8th July 2014, 18:42

Originally Posted by Driftmonkey

Buy CBR600RR. Take a nice ride to the post shop, "Hey, my bike has the incorrect rego name, it should be CBR250, not 600.."

Alright sweet *prints new rego*.

Win at life.

Yeup, cop then picks it up, and you're now up for fraud charges.

Or, you pay insurance, an incident occurs (your fault or not) insurance spots the issue, claim denied.

Yep, win... for anyone else.

**Driftmonkey** · 9th July 2014, 00:00

Originally Posted by Gremlin

Yeup, cop then picks it up, and you're now up for fraud charges.

Or, you pay insurance, an incident occurs (your fault or not) insurance spots the issue, claim denied.

Yep, win... for anyone else.

You're right on the insurance front of things, cop part however. I'm not too sure. From my experience, many cops don't know what they're looking for when it comes to vehicles. Had one pull a friend up and pull off a loose terminal and say that the battery could implode at any given second with the terminal loose like that.

Or could just master the almighty 250 first and wait patiently for full license. That's a little easier.

**Gremlin** · 9th July 2014, 00:05

Originally Posted by Driftmonkey

...Had one pull a friend up and pull off a loose terminal and say that the battery could implode at any given second with the terminal loose like that.

Or could just master the almighty 250 first and wait patiently for full license. That's a little easier.

Well, a bike in Chch went up in flames when wire chatted to frame... Implode not common, but don't mess with electricity.

You don't have to have a 250 either... plenty of bikes available up to 660cc.

**ELectronicFlesh** · 11th July 2014, 22:28

It's so tedious finding a good >250cc Trade Me bike that's LAMS compliant. One has to manually search through the approved list, pick a model, run a search on TM, then find that there are none in your area or in NZ at all, or that the model returned is one letter off. I gave up and am waiting on my full so I don't have to deal with all that. Just a few months now....

**Akzle** · 11th July 2014, 22:44

Originally Posted by ELectronicFlesh

It's so tedious finding a good >250cc Trade Me bike that's LAMS compliant. One has to manually search through the approved list, pick a model, run a search on TM, then find that there are none in your area or in NZ at all, or that the model returned is one letter off. I gave up and am waiting on my full so I don't have to deal with all that. Just a few months now....

first world problems.

**SMOKEU** · 12th July 2014, 09:15

Originally Posted by strumpet

I have crashed the car with no wof an it was my fault an insurance still paid out on mine, his and the other that got in the way. No regd and no woof is not a problem unless they find yr vehicle is not wof compliant.
[/U]

They can't deny a claim just because the vehicle is not WOF compliant if it doesn't have a current WOF. They have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defect(s) contibuted to a crash. For example, a damaged seatbelt in the passenger's seat isn't going to cause a crash.

**Owl** · 12th July 2014, 09:42

Originally Posted by SMOKEU

They have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

Are you a barista?

**SMOKEU** · 12th July 2014, 10:03

Originally Posted by Owl

Are you a barista?

Not at all.

**Bikemad** · 12th July 2014, 10:54

Originally Posted by Owl

Are you a barista?

nah.......hes a responsible meth user

**Mike.Gayner** · 12th July 2014, 11:30

Originally Posted by SMOKEU

They can't deny a claim just because the vehicle is not WOF compliant if it doesn't have a current WOF. They have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defect(s) contibuted to a crash. For example, a damaged seatbelt in the passenger's seat isn't going to cause a crash.

Not beyond reasonable doubt, it's not a criminal trial here. Just on the balance of probabilities. But they don't work that hard on this issue - it's usually pretty clear if a defect contributed to an accident. Funnily enough only a very VERY tiny minority of accidents are caused by vehicle defects.

**aws** · 14th July 2014, 19:44

I'd be pretty surprised if a slip on made much of a performance enhancement to one of those 250s. But the real joke with LAMS is the way the increasing power of 250s was used as a reason for bringing in the system. All the 250s on the banned list have been out of production for well over 10 years. Most for almost 20 years. Given the short life of two strokes I'd be surprised if there were many still running and I suspect most that are would be owned by nostalgics who still remember when proddy racing was all the go. Having said that, I think the new system offers much more flexibility for learners than the old system.

**Larksea** · 15th July 2014, 15:09

I never got checked or even pulled over when I was on learners/restricted but as has been said you ride outside the rules, you ride without insurance.