Cycletread pedants!

[sAsLEX]

Failing a WOF for no rear pillion pegs when my bike is clearly set up for one rider is a bit pedantic in my view.

I have never had this issue with VTNZ.

It was stated that if I had a single piece rear cowl this would be fine as it couldn't be converted to carry a pillion........ well I could just put my other fairing back on couldn't I? Just like I could put my rear seat back on if I so felt?

So now off to spend an hour putting the pegs back on, and then an hour taking them off again.

Thanks pedants, I know where I will be not taking my custom in future.

[Grahameeboy]

Failing a WOF for no rear pillion pegs when my bike is clearly set up for one rider is a bit pedantic in my view.

I have never had this issue with VTNZ.

It was stated that if I had a single piece rear cowl this would be fine as it couldn't be converted to carry a pillion........ well I could just put my other fairing back on couldn't I? Just like I could put my rear seat back on if I so felt?

So now off to spend an hour putting the pegs back on, and then an hour taking them off again.

Thanks pedants, I know where I will be not taking my custom in future.

Did you query this with Cycletreads...may sound silly to you but maybe they are correct....they are Bikers themselves

[sAsLEX]

Did you query this with Cycletreads...may sound silly to you but maybe they are correct....they are Bikers themselves

Yeah and I said I would bring the pegs in to be inspected....... but they have to be securely fastened to the bike..... which they will be for an hour.

There is surely some room for looking at the issue at hand and applying some common sense, I mean they will be removed straight afterwards and I told them as much.

[Miscreant]

Failing a WOF for no rear pillion pegs when my bike is clearly set up for one rider is a bit pedantic in my view.

I have never had this issue with VTNZ.

It was stated that if I had a single piece rear cowl this would be fine as it couldn't be converted to carry a pillion........ well I could just put my other fairing back on couldn't I? Just like I could put my rear seat back on if I so felt?

So now off to spend an hour putting the pegs back on, and then an hour taking them off again.

Thanks pedants, I know where I will be not taking my custom in future.

you have every right to moan like a bitch. How dare they obey the law and do their job properly.

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah and I said I would bring the pegs in to be inspected....... but they have to be securely fastened to the bike..... which they will be for an hour.

There is surely some room for looking at the issue at hand and applying some common sense, I mean they will be removed straight afterwards and I told them as much.

They have to protect themselves against potentially hefty fines and remember that the WOF is on as at the time of the test...not an hour later...

Commonsense does not apply to regulations...Cycletreads just did things the right way.

[p.dath]

Also remember if they give you a WOF, and your bike fails to meet the actual WOF conditions, and then someone subsequently dies as a result, the person who gave the WOF can be convicted of negligent manslaughter.

The fine and other penalties are bad enough, but I wouldn't risk jail time if I was the person doing the examination.

Perhaps you could ask what you could do to convince them the bike could not be used to pillion a passenger. Perhaps you could do some other kind of modification to prevent a pillion from being carried.

[AD345]

you have every right to moan like a bitch. How dare they obey the law and do their job properly.


They have to protect themselves against potentially hefty fines and remember that the WOF is on as at the time of the test...not an hour later...

Commonsense does not apply to regulations...Cycletreads just did things the right way.


Also remember if they give you a WOF, and your bike fails to meet the actual WOF conditions, and then someone subsequently dies as a result, the person who gave the WOF can be convicted of negligent manslaughter.

The fine and other penalties are bad enough, but I wouldn't risk jail time if I was the person doing the examination.

Perhaps you could ask what you could do to convince them the bike could not be used to pillion a passenger. Perhaps you could do some other kind of modification to prevent a pillion from being carried.

Pedants aren't restricted just to Cycletreads

[sAsLEX]

you have every right to moan like a bitch. How dare they obey the law and do their job properly.

1. A motorcycle must have:
a) foot rests for the rider, and
b) foot rests for the pillion passenger if provision is made for pillion riding.


From the http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/virm-in-service-certification/docs/motorcycles-02-v3a4.pdf


There is no provision for pillion riding on my bike, there is no sea, or pegs....

[oldguy]

If VTNZ have no problem, then whos right?

[sAsLEX]

In fact it could be argued I am adding a dangerous projection to the vehicle, part of the reason I removed them, as they are now a danger of catching my legs if I crash.

So I could fail for adding them......

Reasons for rejection
Condition and performance (Note 1)
1. The risk of a component (Note 5) hooking a vehicle, or hooking or grazing a person, has not been minimised.

[Grahameeboy]

Pedants aren't restricted just to Cycletreads

KB is the biggest I reckon

[Grahameeboy]

In fact it could be argued I am adding a dangerous projection to the vehicle, part of the reason I removed them, as they are now a danger of catching my legs if I crash.

So I could fail for adding them......

Reasons for rejection
Condition and performance (Note 1)
1. The risk of a component (Note 5) hooking a vehicle, or hooking or grazing a person, has not been minimised.

So that leaves the handlebars, fairing..rider pegs then

[sAsLEX]

So that leaves the handlebars, fairing..rider pegs then

Minimised, you need those for control. No need for pillion pegs if you don't have a rear seat.

[Grahameeboy]

Minimised, you need those for control. No need for pillion pegs if you don't have a rear seat.

To you maybe......

[The Pastor]

you should of gone to the wreckers next door, cycletreads are good for cheap tyres, and thats about it. (pay penuts get monkeys)

Last rear tyre they put on my bike I found a HUGE dollop of axl grease on my rear brake disc. It was ok cos i never use it tho.

[boomer]

it seems you're a tad pissed, go get laid and have a beer ya queer cnut.

they failed mine cos it had no rear reflector, $25 spent upstairs and 15minutes later my wallet was significantly lighter.


rules are rules..



BTW.. i don't have a pillion seat or pegs... go the mighty suuuuuper DuKe R....!!!!!

[breakaway]

Take it to the guy at Action Wreckers a couple of driveways down. Guy there is a top bloke and will not fuck you about.

[Hitcher]

Also remember if they give you a WOF, and your bike fails to meet the actual WOF conditions, and then someone subsequently dies as a result, the person who gave the WOF can be convicted of negligent manslaughter.


Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

[p.dath]

Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

Perhaps your right. Certainly there have been several cases of mechanics working on cars/trucks that have been charged with negligent manslaughter.

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

So I guess I'm calling your bullshit ...

[Hitcher]

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

[Tone165]

I see your point, but also know that "common sense" does not appear as a defence in court very often.

It is silly...but Cycltreads has to "cover their ass" and do things by the book.

I had a problem once from Cycletreads..I emailed them with the details, and I have to say i was most pleasantly surprised with the response.

The manager there bent over backwards to put things right, without throwing blame on anyone else (the employee that did the work)

Then, last time we were over, I needed a tyre....on holiday sometimes you forget what day it is, and we rocked up at about 2pm (on Sunday) to get one...the workshop had closed, but when I told them I was heading off to South Island in the morn they found someone who would fit a tyre, re-opened the shop, sold me a $250 tyre for $218, fitted and balanced it, plus picking up a couple of missing screws and replacing those at no extra charge.

Suffice to say I am a fan of Cycletreads!

Over here we have "Team Moto" they are pretty good.....until your cheque clears and then forget it!

I have a good relationship with one of the few remaining "Family owned" bike shops, and avoid the "big boys" as much as possible.

[Taz]

Cycletreads eh..... That's a good joke that place.

[Ixion]

Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

Correct. It is a snapshot in time. How could it be otherwise, there is no way to know how many miles the rider/driver may do in the next six months.

My BMW does not normally have a pillion seat. Or pillion pegs. It has passed many WoFs without either with no question (they generally look at the box which occupies the rear seat postion and sort of blink).

Last time I had had the pillion seat on , and then removed it prior to the WoF. When the seat was on, I had fitted pillion pegs, which I had omitted to remove. The presence of pegs for which there was no seat seemed to disconcert the tester, he looked, looked again, stepped back and had a think, and then carried on.

The law requires that there be pegs for each person the bike is capable of (legally) carrying . If there is no provision for a second seating place, no pegs are required. But note that quick detachable cowls that cover a functional seat do require pillion pegs(distinguish here from cowls with no seat under them - ie they replace the seat) . And some seats could at a pinch take two people , even though clearly only designed for one.

[boman]

Perhaps your right. Certainly there have been several cases of mechanics working on cars/trucks that have been charged with negligent manslaughter.

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

So I guess I'm calling your bullshit ...

I know of and have seen a vehicle drive into a WOF place legal. 1 hour later it was sacked, no springs and bald tyres. When the firm gave out the WOF the car was fully compliant with the regulations. The young guys went home, remodded the car and then it wasn't legal. The WOF place refused to give them a WOF the next time based on the evidence that they would just go and modify the car back.

So I think that the WOF guarantee is only good for a limited period. As in this case, where he is going to remove the foot pegs straight away. The only way I feel that a firm can be held accountable is, if the vehicle they gave a WOF to has remained unmodded, and then a part fails causing death or injury.

[rwh]

I know of and have seen a vehicle drive into a WOF place legal. 1 hour later it was sacked, no springs and bald tyres. When the firm gave out the WOF the car was fully compliant with the regulations. The young guys went home, remodded the car and then it wasn't legal. The WOF place refused to give them a WOF the next time based on the evidence that they would just go and modify the car back.

Interesting. Sensible as it may be, my understanding is that they're not allowed to fail a compliant vehicle - so there would be grounds for complaint there. Not much sympathy, though.

Richard

[red mermaid]

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

I don't about a vehicle subject to a Wof and any possible manslaughter charge, but I do know of a recent case in the Wellington area where a truck maintenance company did some work on some B-train trailers, that work was subsequently found to be defective whereby the brakes did not work.

This contributed to a crash in Ngauranga Gorge. The maintenance company was charged under the Health and Safety in Employment Act (OSH) and fined $60,000. This fine was reduced to $30,000 after an appeal.

Therefore I would suggest that a WoF issuing authority does have a degree of legal liability.

[sAsLEX]

The law requires that there be pegs for each person the bike is capable of (legally) carrying . If there is no provision for a second seating place, no pegs are required. But note that quick detachable cowls that cover a functional seat do require pillion pegs(distinguish here from cowls with no seat under them - ie they replace the seat) . And some seats could at a pinch take two people , even though clearly only designed for one.

I have the type that replaces the seat.

But that was still not good enough.

Where did you get the bold info from?

[sunhuntin]

I don't about a vehicle subject to a Wof and any possible manslaughter charge, but I do know of a recent case in the Wellington area where a truck maintenance company did some work on some B-train trailers, that work was subsequently found to be defective whereby the brakes did not work.

This contributed to a crash in Ngauranga Gorge. The maintenance company was charged under the Health and Safety in Employment Act (OSH) and fined $60,000. This fine was reduced to $30,000 after an appeal.

Therefore I would suggest that a WoF issuing authority does have a degree of legal liability.


there was something similar on motorway patrol a few weeks back... truck hauling along and the wheels literally came off. it had been in for work and the nuts had been hand tightened only. the driver was found not at fault... not sure if the company faced fines or not.

[CookMySock]

you have every right to moan like a bitch. How dare they obey the law and do their job properly.Not fair. If the bike has no pillion seat, it does not have to have footpegs - thats the law.

Steve

[Katman]

So now off to spend an hour putting the pegs back on, and then an hour taking them off again.



I'd be keeping quiet about it taking you two hours to screw in four bolts and then take them back out again.

[sAsLEX]

I'd be keeping quiet about it taking you two hours to screw in four bolts and then take them back out again.


Have to move the tools to the carport to work on the bike having no garage, the remove the seat and a couple of other fairings, then undo and redo up the four bolts, replace the fairings and the seat, then return said tools.

Smart arse.

[oldguy]

I have the type that replaces the seat.

But that was still not good enough.

Where did you get the bold info from?

you said it got a WOF at VTNZ no problem, why didn't you just go back there?
only goes to show that not all WOF/Testing stations see things the same, reguardless of how we interpret the law on what having a WOF means.

[McJim]

Is the single seat an aftermarket job or did it get built like that? With Ducati Monoposto bikes (manufactured single seat) there are no rear seats nor pillion pegs and they pass WOF fine as is however if your bike was first built with a pillion seat and pegs then it falls under the umbrella of a two seater bike.

To save trouble in future buy a Ducati Monoposto. You will never have to face disappointment again. :yes:

[Grahameeboy]

Minimised, you need those for control. No need for pillion pegs if you don't have a rear seat.

So if you have control no need to worry about catching the rear pegs:whistle:

[Grahameeboy]

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

If the shop failed to check something then the "cause" is that moment regardless of whether the damage, accident etc happened 3 days later and they would potentially be negligent...

The WOF debate becomes irelevant....because the issue is one of "Liability".

[p.dath]

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

Consider this scenario. Your brakes don't work at all. The WOF inspector fails to pick this up. You die driving out of the WOF inspectors premise because you couldn't stop before getting hit by a truck.

Could the death of this person have been otherwise prevented if the WOF inspection had not been negligent?
Alternatively, was negligence of the WOF officer a direct and contributing factor to the death of the motorist? If the WOF inspector had done their job correctly could this death been prevented?

If you answer yes to any of these, then you can extended negligent manslaughter into many other situations.

[boman]

Interesting. Sensible as it may be, my understanding is that they're not allowed to fail a compliant vehicle - so there would be grounds for complaint there. Not much sympathy, though.

Richard

Yea well they were teenagers, and their mum came in and had a huge argument with the manager. He said he would rather lose there business than issuw WOf knowing that the car will be illegal after an hour. She reluctantly agreed. Interestingly, a car with no springs rolled and killed the occupants only a few days after this incedent. The fact that the car bounced off the road was the main factor in the crash, justifies, IMO, the WOF places stand on the matter.

[Ixion]

You must distinguish between the situation where something is clearly defective AT THE TIME OF THE WOF INSPECTION, but is passed by the tester; and something that is OK at the time of the test , but is found to be defective some time (anything from an hour to months) later.

In the first case the tester may be liable for negligence (because he was negligent - the fault was there and he passed it when defective). In the second case he is not.

So in your brake case, if the brakes didn't work when tested and the vehicle was passed, then the tester is liable. But if they worked OK when he tested them, then failed as the vehicle left the premises (hose burst without previous signs of damage; intermittent ABS fault ; etc), then he is not liable .

The tester tests the vehicle as it is at that moment in time. If he negligently passes something that is defective THEN , he may be liable . But he is not required to have a crystal ball to see the future.

[Ixion]

Yea well they were teenagers, and their mum came in and had a huge argument with the manager. He said he would rather lose there business than issuw WOf knowing that the car will be illegal after an hour. She reluctantly agreed. Interestingly, a car with no springs rolled and killed the occupants only a few days after this incedent. The fact that the car bounced off the road was the main factor in the crash, justifies, IMO, the WOF places stand on the matter.

Technically they cannot FAIL a vehicle on the "we know that it is only temporarily compliant" basis . But, like any business, they may decline to TEST the vehicle. They are perfectly within their rights to say "We do not want your business, please go away".

[p.dath]

You must distinguish between the situation where something is clearly defective AT THE TIME OF THE WOF INSPECTION, but is passed by the tester; and something that is OK at the time of the test , but is found to be defective some time (anything from an hour to months) later.

In the first case the tester may be liable for negligence (because he was negligent - the fault was there and he passed it when defective). In the second case he is not.

So in your brake case, if the brakes didn't work when tested and the vehicle was passed, then the tester is liable. But if they worked OK when he tested them, then failed as the vehicle left the premises (hose burst without previous signs of damage; intermittent ABS fault ; etc), then he is not liable .

The tester tests the vehicle as it is at that moment in time. If he negligently passes something that is defective THEN , he may be liable . But he is not required to have a crystal ball to see the future.

So pulling this back to the original splinter from the thread on this; if the bike is meant to have pillion pegs (and lets make that assumption), and the WOF tester can see that they are not present, then they could be found negligent should an accident occur as a direct result.

It would be dangerous for a WOF inspector to exercise too much discretion in an area where the rules are clear - by passing a vehicle in an area where it should fail. They could end up in jail as a result (for negligent manslaughter if they were really unlucky).

[Ixion]

Well, the tester can only make that assumption if the bike has a seat for a pillion passenger. Otherwise he would also need to fail it on not having a seat!

It is the same deal as vans, which sometimes have seats in the rear, sometimes don't. If you have rear seats, there must be seat belts for them. But if the van has no rear seats you don't have to have seat belts for the non existent seats.

EDIT

This is the VIR Manual wording (my emphasis)



1. A motorcycle is not fitted with adequate footrests:
a) for the rider, or
b) for the pillion passenger where there is a pillion passenger seating position


"seating position" being undefined ! But clearly if there is a seat there is a seating position. If there is nowhere for a pillion to rest his/her bum, then there isn't a seating position. What about, I wonder, things like the old BSA Bantam that had a flat luggage carrier on the rear mudguard where the pillion seat would normally be . But had no pillion footrests as standard. It was quite possible to carry a pillion seated on that carrier. So would that be a "seating position" ?

[sAsLEX]

So pulling this back to the original splinter from the thread on this; if the bike is meant to have pillion pegs (and lets make that assumption), and the WOF tester can see that they are not present, then they could be found negligent should an accident occur as a direct result.

It would be dangerous for a WOF inspector to exercise too much discretion in an area where the rules are clear - by passing a vehicle in an area where it should fail. They could end up in jail as a result (for negligent manslaughter if they were really unlucky).

How could an accident occur due to lack of pillion pegs on a bike without a rear seat?

[davebullet]

Hang on... if your vehicle fails a WOF, are you legally allowed to drive / ride it home anyway?

Re the rear footpegs... Ixion has your answer. Strap some huge box or other contraption onto the back where the pillion seat would normally go. Unless your pillion is a daddy long legs, no one could sit on the said contraption hence the bike is not setup to take a pillion.

Of course they could fail it for an unsafe load or something similar.

Seriously... do you have any paperwork from previous WOFs where something like no rear pegs was noted, that you can use for consistency?

Failing that, the law is the law and if Cycletreads are applying it, and VTNZ did not, you cannot blame Cycletreads.

[marty]

Perhaps your right. Certainly there have been several cases of mechanics working on cars/trucks that have been charged with negligent manslaughter.
..

Really? Several? In NZ? Links please.

[sunhuntin]

It was quite possible to carry a pillion seated on that carrier. So would that be a "seating position" ?

what about the scooter riders who seem to think that, yes, we can fit two people on this bike, and no, her legs cannot reach the "floor" of the step through, so yes, they are dangling in mid air with only strappy sandals between them and a life time of stumpy feet. [see it 1000 times, mostly high school age, though i did know a mother who insisted on taking her daughter to school in this fashion. terribly unsafe for the kid... hardly anything to sit on and nothing to brace her feet on.

[Ixion]

Illegal. There must be a properly secured seat , and footrests (boards,floor etc) for every person on the motorcycle.

Not sure how that would go with a chick with a baby in one of those papoose carrier things on her back.

[PrincessBandit]

In fact it could be argued I am adding a dangerous projection to the vehicle, part of the reason I removed them, as they are now a danger of catching my legs if I crash.

So I could fail for adding them......

Reasons for rejection
Condition and performance (Note 1)
1. The risk of a component (Note 5) hooking a vehicle, or hooking or grazing a person, has not been minimised.

Holy moley - just how big and protruding are they?????, given that most pillion pegs fold back against the chassis (although maybe your bike is different).

[scumdog]

I know of and have seen a vehicle drive into a WOF place legal. 1 hour later it was sacked, no springs and bald tyres. When the firm gave out the WOF the car was fully compliant with the regulations. The young guys went home, remodded the car and then it wasn't legal.

Happens a lot - and when the pink-sticker goes on the windscreen the slack-jawed mouth-breathing owner moans "Aw, ya can't do that, it's got a warrant on it"

Just watch me sinshine....

[Owl]

Failing a WOF for no rear pillion pegs when my bike is clearly set up for one rider is a bit pedantic in my view.

Yep I agree, but they are supposed to follow rules.

I've had my pillion mounts removed for some time and usually bolt them on before WOF time. Last time I forgot and only remembered during testing. I expected a fail (received a sideways glance), but they let it slide.:D

Perhaps find a tester with a bit more understanding and stick with them.

[p.dath]

How could an accident occur due to lack of pillion pegs on a bike without a rear seat?

I did say "lets make that assumption".


Hang on... if your vehicle fails a WOF, are you legally allowed to drive / ride it home anyway?

I would guess that if your WOF was still valid before arriving it would still be valid afterwards.
If it was expired when you arrived, then you probably would not be able to legally drive away.

I seem to recall some legislation that says you vehicle must always be maintained in a road worthy condition (which generally implies WOF standard) if used on a public road.


Really? Several? In NZ? Links please.

I've done a search, and can't find a link to a case of negligent manslaughter. I'm guessing the cases don't make it into the web media much.

The last case (which resulted in an actual prosecution) that I recall occurred on the southern motorway in Auckland. A truck that had been recently serviced had a part come loose, which flew off hitting another car killing the driver.

The court found the mechanic to be at fault through negligence.

If I recall the specifics correctly, the court found the mechanic had not adhered to some element of the service schedule recommended by the manufacturer (some part was meant to be replaced every 'x" km's, and it had not been). The court concluded the part that came loose killing the car driver had occurred because of this.

If I recall correctly, the mechanic was given a jail term.

[stify]

Really? Several? In NZ? Links please.

MECHANIC FACES MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES
The first witnesses have been called in the trial of an Auckland mechanic facing manslaughter charges. Richard John Parsons faces three charges relating to a fatal crash in 1995. Panel beater Gerald Roland, who helped clean up the accident scene, has told the court he discovered part of the steering mechanism was loose in the car Parsons had worked on. The crown alleges Parsons didn't use the necessary care in repairing the car, which then led to the accident.



this was a few years ago though...and was of interest to me as I'm in the trade and had worked with richard before this had occured, he was found not guilty

[ckai]

How could an accident occur due to lack of pillion pegs on a bike without a rear seat?

So just to clear something up:

instead of your pillion seat, you had a hard piece of plastic that matches your fairings that directly replaces your seat? You then took off you pillion pegs because of this?

If this is the case, bullshit to the fail. Something that is designed to match the fairings and is clearly not a seat (i.e. plastic etc) is...well...clearly not a seat. If they failed because of this stating that it's a "seat" I would go home, peg up and ask the dude that failed to jump on the back to see if he still thinks it's a seat.

If, on the other hand you had the seat still on with no pegs (how I rode my bike), then i can see their point and stop your bitching :)

So it depends what was "the seat" for me to bitch with you or bitch at you ;)


Hang on... if your vehicle fails a WOF, are you legally allowed to drive / ride it home anyway?


you can legally drive/ride your vehicle anywhere needed "for repairs". Within reason. Deliberate grey area of course.

[sAsLEX]

Holy moley - just how big and protruding are they?????, given that most pillion pegs fold back against the chassis (although maybe your bike is different).


But they do hang down in the space between the muffler and the tire, where there would other wise be space for a leg or arm to flail between in an accident.....

So just to clear something up:

instead of your pillion seat, you had a hard piece of plastic that matches your fairings that directly replaces your seat? You then took off you pillion pegs because of this?



Thats the one.

[hayd3n]

would of been easier to take the rear seat off

[LBD]

I tend to think this example of the law is approached from the wrong direction...Pillion seat or not, the bike should not have to have pillian rests for a warrant...but carry a pillian without correct foot rests and you should be liable for a dangerous drivng citation....IMO

[peasea]

MECHANIC FACES MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES
The first witnesses have been called in the trial of an Auckland mechanic facing manslaughter charges. Richard John Parsons faces three charges relating to a fatal crash in 1995. Panel beater Gerald Roland, who helped clean up the accident scene, has told the court he discovered part of the steering mechanism was loose in the car Parsons had worked on. The crown alleges Parsons didn't use the necessary care in repairing the car, which then led to the accident.
this was a few years ago though...and was of interest to me as I'm in the trade and had worked with richard before this had occured, he was found not guilty

I can recall that. It was something along the lines of ; one guy pulled the trans out to do a clutch and was either fired or walked out before the job was finished. The second guy comes along to finish the job and didn't notice that the steering mechanism had been detached as his method of removing the trans didn't require it. Cosequently the steering comonent fell off (I assume it was a tie rod) and an accident followed. The second guy was charged and, as you say, was found not guilty but it wrecked his life. If my memory serves me correctly he got out of the trade and I don't blame him.

As for WOF checks in general I don't have too many issues and know about the footrest thing; if you have a rear seat you gotta have rear pegs and I believe it's also vice` versa. I do take umbridge when they knock you for noisy pipes without having a decibel meter in their hand though.

[stify]

it wrecked his life. If my memory serves me correctly he got out of the trade and I don't blame him.

.

yep, he was never the same thats for sure

[peasea]

yep, he was never the same thats for sure

Yeah, and that fuckin' sucks. By all means the accident needed to be investigated but the cops ruined a guys' life and off they trot into the distance without a care in the world. He should have been compensated for that.

[ckai]

Thats the one.

Well bollocks to that! You did what every 675 owner does if they have a rear cowl instead of the seat and it's certainly what I would do. Shit, I didn't even have my pegs since I didn't carry pillions. People didn't even ask for a ride since I didn't have the.

I'd give them a "who's ya daddy" as well. Meat heads.

[sAsLEX]

would of been easier to take the rear seat off

I had. The bike in question does not have a rear seat, and nor did it when the pillion pegs where on for the retest.