WOFs. Did you know...

[Grumpy]

I was reading an article about the Wellington parking wardens and their somewhat dubious activities of late and one piece of info stuck out that I found interesting.

I had always assumed that if your vehicle had just failed a check the 28 day period that you have to get it rechecked meant that if you were stopped by an enforcement officer you should be good. Now using that logic, if you were ticketed by one of those over zealous wardens for not displaying a current WOF all you had to do was truck down to council office and show them your copy of the WOF ckecklist thingy that you get and once it has been established that you are within that 28 day period you should be sweet. :no:

Well.... apparently not. The 28 day period is simply a contract between you and the tester. If you've failed you are simply operating your vehicle without a current WOF. Even a cop, if he's having a bad day can ticket you the day after. Then there's the impact that this could have on your insurance if you have an accident.:shit:

All this time I've been leaving my WOF checks to last minute thinking I had that 28 day grace period up my sleeve. Apparently the advice offered in the article was to get your checks done a month before your WOF is due to run out.

Surely I'm not the only person who had this understanding. :confused: This could be a little embarrasing if I am.:o

[Virago]

Where on earth did you get that idea?

The WOF laws are quite specific - if the WOF is expired, you can only use the vehicle for the express purpose of getting a WOF.

A fail is not a 28 day WOF.

[neels]

A fail is not a 28 day WOF.
Correct, it is quite the opposite, it is telling you that your vehicle is not roadworthy and therefore not legal to be on the road.

[bane]

Apparently the advice offered in the article was to get your checks done a month before your WOF is due to run out.


I thought 14 days before was the maximum allowed? (to keep the same due date for the WOF). If you get it checked a month before and pass, is the WOF still renewed from the original due date?

[Grumpy]

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Well judging by the way the article was written I'm not the only idiot out there. The sad thing is I don't even know where I got that idea from. Now I'm starting to wonder what other "false" beliefs I've been hanging on to.... :doh::stupid:

I've got some questions about Santa but perhaps I'll leave those for another thread.;)

[Str8 Jacket]

You either have a WoF or you don't... Thought it was pretty clear cut myself.

[davebullet]

Get your WOF done 5 days or so before expiry. Usually the tester will date it on the anniversary of your WOF so you don't lose 5 days... but have 5 days to fix something before it expires.

[red mermaid]

Very common false belief, thats why I tell people to talk to someone who knows what they are talking about, instead of the bush lawyers who constantly guess and post.

[onearmedbandit]

However not having a current WoF doesn't necessarily invalidate your insurance. Sure if your car has failed on dodgey tyres and they are considered a contributing factor, then bye bye insurance. But if it failed because of the right rear seatbelt that won't have any bearing. Except for the person sitting in that seat.

[roadracingoldfart]

The 28 day period is simply a time for you to rectify the faults and re-present before another inspection fee has to be paid.
When you fail you get 28 days to present for a recheck and then the issue you failed on (say tyres) is the only issue checked and then ticked off and a pass is issued.
If you come early for a wof then the AVI can post date the pass date 14 days .
If you have a wof done early and fail , the sticker reads the original date so a parking warden does not know any better and will leave you alone.

Paul.

I have heard some storied about insurance claims being refused due to a wof failure at the time of an accident but most will consider the failure item to determine if its a contributing factor to the accident.
The sweetest failure i have ever seen was on a police car that had pulled me over and even though i had a wof , he was worried about my tyre tread and was about to measure it when i pointed out his patrol car had neither a wof or registration , after he went a funny shade of red he decided a warning for me was in the best interest in this case.

[crazyhorse]

The 28 day period is simply a time for you to rectify the faults and re-present before another inspection fee has to be paid.
When you fail you get 28 days to present for a recheck and then the issue you failed on (say tyres) is the only issue checked and then ticked off and a pass is issued.
If you come early for a wof then the AVI can post date the pass date 14 days .
If you have a wof done early and fail , the sticker reads the original date so a parking warden does not know any better and will leave you alone.

Paul.

I have heard some storied about insurance claims being refused due to a wof failure at the time of an accident but most will consider the failure item to determine if its a contributing factor to the accident.
The sweetest failure i have ever seen was on a police car that had pulled me over and even though i had a wof , he was worried about my tyre tread and was about to measure it when i pointed out his patrol car had neither a wof or registration , after he went a funny shade of red he decided a warning for me was in the best interest in this case.

What he said :done:

[Kickaha]

Just because you have a wof doesn't mean you can't be ticketed for not having a vehicle up to wof spec either

[roadracingoldfart]

Just because you have a wof doesn't mean you can't be ticketed for not having a vehicle up to wof spec either

Your rite , but...... a general duties officer cant determine if a fault is valid as contraveening of the wof regs as the regulations are firmly written by the Minister of the LTSA and a cop is not a qualified inspector , although they can ask for a check to be performed by a cviu or similar who are qualified and will put a car over the pits if they are concerned.
I like it that way as there can be no personal interpretation of the regs by using logic , its a regs based verdict. Logic is not allowed in Govt regs . :confused:

[FROSTY]

You are permitted by law to take a vehicle DIRECTLY to an appropriate place of repair and from there directly back to the pace that failed you your WOF.
So stopping for lunch or stopping into the bank to get the money for a tyre for example is a situation where wardens can legitimately ticket you.
A police officer can order a vehicle off the road untill such time as it has been through a WOF and passed.In that case the vehicle is not soposed to be driven as its concidered to be unsafe tobe on the road.

[kwaka_crasher]

I thought 14 days before was the maximum allowed? (to keep the same due date for the WOF). If you get it checked a month before and pass, is the WOF still renewed from the original due date?

The WoF can be advanced up to 14 days, so if it passes say 10 days before expiry your new expiry date should be as if it passed on the actual expiry date.

[kwaka_crasher]

You are permitted by law to take a vehicle DIRECTLY to an appropriate place of repair and from there directly back to the pace that failed you your WOF.

That's not what the legislation says. It says "the vehicle may be operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance" which is nowhere near that specific.

[FROSTY]

Sorry you must be right. I'm just a dumb fuck that does around 30 WOF's a month. What you just posted says exactly the same thing as i posted its just in legalese

[Waxxa]

is failing to have a WOF and being ticketed (say by a parking warden) like being found out not having a Rego in that if you successfully acquire the Rego of WOF (within the 28 days) and then present that to the council or Police, that the fine is then waived?

[kwaka_crasher]

Sorry you must be right. I'm just a dumb fuck that does around 30 WOF's a month. What you just posted says exactly the same thing as i posted its just in legalese

It doesn't say the exact same thing at all. No mention of "directly" or "appropriate place of repair" anywhere.

[kwaka_crasher]

is failing to have a WOF and being ticketed (say by a parking warden) like being found out not having a Rego in that if you successfully acquire the Rego of WOF (within the 28 days) and then present that to the council or Police, that the fine is then waived?

No. The offence is failing to display. Whether you have a "current WoF" or vehicle license is irrelevant. The Enforcement agency can choose to waive the infringement fee but they're under no obligation to.

[FROSTY]

What the fuck do you think compliance means? what do you think operated means?
Dude I do this for a friggin living. I probably wright out 20 wof exemption certs every month forfresh imports that have NEVER HAD a Wof.

[red mermaid]

Ah, so its you I can blame for all those Annex C permits?

[R6_kid]

The WOF is a have anyway. It only shows that the vehicle was road worthy on that day and at that time. Your vehicle can quickly deteriorate and perhaps be non road worthy well within 6months of attaining a WOF. I know that I go through a number of sets of tyres within a 6 month period, but there are people out there who choose not to do any work on their car/bike unless told that something is wrong when they go to get a WOF.

[red mermaid]

Never mind the cars/bikes not up to WoF standard.

26% of heavy motor vehicles presented for a CoF are rejected for a brake fault. This means for every 2 truck and trailers that go past you, one of them is probably got a fault with its brakes sufficient to make it unsafe!

Stay at home, its your only chance...what with crappy vehicles and speed traps you don't stand a chance.

[garfield69]

So what about the "displaying the warrant" bit? When I bought my bike the warrant was hidden under the seat, this was the first NZ warrant as it was an import. When I got the second warrant I asked the guy testing it and he said it does not need to be displayed as long as it can be produced on the spot by the owner. He said some guys even keep the warrant sticker in their wallet so it does not get stolen? Any thoughts on the legality of this?

[kwaka_crasher]

What the fuck do you think compliance means? what do you think operated means?
Dude I do this for a friggin living. I probably wright out 20 wof exemption certs every month forfresh imports that have NEVER HAD a Wof.

It means what is says, which is not what you claim. Compliance meeting the requirement of display of current evidence of inspection. Operated means to operate.

Exactly what does an exemption permit for the use of trade plates on an unregistered motorvehicle have to do with the requirements of obtaining evidence of inspection for a registered one? The only similarity is that in both cases it must be safe to operate the vehicle on the road in order to bring it into compliance and that is not in dispute.

[kwaka_crasher]

So what about the "displaying the warrant" bit? When I bought my bike the warrant was hidden under the seat, this was the first NZ warrant as it was an import. When I got the second warrant I asked the guy testing it and he said it does not need to be displayed as long as it can be produced on the spot by the owner. He said some guys even keep the warrant sticker in their wallet so it does not get stolen? Any thoughts on the legality of this?

Must be displayed - affixed to the vehicle.

[k14]

It means what is says, which is not what you claim. Compliance meeting the requirement of display of current evidence of inspection. Operated means to operate.

Exactly what does an exemption permit for the use of trade plates on an unregistered motorvehicle have to do with the requirements of obtaining evidence of inspection for a registered one? The only similarity is that in both cases it must be safe to operate the vehicle on the road in order to bring it into compliance and that is not in dispute.
I fail to see your point, what frosty said is 100% correct. If you stop at the dairy for some lunch you aren't operating the vehicle solely to bring it up to compliance. You may be on the way to get a new tyre but solely is a fairly straight up and to the point word. Pretty straight forward I thought.

[PeeJay]

I fail to see your point, what frosty said is 100% correct. If you stop at the dairy for some lunch you aren't operating the vehicle solely to bring it up to compliance. You may be on the way to get a new tyre but solely is a fairly straight up and to the point word. Pretty straight forward I thought.

And this why we need lawyers. Even when legislation is written in simple English some people still like to add their little bits and pieces because they "know" what it really means.
Frosty isnt 100% correct. The legislation is simple and straightforward, no need to embellish it with alternate meanings.

[FROSTY]

Look upthe word COMPLY in the dictionary. Jeyzus bloody christ I deal with wof's day in day out
It isn't interpretation of anything FFS

[Ixion]

You are permitted by law to take a vehicle DIRECTLY to an appropriate place of repair and from there directly back to the pace that failed you your WOF.


That's not what the legislation says. It says "the vehicle may be operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance" which is nowhere near that specific.

That would cover, for instance, the AVI driving it round the block as a road test. Or even the mechanic fixing it doing ditto. And I don't think it has to go back to the place that failed it. It could go to another tester.

Of course, proving that it was on the road for such a purpose may be another matter.

[kwaka_crasher]

Look upthe word COMPLY in the dictionary. Jeyzus bloody christ I deal with wof's day in day out
It isn't interpretation of anything FFS

Nobody except you is debating the word comply because it's irrelevant in the context of this discussion's focus. It also doesn't matter how many vehicles you take for WoFs - it doesn't make the wording of the legislation any different.


You are permitted by law to take a vehicle DIRECTLY to an appropriate place of repair and from there directly back to the pace that failed you your WOF.

That IS an interpretation. Nowhere does the legislation say directly. Nowhere does the legislation say place of repair. Operating a vehicle on the road for the purpose of bedding in new brake pads to ensure service brake balance could well be construed as operating it solely for the purpose of bringing a vehicle into compliance.

[FROSTY]

Do whatever you want to do -I can't be arsed argueing with you. I've been in the industry for a bloody long time and argueing with someone dragging info off the internet is just a waste of time and effort.

[kwaka_crasher]

Do whatever you want to do -I can't be arsed argueing with you. I've been in the industry for a bloody long time and argueing with someone dragging info off the internet is just a waste of time and effort.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You clearly think just taking cars for WoFs somehow makes you an expert on the legislation. It doesn't. Clearly you have trouble interpreting legislation. I do not. I've successfully used it against authorities on many occassions. They're just like you - they can't admit they're wrong either - they get something in their head and suddenly it becomes the truth. Luckily it counts for shit when the facts are laid down.

Let's expand on your 'industry'. Are you a qualified technician? Have you ever even been a AVIC? I am (Adv. TC) and I have.

[FROSTY]

I'd suggest before having a tanty you check back on threads started by me. Im fairly comfortable they will answer your questions.

[avgas]

Operating a vehicle on the road for the purpose of bedding in new brake pads to ensure service brake balance could well be construed as operating it solely for the purpose of bringing a vehicle into compliance.
Sorry man, I actually agree with Frosty here, it is pretty black and white. I have been busted doing just that - the law states you are only to transport the vehicle to repair facilities under non-wof conditions.
Non-road worth vehicles are not to be used on the road outside these conditions, regardless of run in.
I was fortunate the cop was a really good guy, and basically said "I never saw you" - when I went home and looked it up I understood why.
At the time bike had new brake pads, new rubber, new chain and sprokets and just had indicators fitted.
Somehow I was suppose to check all this without riding the bike - but alas that is the law.

[kwaka_crasher]

I'd suggest before having a tanty you check back on threads started by me. Im fairly comfortable they will answer your questions.

If calling out people for making very poor interpretations of actual legislation is 'having a tanty' so be it.

I take your silence on the questions I posed indicates you have no relevant industry qualifications, as I suspected.


Sorry man, I actually agree with Frosty here, it is pretty black and white. I have been busted doing just that - the law states you are only to transport the vehicle to repair facilities under non-wof conditions.

I was fortunate the cop was a really good guy, and basically said "I never saw you" - when I went home and looked it up I understood why.
At the time bike had new brake pads, new rubber, new chain and sprokets and just had indicators fitted.
Somehow I was suppose to check all this without riding the bike - but alas that is the law.

Cops are not judges. Quite often they're not even that clued up. The one that stopped my driving instructor's vehicle when I was a passenger and another learner license holder was driving and tried to tell the instructor that there couldn't be other passengers in the vehicle certainly wasn't.

Had you been issued an infringement offence notice and elected to contest it I have no doubt you'd have won. I have done just that.


Non-road worth vehicles are not to be used on the road outside these conditions, regardless of run in.

Once again, that's not what the legislation says. It's just an interpretation, heavily clouded with highly subjective opinion, like frosty's. That makes it a very poor one.

With my example, operating a motorvehicle on the road for the purpose of bedding in new brakes in order to address an imbalance issue, it is clearly being operated on the road solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance as there is no other purpose.

[DEATH_INC.]

If calling out people for making very poor interpretations of actual legislation is 'having a tanty' so be it. Blah blah blah.

It's pretty f*cken simple, if the wof has run out and another not issued you don't have one. end of story.
And btw, frosty knows his shit.

[Mikkel]

An understanding between you and the WOF agent consists in him giving you a new WOF and informing you that you really need to get this or that addressed quicksmart. :yes:

Why expired WOF should be of concern to the parking wardens seems a bit ridiculous however. After all, if the vehicle isn't roadworthy it is preferable that it remains parked in the meantime!

[igor]

Well judging by the way the article was written I'm not the only idiot out there. The sad thing is I don't even know where I got that idea from. Now I'm starting to wonder what other "false" beliefs I've been hanging on to.... :doh::stupid:

I've got some questions about Santa but perhaps I'll leave those for another thread.;)

most of the advice given on here is the quality of advice that you had. So many bush lawyers who ant facing the charge.:yawn:

[meteor]

Cops are not judges. Quite often they're not even that clued up. The one that stopped my driving instructor's vehicle when I was a passenger and another learner license holder was driving and tried to tell the instructor that there couldn't be other passengers in the vehicle certainly wasn't.

My daughter just went thru the graduated DL thing and that's exactly what I thought it meant... that a learner licence holder may only drive with a fully licensed driver next to them... anyone else is an 'unauthorized' passenger. That condition ends when she got a restricted ... she can carry others so long as she has a fully licensed driver next to her... Are you saying that is wrong?

And re the OP... I can confirm that it is ILLEGAL to drive a car without a WOF even if you have got the 28 day 'grace period'... that lesson cost me a $200 donation to the Manukau City Council.

[Cr1MiNaL]

I haven't read all the other posts but just to clear this up for you. If you FAIL a W.O.F you have 28 days to remedy the problem yourself and return it to the 'same' bike shop and you will not have to pay ANOTHER $30 (or the bike shop will repair it for you while you wait for some extra coin). If you go elsewhere you will pay again. If you go out for a ride in the mean time, it defeats the 'safety' issues associated with the W.O.F in the first place so you can be ticketed for it. Similarly if you leave it parked on a public road you may be ticketed. However, if you are smart about it you will know that you are able to ride to and from a W.O.F testing station within those 28 days and save yourself a ticket.

[scumdog]

Nowhere does the legislation say place of repair. Operating a vehicle on the road for the purpose of bedding in new brake pads to ensure service brake balance could well be construed as operating it solely for the purpose of bringing a vehicle into compliance.

You could still end up getting a ticket all the same, you also may get off it but regardless, I'm sure you would be inconvenienced a tad...

[scumdog]

Nowhere does the legislation say place of repair. Operating a vehicle on the road for the purpose of bedding in new brake pads to ensure service brake balance could well be construed as operating it solely for the purpose of bringing a vehicle into compliance.

You could still end up getting a ticket all the same, you also may get off it but regardless, I'm sure you would be inconvenienced a tad...

[scumdog]

Where on earth did you get that idea?

The WOF laws are quite specific - if the WOF is expired, you can only use the vehicle for the express purpose of getting a WOF.

A fail is not a 28 day WOF.

Quite.

And I make sure anybody I give a 'compliance' ticket to that it's not carte blanche to carry on driving for the next seven/fourteen/whatever days.

[scumdog]

Apparently the advice offered in the article was to get your checks done a month before your WOF is due to run out.



Advice to keep your bike/car up to WOF standard would have been better.

[kwaka_crasher]

It's pretty f*cken simple, if the wof has run out and another not issued you don't have one. end of story.
And btw, frosty knows his shit.

The fact you say the WoF has "run out" shows you know fuck all too.

Granted, he might know some things about some things but what he thinks he knows does not override the legislation.

[kwaka_crasher]

My daughter just went thru the graduated DL thing and that's exactly what I thought it meant... that a learner licence holder may only drive with a fully licensed driver next to them... anyone else is an 'unauthorized' passenger.

That's wrong. You can carry passengers on a LEARNER car license as long as you're complying with the requirement of a supervising driver, which you must have at all times anyway. The only difference between LEARNER and RESTRICTED in that respect is that you can drive alone on RESTRICTED.

Have a look here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0100/latest/DLM281347.html) at the conditions of a learners license. Only 16 (1) (a) & (b) applies to 'cars'.


And re the OP... I can confirm that it is ILLEGAL to drive a car without a WOF even if you have got the 28 day 'grace period'... that lesson cost me a $200 donation to the Manukau City Council.

As other people have stated in this thread the 28-days is NOT a 'grace' period. It's the period after the initial inspection in which a re-check will not be charged for.


You could still end up getting a ticket all the same, you also may get off it but regardless, I'm sure you would be inconvenienced a tad...

Ahhhh yes but the issuing of an infringement offence notice does not in itself constitute a ruling of wrong-doing, merely an allegation.


Advice to keep your bike/car up to WOF standard would have been better.

I'll say. Your 'WoF' doesn't mean anything if you have no lights and bald tyres!


And I make sure anybody I give a 'compliance' ticket to that it's not carte blanche to carry on driving for the next seven/fourteen/whatever days.

Which is fair and reasonable. What's that saying about bees, honey & vinegar...

[Patrick]

The fact you say the WoF has "run out" shows you know fuck all too.

Granted, he might know some things about some things but what he thinks he knows does not override the legislation.

Geez... "expired" then....

He does know his stuff.

If ya don't have a current WOF, you can't keep on using that vehicle for the 28 day period, unless itis being taken to a place of repair or to the testing station to obtain a new WOF.

[kwaka_crasher]

Lets have a look at the actual wording of the legislation - the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303653.html).



Motor vehicle must be kept in appropriate condition
(1) An operator of a motor vehicle that is required to have a warrant of fitness or certificate of fitness must at all times when the vehicle is operated on a road keep the vehicle in a condition appropriate to the level required for the issue of that warrant or certificate (as the case may be).
(2) An operator of a motor vehicle is not in breach of subclause (1) if the operator proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—
(a) the vehicle was being operated solely for the purpose of—
(i) bringing it into compliance and the vehicle was safe to be operated for that purpose; or


Now, where does it specifically state what you, or Frosty, claim it says regarding the WoF tester or garage?


He does know his stuff.

Not about this he doesn't.


If ya don't have a current WOF, you can't keep on using that vehicle for the 28 day period, unless it is being taken to a place of repair or to the testing station to obtain a new WOF.

28 days has nothing to do with anything except the free re-test period.

The second part of your statement is not entirely true either. You're not allowed to operate it for reasons other than bringing it into compliance. But what the scenarios are where you are operating it solely for that purpose are not specifically defined.

Whether "the vehicle was being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and the vehicle was safe to be operated for that purpose" is a matter for the courts to decide if a person, issued with an infringement offence notice, elects to not simply roll over and pay even though they had a complete defence, but instead wishes to present their case in a hearing. That is to say, they don't have to solely convince the cop, although that would be a considerably less time consuming exercise.

[avgas]

Errrr so correct me if I am wrong. You are stating that the 28 days grace is completely legal.
So I could go down to the testing station, with a completely illegal vehicle, as so long as I got them to fail me for my warrent every 28 days I would be fine?
Sorry man, you are confusing the matter. There is no in between state where you can take a vehicle on the road between "Road-worthy" and "Not road worthy".
It is also worth noting that a cop can give you a ticket even if you vehicle is legally allowed on the road (wof, rego) but is not considered "Road Legal". So what makes you think you can get off a ticket using a non-road legal vehicle on the road?

[Ixion]

I think this thread just entered the twilight zone

[avgas]

Lets have a look at the actual wording of the legislation - the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303653.html).
"and the vehicle was safe to be operated for that purpose"
How do you define safe - H&S 1992 states it as "Being unable to cause HARM"
How is a bike that your 'bedding the brakes in' safe? How does any vehicle that has failed a WoF, a test to decide if the vehicle is safe enough for the road.......be classed as safe.
What is a safety test for a vehicle that is to be used on the road?

[Cr1MiNaL]

Errrr so correct me if I am wrong. You are stating that the 28 days grace is completely legal.
So I could go down to the testing station, with a completely illegal vehicle, as so long as I got them to fail me for my warrent every 28 days I would be fine?
Sorry man, you are confusing the matter. There is no in between state where you can take a vehicle on the road between "Road-worthy" and "Not road worthy".
It is also worth noting that a cop can give you a ticket even if you vehicle is legally allowed on the road (wof, rego) but is not considered "Road Legal". So what makes you think you can get off a ticket using a non-road legal vehicle on the road?

HOLY CRAP! you are one sorry confused son of a gon!

[kwaka_crasher]

"and the vehicle was safe to be operated for that purpose"
How do you define safe - H&S 1992 states it as "Being unable to cause HARM"

The definition of safe in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 doesn't have any relevance to this discussion. See comment below regard the court for how safe is defined.


How is a bike that your 'bedding the brakes in' safe?

How is it unsafe?


How does any vehicle that has failed a WoF, a test to decide if the vehicle is safe enough for the road.......be classed as safe.

The same way as an exemption permit for the use of trade plates on an unregistered motorvehicle (that is uncomplied). A single brake light bulb out does not make it unsafe. Only one wheelnut on each wheel does. The merit of each scenario is argued in court and is decided not by you, or I, or the Police but by the Judge or JP. It is only decided by you if you elect to pay an infringement fee.


What is a safety test for a vehicle that is to be used on the road?

Exactly that which ensures a vehicle, after being brought into compliance insofar as having affixed to it current evidence of inspection, remains within the compliance requirements for the entire duration of that evidence. That is to say nothing but driver prudence ensure that the vehicle is not being driven on bald tyres with no lights.

[kwaka_crasher]

Errrr so correct me if I am wrong. You are stating that the 28 days grace is completely legal.
So I could go down to the testing station, with a completely illegal vehicle, as so long as I got them to fail me for my warrent every 28 days I would be fine?
Sorry man, you are confusing the matter. There is no in between state where you can take a vehicle on the road between "Road-worthy" and "Not road worthy".
It is also worth noting that a cop can give you a ticket even if you vehicle is legally allowed on the road (wof, rego) but is not considered "Road Legal". So what makes you think you can get off a ticket using a non-road legal vehicle on the road?

Who are you asking? If it's me I suggest you re-read my post and check the links. The only bit you've got right is what I've underlined, even if it is badly worded.

[DEATH_INC.]

How is it unsafe?







Ok you f*cken rocket scientist, WHY would you be 'bedding in brakes' if they're safe?

[kwaka_crasher]

Ok you f*cken rocket scientist, WHY would you be 'bedding in brakes' if they're safe?

More importantly how do you bed in brakes without riding it? Hmmmmm

[scumdog]

Ok you f*cken rocket scientist, WHY would you be 'bedding in brakes' if they're safe?

Perzactly what I thought too.

Is it not possible to pass a warrant without 'bedding them in'??

Could one not get a WAF and then go through this process? (I thought it was only needed for the race track and of which I've nothing in the way of experience of) (Sorry Hitch)

[kwaka_crasher]

Is it not possible to pass a warrant without 'bedding them in'??

It likely is because it's not unsafe just because the pads are new and aren't yet bedded in - the brakes still operate, just at reduced efficiency, but still in most cases enough to pass the 50% efficiency threshold brake test.

I made the point of brake imbalance... something you don't get on a bike... because imbalance across the service brakes on one axle, which is required to be less than 20% for the purpose of compliance, is not inherently unsafe simply because it's not compliant, in a similar way to having no windscreen washer fluid isn't inherently unsafe or an exhaust leak on a bike isn't inherently unsafe... while having no brakes probably is very unsafe. Furthermore, on an older car often brake imbalance will be a recurring problem at WoF time.

My point is, and always has been, that there are many scenarios where the law will be on your side regardless of any overzealous cop's opinion when he issued you an infringement offence notice, provided you're not prepared to accept his/her opinion as law, especially if they just think you're lieing about the circumstances relating to your operation of the vehicle on the road for the sole purpose of bringing it into compliance with it being safe to do so.

[Ixion]

Bedding in brake linings isn't really something that happens with disk brakes. But with drum brakes it can be important. The brakes work OK, safe to ride/drive, but they won't be optimum until they've been bedded in (sort of like chicks, really). You can get round it by grinding the linings to match the drums, but that's pretty high tech approach. And even then, not as good as bedding in.

[scumdog]

Bedding in brake linings isn't really something that happens with disk brakes. But with drum brakes it can be important. The brakes work OK, safe to ride/drive, but they won't be optimum until they've been bedded in (sort of like chicks, really). You can get round it by grinding the linings to match the drums, but that's pretty high tech approach. And even then, not as good as bedding in.

So, lemme get this right: The idea is to ride around the streets on a bike with an expired WOF while trying to bed in stightly less than optimum brakes before you take it in for a WOF - and the brakes I deduce from this are below par for a WOF - or you wouldd have taken the bike straight to the WOF tester?

Sound as safe-as to me..:crazy:

[Ixion]

Yep. Sort of. Brakes would probably be fine for a Wof. If that is all the fitter is concerned with. WoF standards for brakes are pretty ho-hum. But if the brake fitter actually wants to do a good job , he'll want to bed the linings in before returning the machine .

Bedding in was pretty much standard practice back when drum brakes and relined shoes were the norm. You're just too young to recall those days.

If I have a think about it , I can probably think of other things that a fitter might need to road test. Anything that only shows up at above walking speed, for one. OK, not a problem if the WoF tester doesn't do a road test himself. But if he DOES (and strictly speaking, he should), the fitter needs to test the vehicle at road test speeds before presenting it (to verify that the wheel wobble over 30mph is gone now, for instance). Which is part of "bringing into compliance", but not part of "driving to the testing station".

Really, the only reason why this thread is generating so much heat , is that so few WoF testers now do a proper road test. But they should , strictly speaking, and that is why the law is phrased the way it is.

In fact , if it wasn't thus phrased the AVI wouldn't be able to do that road test to give it the new WoF, would he. (AVis don't have a dispensation to drive without a WoF)

[scumdog]

Yep. Sort of. Brakes would probably be fine for a Wof. If that is all the fitter is concerned with. WoF standards for brakes are pretty ho-hum. But if the brake fitter actually wants to do a good job , he'll want to bed the linings in before returning the machine .

Bedding in was pretty much standard practice back when drum brakes and relined shoes were the norm. You're just too young to recall those days.

I can remember it, rivets back then, not glue.

And the brakes often seemed to be a decoration rather than a function back then.

[Ixion]

I can remember it, rivets back then, not glue.

And the brakes often seemed to be a decoration rather than a function back then.

Probably cos they wasn't bedded in :rofl:

[avgas]

More importantly how do you bed in brakes without riding it? Hmmmmm
Errr no one is saying you cant ride. You just cant legally ride on the road.
Hense the term road legal

[kwaka_crasher]

Errr no one is saying you cant ride. You just cant legally ride on the road.
Hense the term road legal

Read the legislation, fool. :brick:

[avgas]

Read the legislation, fool. :brick:
Fair enough, I will then.
Unsafe vehicles and loads

*

(1) A driver must not operate a vehicle in a condition or manner that causes or is liable to cause—
o

(a) injury to any person or animal; or
o

(b) annoyance to any person; or
o

(c) damage to any property; or
o

(d) distraction to the driver.

(2) A driver must not operate a vehicle that is so loaded, or has a load so unsafely secured or covered, that the vehicle or its load causes or is liable to cause—
o

(a) injury to any person or animal; or
o

(b) annoyance to any person; or
o

(c) damage to any property; or
o

(d) distraction to the driver.

(3) A driver must not operate a vehicle that is so loaded, or has a load so unsafely secured or insufficiently covered, that the load or a portion of the load escapes or falls from the vehicle or is likely to do so.

(4) A driver must not operate a vehicle if the vehicle or its load, or both, drag on or make moving contact with the roadway other than by means of the wheels or by means of an attachment used to prevent the accumulation of static electricity.

(5) A driver must not use a motor vehicle to tow a trailer designed for use as a human abode while any person is carried in that trailer unless the carriage of that person is required for the purposes of a roadworthiness test of the trailer.



I question you again - How do you test a vehicle is safe if it has failed a warrant? And to answer your question how is it unsafe - tested very easily, in a crash........but then your insurance wont cover it

[scumdog]

Read the legislation, fool. :brick:

Easy ticket if you're stopped.

'Not up to Warrant of Fitness Standard'

[kwaka_crasher]

Fair enough, I will then.

*blah blah blah*

I question you again - How do you test a vehicle is safe if it has failed a warrant? And to answer your question how is it unsafe - tested very easily, in a crash........but then your insurance wont cover it

I've already covered this over and over and over. I'm not doing it again. Read my posts again.

Once again, you specifically ignore the defence in law I have already outlined and linked. That just means you're beligerent and ignorant.


Easy ticket if you're stopped.

'Not up to Warrant of Fitness Standard'

Except that is not enforcable if the vehicle operator is complying with the requirements that exempt him/her from the obligation as previously outlined. Once again, a ticket can be issued for anything but that doesn't mean it will be upheld.

[scumdog]

Except that is not enforcable if the vehicle operator is complying with the requirements that exempt him/her from the obligation as previously outlined. Once again, a ticket can be issued for anything but that doesn't mean it will be upheld.

You're hanging an awful lot on that 'if' bit.

Most of the requirements are is not adhered to.

[kwaka_crasher]

You're hanging an awful lot on that 'if' bit.

Rubbish. It's making it conditional. The fact is you're hanging on it just as much 'if' you deem the driver is not complying with the conditions...


Most of the requirements are is not adhered to.

Perhaps, in your OPINION. But lets not forget, your opinion isn't the sole consideration in upholding a contested ION.

[Ratti]

I believe KCrasher is correct...pedantic but correct.

My husband was a mobile mech. He and I took Fleet cars to get warrants. When they failed, we were able to drive them from the testing station to somewhere, fix them, then drive them back to the testing station to get a WOF.

After 28 days you have to pay another fee. If your wof has expired, your car is Un woffed and you will get fined if its on the road, even if its parked o/s your house. You are NOT allowed to drive anywhere else except to get the wretched thing fixed during those 28 days. It is not a grace period.

Simple really

[scumdog]

Perhaps, in your OPINION. But lets not forget, your opinion isn't the sole consideration in upholding a contested ION.


It's an opinion based on experience (many years of it) - the way a lot of opinions are formed...:yes:

[kwaka_crasher]

I believe KCrasher is correct...pedantic but correct.

The law is pedantic... got to fight fire with fire ;)


It's an opinion based on experience (many years of it) - the way a lot of opinions are formed...:yes:

But still just an opinion, nonetheless. If I were to base my opinion solely on personal experience I could wrongly claim that every ION you bother to contest you will get off.

The only opinion the counts is that of the Judge or JP when presented with the evidence. An ION is not the end of the matter - not by a long shot. Unless you're weak an just rolll over to the whim of an enforcement officer.

[scumdog]

The law is pedantic... got to fight fire with fire ;)



But still just an opinion, nonetheless. If I were to base my opinion solely on personal experience I could wrongly claim that every ION you bother to contest you will get off.





The only opinion the counts is that of the Judge or JP when presented with the evidence. An ION is not the end of the matter - not by a long shot. Unless you're weak an just rolll over to the whim of an enforcement officer.

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

[scumdog]

The law is pedantic... got to fight fire with fire ;)



But still just an opinion, nonetheless. If I were to base my opinion solely on personal experience I could wrongly claim that every ION you bother to contest you will get off.





The only opinion the counts is that of the Judge or JP when presented with the evidence. An ION is not the end of the matter - not by a long shot. Unless you're weak an just rolll over to the whim of an enforcement officer.

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

[Ixion]

One is inclined to suspect that if a cop were to stake out the local VTNZ and check WoF and rego of vehicles going OUT, he might make a lot of quota.

Oddly the old law (the "only drive to a place of repair" one) allowed you to drive BACK to the WOF shop with your failed WoF, but didn't allow you to drive home after the failure! Wee oversight there.

Not sure if the new one does or not - can one argue that driving home after the fail is "bringing into compliance."?

[kwaka_crasher]

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

All that proves is that they're a little bit slow down there... which I've always suspected anyway.

[Patrick]

I believe KCrasher is correct...pedantic but correct.

My husband was a mobile mech. He and I took Fleet cars to get warrants. When they failed, we were able to drive them from the testing station to somewhere, fix them, then drive them back to the testing station to get a WOF.

Simple really

Apparently not. Thats what I said, in other words... and according to one, it is wrong...???

But it isn't.....

Oh well......

[Ratti]

pedantry can be a sod

[kwaka_crasher]

I'm not going to bother arguing this any more except to again state that the legislation states that you may operate a non-compliant vehicle on the road provided it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and that it is safe to be operated for that purpose. It is deliberately open ended. Nowhere is it specifically defined exactly what "operated for that purpose" is or isn't.


:done:

[Patrick]

....... is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance ...[/CENTER]

I will attempt to interpret for you...

"You can only take it to a place of repair or to a testing station to obtain a warrant..." ie: being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance....

Echo.... echo.... echo......

[Coldrider]

I'm not going to bother arguing this any more except to again state that the legislation states that you may operate a non-compliant vehicle on the road provided it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and that it is safe to be operated for that purpose. It is deliberately open ended. Nowhere is it specifically defined exactly what "operated for that purpose" is or isn't.


:done:Surely the district courts will be full successfully defended prosecutions if that was the case.

[kwaka_crasher]

I will attempt to interpret for you...

"You can only take it to a place of repair or to a testing station to obtain a warrant..." ie: being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance....

Echo.... echo.... echo......

That's just your narrow interpretation. Fortunately even idiot JPs can see that's not the only scenario where you might be operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance.


Surely the district courts will be full successfully defended prosecutions if that was the case.

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

[scumdog]

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

And frequently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike was ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

[scumdog]

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

And frequently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike was ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

[kwaka_crasher]

And freqwuently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike as ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

Exactly. Hard to argue in that case... although the period it's been out of compliance is hardly relevant since it probably can't be proven that they were using it all that time and it may have sat for that period for any number of reasons.

It could also have been 17 months since the last inspection too if the vehicle is less than 7 years 5 months old since first registered because a vehicle gets a 1 year WoF for any time prior to the 6th anniversary of first registration, so the last 12 month one would expire on the 7th anniversary if done in time and then 5 months out... that's potentially a lot kms without any 'safety' check, especially for the mechanically ignorant NZers that tend to buy newer cars!

[pritch]

I thought 14 days before was the maximum allowed? (to keep the same due date for the WOF).

Yes. That's what the guy that tested my bikes told me. You have to ask too, otherwise it'll most likely just be dated to expire on the anniversary of the test.

[kwaka_crasher]

Yes. That's what the guy that tested my bikes told me. You have to ask too, otherwise it'll most likely just be dated to expire on the anniversary of the test.

It can be advanced up to 14-days. You don't have to ask - they should do it automatically but it might pay to remind them... once the check is over...

[DEATH_INC.]

the legislation states that you may operate a non-compliant vehicle on the road provided it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and that it is safe to be operated for that purpose.
Ok, lets try this then, if it's safe to use, then it is up to standard, so you are no longer bringing it into compliance, as it is already. If not, then it's not safe, again you may not use it. True?

[kwaka_crasher]

Ok, lets try this then, if it's safe to use, then it is up to standard, so you are no longer bringing it into compliance, as it is already. If not, then it's not safe, again you may not use it. True?

No. It can be safe yet not compliant (slightly oversize chip in a windscreen, blown forward facing position lamp).

[Ixion]

Or , even better examples, it may be non compliant because of excessive noise, or excessive engine smoke. Neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on safety.

[DEATH_INC.]

I'll give ya 1/2 point each, a large chip obscures you veiw and/ or weakens the structure, and excessive smoke does the same to others....
I will concede the noise/ park light though....

[kwaka_crasher]

I'll give ya 1/2 point each, a large chip obscures you veiw and/ or weakens the structure, and excessive smoke does the same to others....
I will concede the noise/ park light though....

If your Honour pleases... :not:

Also, if your vehicle has failed on brake efficiency or balance by 2% is it instantly 'unsafe'? Or if it has failed on that and you've returned home and determined that new pads are required and they are stocked only by the specialist 50km away and you drive your non-compliant car to pick them up are you not operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance? If so is it unsafe to do so? It might be marginally less safe... but is that actually unsafe?

[Ixion]

So, if my car fails its WoF becasue of excesse noise : and I drive it home , and phone my local garage - "can you fit a new zorst please". And they say "Oh your car is weird and perverted. You'll have to take it out to SuperDuper Exhaust Manufacturers for them to measure it all up. Once they've measured it, they'll make a new exhaust system and deliver it to us. We'll call you and you bring the car round to us and we'll fit the new system,and you can take it back to the WoF place".

And I do all that.

So , are we agreed then, that is all legal. because it is all done for the purpose of "bringing into compliance" (even if it's not driving back to the WoF place) ; and the vehicle is safe to drive?

(Yes I know that Super Duper could probably fit the exhaust themselves. But lets assume they don't want to , because my car is fitted the Elbonian bolts which no-one but my local garage has spanners for)

[scumdog]

I took kwaka_crashers advice- have a look at the XN85 thread.

And his advice works...apparently....:whistle:

[avgas]

No. It can be safe yet not compliant (slightly oversize chip in a windscreen, blown forward facing position lamp).
I actually agree with you Kwaka, the law is vague as to what you don't require to be 'road legal' for.
However with the above faults, both can be described as a "distraction" which is covered by the section of the law I quoted. However I believe there may be something, covered by the wof that wont fall under the terms "distraction" , "unsafe" or "dangerous" that you could get away with. I have no idea what these would be though. But the law is very specific to point out those three key words. However this would then fall under the judges perception - which may not be biased towards your favour.
Either way I still don't think its worth the risk.

[crazyhorse]

:woohoo: you can get flybuys now at VTNZ - bonus points too :woohoo: