WOF question: Rear reflector

[SMOKEU]

My CBR failed a WOF today for not having a rear reflector. It previously passed a VTNZ WOF where 2 inspectors did the WOF on my bike, and they didn't say anything about a rear reflector. It also passed a WOF at another place, and again nothing was said about a rear reflector.

I've had a look at a few other CBR250s which have a current WOF, and they don't have a rear reflector, so should I really have one to pass a WOF?

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, you should. It's required.

I believe it depends on the inspectors on the day - some pick up on things like this, some don't always - but it's a legal requirement ...

[Gremlin]

yes, legal requirement. They didn't pick it up, you were lucky. Now they have picked you up.

[SMOKEU]

It's a stupid law then, seeing that I'm legally required to have my lights on at all times while my bike is being operated on a public road.

[DrunkenMistake]

if it is a legal requirment then how do you get on with tail tidys ?

[=cJ=]

Yep, I fell foul of this when I made my DIY tail tidy. The guys at Freedom Suzuki just quietly put a screw-on reflector on my numberplate when I took it in for a WOF and it was all good to go.

[AllanB]

It's a stupid law then, seeing that I'm legally required to have my lights on at all times while my bike is being operated on a public road.

Not really stupid - the reflector is there in case the tail light fails at night. I've seen a bike or two at night with no reflector or running tail light - the bike is basically invisible - very dangerous.

If this happens I highly recommend removing all mufflers so vehicles behind you can at least see the flames from your headers ..... :shit:

Some tail lights have reflectors built into them, some do not.

As far as a tail tidy goes it should still have a rear reflector to be legal - mount in on the bottom of the number plate. If you are still unhappy with this - find a reflector shaped like a big erect penis and mount that on the rear (so to speak).

[SMOKEU]

Not really stupid - the reflector is there in case the tail light fails at night. I've seen a bike or two at night with no reflector or running tail light - the bike is basically invisible - very dangerous.



Fair enough - I've had a tail light die on me at night so I know the feeling.

[ukusa]

well, ya learn something new everyday. I could have sworn my bike didn't have a rear reflector, a quick look confirms it does. Funny the things you don't even notice.

WOF Inspectors can be erratic though, some I think make up there own shit as they go along.
Bought a car for my son 5 months ago. The previous owner got turned down on a wof for no centre seatbelt/lapbelt in the back. Car used to be her parents, who had purchased it new in 1988. It had NEVER had a seatbelt there before, and had passed 44 previous WOF inspections without it.

[Gremlin]

My 2008 brand new bike doesn't have a rear reflector. Interesting huh?

[marty]

It will be incorporated into the tail light on the Honda. As it is with most (if not all) OEM tail lights.

[skippa1]

Got sprung for the same thing last week. Same WOF place as always, first thing he picked out.

[v8s&2wheels]

My CBR failed a WOF today for not having a rear reflector. It previously passed a VTNZ WOF where 2 inspectors did the WOF on my bike, and they didn't say anything about a rear reflector. It also passed a WOF at another place, and again nothing was said about a rear reflector.

I've had a look at a few other CBR250s which have a current WOF, and they don't have a rear reflector, so should I really have one to pass a WOF?

Just go buy one or two.

I made a tail tidy for my bike about a month ago and looked around for a week for a suitable reflector. Ended up going to a pushbike shop where they had little round ones about the diameter of a 50c piece, they have a bolt on the back of them and have a nut to secure through any hole. $1 a pop pretty damn good.

[sinfull]

Just go buy one or two.

I made a tail tidy for my bike about a month ago and looked around for a week for a suitable reflector. Ended up going to a pushbike shop where they had little round ones about the diameter of a 50c piece, they have a bolt on the back of them and have a nut to secure through any hole. $1 a pop pretty damn good. Last i heard they had to be of a certain size with a SAE blah blah (standards approved i'm guessin) number on em !

[Morepower]

well, ya learn something new everyday. I could have sworn my bike didn't have a rear reflector, a quick look confirms it does. Funny the things you don't even notice.

WOF Inspectors can be erratic though, some I think make up there own shit as they go along.
Bought a car for my son 5 months ago. The previous owner got turned down on a wof for no centre seatbelt/lapbelt in the back. Car used to be her parents, who had purchased it new in 1988. It had NEVER had a seatbelt there before, and had passed 44 previous WOF inspections without it.

Years ago my ex had a 74 Toyota Corolla with inertia seat belts ( NZ Assembled Car ) . She came home advising it failed its WOF due to the belts. Puzzled somewhat by this I went back to the Testing Station where the inspector spent some time driving around braking etc showing me that they were not dual acting belts. I said fair enough , and then asked him " what sort of belts should it have had when built in 1974??" He did not reply , just quietly went away and came back with a WOF sticker .

[Urano]

Fair enough - I've had a tail light die on me at night so I know the feeling.

:shit::shit::shit::shit:

i was completely convinced you were ironic...

do you really think it's stupid because of your rear light???
who the hell cares about my rear light!!!
I myself want to see what's behind me, don't care at all if i have a light and they could see me. there are too many possibilities that they won't see me at all, light on or light off.
I have to see them. and to see everybody around me within X^2 x100 meters, where X is the hunds of my speed and X>=1.
if they see me it's a plus.

[nodrog]

:shit::shit::shit::shit:

i was completely convinced you were ironic...

do you really think it's stupid because of your rear light???
who the hell cares about my rear light!!!
I myself want to see what's behind me, don't care at all if i have a light and they could see me. there are too many possibilities that they won't see me at all, light on or light off.
I have to see them. and to see everybody around me within X^2 x100 meters, where X is the hunds of my speed and X>=1.
if they see me it's a plus.

Is there an English translation availiable for this post?

Fanny

[Swoop]

The numberplate is a fine reflector, but a red reflector is mandatory.
Who the hell wants to be ran up the arse by another vehicle, when a couple of bucks can possibly prevent it happening?


Is there an English translation availiable for this post?

Fanny
Urano is in Modena, Italy.

[pzkpfw]

It seems a bit too obvious to post, but....

When parked, a bikes lights will be off. That is, blown lights are not the only reason why the reflector is a good idea.

(A few weeks back, driving home from work in the dark, I came across a little 250 parked arse to the kerb - didn't see it 'till quite close. Now I know (one reason) why my bike has reflectors to the sides as well.)

[imdying]

:shit::shit::shit::shit:

i was completely convinced you were ironic...

do you really think it's stupid because of your rear light???
who the hell cares about my rear light!!!
I myself want to see what's behind me, don't care at all if i have a light and they could see me. there are too many possibilities that they won't see me at all, light on or light off.
I have to see them. and to see everybody around me within X^2 x100 meters, where X is the hunds of my speed and X>=1.
if they see me it's a plus.WTF are you on about? They speak English in Modena?

[Jackal]

I reckon W.O.F. providers must have received a notice from 'them up high' about rear reflectors. Took my bike in for a warrent yesterday and the inspector commented about my rear reflector, along the lines it was good to see I had one. This was a different guy from my last two visits and he put the bike on a bike jack to check both wheels and rode it out to check the brakes, not done by the others working at the same VTNZ. He also said I was pronouncing Moto Guzzi wrong. Which I did not know was part of the W.O.F. check!!! :confused:

[Urano]

WTF are you on about? They speak English in Modena?

not so much, actually.
that's why every pilot using two or four wheels have to speak italian...
:whistle:


sorry guys. please be patient: i'm here to learn.
i hope the idea was clear anyway. :)

[nodrog]

.... spagettio's ...
i hope the idea was clear anyway. :)

Um, no not really.

Fanny

[SMOKEU]

The tail lights should be reflective enough.

[st00ji]

:shit::shit::shit::shit:

i was completely convinced you were ironic...

do you really think it's stupid because of your rear light???
who the hell cares about my rear light!!!
I myself want to see what's behind me, don't care at all if i have a light and they could see me. there are too many possibilities that they won't see me at all, light on or light off.
I have to see them. and to see everybody around me within X^2 x100 meters, where X is the hunds of my speed and X>=1.
if they see me it's a plus.

i understood it urano

(i think)

he thinks / thought SMOKEU is / was taking the piss

he doesnt care about his rear light or reflector, since most cars dont see him anyway. hes more interested in being able to see THEM so he can avoid them. he includes a calculation of unknown origins to explain what i presume is his minimum desired visibility range or similar.

[Gremlin]

It will be incorporated into the tail light on the Honda. As it is with most (if not all) OEM tail lights.
Nope... double checked now. Hornet has a reflector at the bottom of the spade, KTM has nothing. I've put extra bright reflective tape on both bikes as extra safety, but it doesn't count for the legal stuff (numbers and all)

[_Shrek_]

I reckon W.O.F. providers must have received a notice from 'them up high' about rear reflectors. Took my bike in for a warrent yesterday and the inspector commented about my rear reflector, along the lines it was good to see I had one. This was a different guy from my last two visits and he put the bike on a bike jack to check both wheels and rode it out to check the brakes, not done by the others working at the same VTNZ. He also said I was pronouncing Moto Guzzi wrong. Which I did not know was part of the W.O.F. check!!! :confused:

next time they take it for a test ride ask them if they have a licence to do so, it's my understanding that they must have a bike licence to do wof

[SMOKEU]

next time they take it for a test ride ask them if they have a licence to do so, it's my understanding that they must have a bike licence to do wof

Being private property, do they really need any kind of licence (legally)?

I have serious doubts that some of the VTNZ guys that do bike WOFs have a class 6 licence. I've seen one VTNZ WOF inspector nearly crash my bike twice in one WOF.

[Jackal]

next time they take it for a test ride ask them if they have a licence to do so, it's my understanding that they must have a bike licence to do wof

Probably does not have one as he did not even bother with a helmet.

[marty]

Being private property, do they really need any kind of licence (legally)?

I have serious doubts that some of the VTNZ guys that do bike WOFs have a class 6 licence. I've seen one VTNZ WOF inspector nearly crash my bike twice in one WOF.

As I am not insured for anyone else to ride my bike, I refuse to allow them to ride my bike. If you are the same, ask if the vtnz insurance covers any damage caused by them when riding your bike (I doubt it does).'

Check out the meaning of public place (or more to the point - a road) in the appropriate legislation.

[SMOKEU]

If you are the same, ask if the vtnz insurance covers any damage caused by them when riding your bike (I doubt it does).'


If they binned my bike I would expect them to pay me for all the damages no questions asked, obviously.

[Urano]

he thinks / thought SMOKEU is / was taking the piss

:laugh:
thanks st00ji !!
:niceone:
the most difficult part for me is always understand what is the error...
i now think i've made a mess with the consecutio temporum... :D



he doesnt care about his rear light or reflector, since most cars dont see him anyway. hes more interested in being able to see THEM so he can avoid them. he includes a calculation of unknown origins to explain what i presume is his minimum desired visibility range or similar.

you got it right... :niceone:
but the calculation is not of "unknown origin".
the origin is quite simple: your stopping distance changes with the square of the speed.
so take the "hundreds' " number of your speed... let's say you're at 100 kmh, the number to take is "1".

then square it: 1^2 =1

now take a hundred meter and multiply for what you've just got: 1 x 100= 100 meters.

this is is the range of visibility i'd like to have while i'm at 100 kmh, 'cause at 100 kmh i'll pass over 30 meters of tarmac every second and considering that my stopping distance is more or less another 30-40 meters, we obtain that cruising at 100 kmh with a 100 meters of visibility gives me 2 second to decide what to do in case of problems.

which, i think, it's pretty fair.

a hun meters is also the minimum i'd like to have, because even if i'm slower this is a good distance to understand the "movements" of everybody around me: if i'm at 50 kmh with 30 meters visibility it could be sufficient, but i prolly won't see the intersection at 40 meters and so i cannot deduce what the person in front of me is going to do at the intersection...

if i'm faster, then, example: 150 kmh ---> 1,5^2 = 2,25 ---> 2,25 x 100 = 225 meters of visibility desired...
and so on...

you could say "and why you don't apply the "intersection part" in this case?".
simply because i'm not going to pass through an intersection at 150 kmh ever... ;)

those thoughts are valid at the same while you're looking back. say you're cruising at 100 kmh with someone behind you at the same speed and at a constant distance: if for every reason you are going to slow down, and he doesn't see your red fancy rear light, he will iron you on the ground in about 4 seconds. keep that in mind...

i hope this is clearer :niceone:

[Owl]

As I am not insured for anyone else to ride my bike, I refuse to allow them to ride my bike. If you are the same, ask if the vtnz insurance covers any damage caused by them when riding your bike (I doubt it does).'

You don't have a clause in your policy allowing mechanics to test ride then?

[_Shrek_]

Being private property, do they really need any kind of licence (legally)?

I have serious doubts that some of the VTNZ guys that do bike WOFs have a class 6 licence. I've seen one VTNZ WOF inspector nearly crash my bike twice in one WOF.

just finished checking up on this & they must hold a class 6 to be able to issue WOF other wise they are unable to do the all test that is required for bikes & they can't get someone else to do it because they don't have their VTNZ authority

so make sure they have a class 6 as your insurance will be void, so that means that your WOF is not actually legal

[marty]

You don't have a clause in your policy allowing mechanics to test ride then?

Why would I pay for someone else to ride my bike? That's what bike shops have liability insurance for.

This is not about mechanics - it's about VTNZ inspectors who are not working on the bike, but inspecting it.

[_Shrek_]

Why would I pay for someone else to ride my bike? That's what bike shops have liability insurance for.

This is not about mechanics - it's about VTNZ inspectors who are not working on the bike, but inspecting it.

but they still need to test it!!!

[Motardman]

You can just use reflective tape if a plastic reflector offends your eyeballs, I use a small strip instead of a reflector and it also looks kinda cool too

[SMOKEU]

You can just use reflective tape if a plastic reflector offends your eyeballs, I use a small strip instead of a reflector and it also looks kinda cool too

The dude just failed me again, because apparently the reflector was not mounted securely to the bike. FFS, they keep on coming up with excuse after excuse to fail it. The guy said reflective tape is not counted as a reflector.
He also said the reflector has to have an approved number on it, but there is no minimum size. So I'm going to cut up a reflector with a hacksaw to make it as small as possible, while still keeping 'the number' on it.

[Motardman]

The dude just failed me again, because apparently the reflector was not mounted securely to the bike. FFS, they keep on coming up with excuse after excuse to fail it. The guy said reflective tape is not counted as a reflector.
He also said the reflector has to have an approved number on it, but there is no minimum size. So I'm going to cut up a reflector with a hacksaw to make it as small as possible, while still keeping 'the number' on it.

WOW that's harsh, sounds like a fuckwit, unlucky mate :(

[SMOKEU]

WOW that's harsh, sounds like a fuckwit, unlucky mate :(

If the government is really serious about this, they should at least introduce a minimum size of the reflector. A 3mm square reflector isn't really going to increase safety, even though it may well be legal.

[imdying]

The guy said reflective tape is not counted as a reflector.That's true...


He also said the reflector has to have an approved number on itThat's not true though....


but there is no minimum sizeThat's sort of true... it must be visible from 100m away, so too small and it won't pass that criteria.


.So I'm going to cut up a reflector with a hacksaw to make it as small as possible, while still keeping 'the number' on it.Don't do it :no:


It's in the VIRM, section 4.13, print out the page and confront him with it.

[SMOKEU]

I'm confused. I'll tape on a push bike reflector to the bottom of the number plate.

[98tls]

Fwiw i just bought a pushbike one,cut it in 1/2 and stuck in on,never had a problem.

[bogan]

It's a stupid law then, seeing that I'm legally required to have my lights on at all times while my bike is being operated on a public road.

I believe the law on lights refers to DRLs (daytime running lamps), which are front lamps only as far as I can tell. Mine just has indicators always on at a lower brightness and I leave the headlamp off, not actually sure if the tail lights come on as well, but I'm fairly sure it's not a requirement.

[_Shrek_]

The dude just failed me again, because apparently the reflector was not mounted securely to the bike. FFS, they keep on coming up with excuse after excuse to fail it. The guy said reflective tape is not counted as a reflector.
He also said the reflector has to have an approved number on it, but there is no minimum size. So I'm going to cut up a reflector with a hacksaw to make it as small as possible, while still keeping 'the number' on it.

why don't you just take it to another vntz they only have to see the reflector

[SMOKEU]

why don't you just take it to another vntz they only have to see the reflector

I didn't go to VTNZ this time round, after the last VTNZ inspector nearly binned my bike twice during one WOF inspection.