Do cops ever check your bike's LAMS compliance? [Archive]

R650R

8th June 2014, 21:29

That bike's been written off. I'm on an 89' ZXR 250 for the moment.

Even a ZXR ain't going to be checked unless he hears the rattle of a set of last slide carbs AND smells Methanol fumes... Or you fail the attitude test.
Those lil fours sound great but even on a good day I think they'd struggle to bust the lams ratios

Cam_Valk

8th June 2014, 21:31

Why would he check your bike since its under 250cc anyways?

Ive been pulled over a few times, they have never mentioned LAMs compliance at all.

biketimus_prime

8th June 2014, 22:23

haydes55

9th June 2014, 00:05

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

Not licensed to operate the vehicle, therefore no insurance. Try get insured to drive a truck and trailer without a truck licence.

Akzle

9th June 2014, 01:06

yeah. Funnily enough the 750 isnt on the list.

Mongolian

9th June 2014, 05:01

While still on learners or restricted I would't really be too worried about the police checking your LAM's compliance unless your riding something that looks like it shouldn't be learner legal (like one of those GSXR600U's if you could even get one here).
What you should concern yourself with is making sure you are compliant for insurance purposes because you can be damn'd sure that if you have a crash they will be looking your bike over with a fine tooth comb to find a reason to not pay out.

Banditbandit

9th June 2014, 09:46

Apparently, two out of every five bike riders are doing something wrong - - like riding with no licence, riding the wrong bike for the licence, riding non-compliant LAMS bikes, not registered, not warranted ... bald tyres ... lights not wrking ...

So for a cop getting behind on his quota, stopping a bike (even if they can't see anything wrong) means there's a 40 per cent chance of writing a ticket ... That's why they stop bikes more than cars .. and on a random basis ..

It's just not worth the hassle .. be legal or you will get caught .. sooner or later ..

Ulsterkiwi

9th June 2014, 12:06

So how often do people/drivers/riders get pulled over? Unless you give them specific reason, can the cops do random stops? Where I grew up we got stopped and searched all the time but that was for reasons other than alleged traffic offences.
I was stopped one evening last week by the lads operating the booze bus and got the 'count to 5' breath test. First time ever in my life been breathalysed. Apart from that never been pulled in NZ, never been asked for my licence. I see flashing lights and pissed off drivers/riders all the time but assumed they have done something to bring themselves to the attention of the popo. Am curious.

Banditbandit

9th June 2014, 12:18

I've been stopped a couple of times at "random" stops - yes cops here can stop you to check licence, rego and WOF ....

Big Dog

9th June 2014, 12:48

LAMS was brought in to address the needs of the modern rider and pressure from lobby groups.
The intent is to give you more freedom along with some guidance on appropriate power levels for your experience level.

If too many people attempt to skirt this revised system the result will be a return to the old system as it becomes to difficult to proceed with LAMS.

Seriously as a group we are our own worst enemies. Don't be in a rush to get on a more powerful bike. Many think because they get away with it once they are competent. There is a reason even some 250s are excluded on the lams lists.
And a reason acc levies are so high.
And a reason insurance is so harsh on learners.

Get it wrong and the cops will be the least of your worries.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Gremlin

9th June 2014, 14:02

So how often do people/drivers/riders get pulled over? Unless you give them specific reason, can the cops do random stops?
Cops can stop anyone any time when they're driving/riding.

Haven't been stopped in some time, but I'm sure I set some sort of record when I went through 5-7 breath checkpoints in one night (including one right around the corner from another). It miiight have been because it was Christmas or New Years Eve :lol:

Mike.Gayner

9th June 2014, 14:48

hat's why they stop bikes more than cars .. and on a random basis ..

Is this correct? Doesn't seem right to me - bikes hardly ever seem to get stopped. I've never been stopped on my bike, and been stopped many times in my cars.

SMOKEU

9th June 2014, 15:00

Is this correct? Doesn't seem right to me - bikes hardly ever seem to get stopped. I've never been stopped on my bike, and been stopped many times in my cars.

You're MUCH more likely to get stopped by police late at night, in the early hours of the morning, or riding a bike on a popular road for bikers in the summer when the cops are out on a mission to bust heaps of riders for shit, like SH75.

Erelyes

9th June 2014, 15:00

f2dz

9th June 2014, 15:45

Never been checked over to my knowledge and I've never been pulled over.

If my bike WAS modded I would put it back to standard for any tests, though. Would be dumb to fail a licence test without leaving the gate, just cos of a slipon. Though I believe a workmate recently did his L>R test with a slipon on his 08+ Ninja 250.

As far as I know, a slip on exhaust is fine on a 250 as it wouldn't drastically change the power/weight ratio enough. You can't modify anything higher than a 250 at all though for it to be legal.

Tazz

9th June 2014, 16:43

As far as I know, a slip on exhaust is fine on a 250 as it wouldn't drastically change the power/weight ratio enough. You can't modify anything higher than a 250 at all though for it to be legal.

The NO performance mods part of the rules was pretty clear I thought, and includes tufiddys. Unless I missed some fine print.

f2dz

9th June 2014, 16:59

The NO performance mods part of the rules was pretty clear I thought, and includes tufiddys. Unless I missed some fine print.

From the NZTA website:

The following list of motorcycles with engine capacities between 251cc and 660cc - these motorcycles must be in standard form as produced by the manufacturer. They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio.

They don't specifically mention 250s having to be in standard form. I remember emailing the NZTA about it before the LAMS list came out and they told me it was fine to add a slip on exhaust to a 250 so long as it didn't increase the power/weight above the legal limit. None of the 250s come close to that as far as I'm aware except for the ones already on the prohibited list.

Tazz

9th June 2014, 17:06

From the NZTA website:

They don't specifically mention 250s having to be in standard form. I remember emailing the NZTA about it before the LAMS list came out and they told me it was fine to add a slip on exhaust to a 250 so long as it didn't increase the power/weight above the legal limit. None of the 250s come close to that as far as I'm aware except for the ones already on the prohibited list.

"Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list."

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/approved-motorcycles.html

250's aren't on the list (unless they're banned), so that last bit is directed at them I would have thought.

f2dz

9th June 2014, 17:14

"Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list."

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/approved-motorcycles.html

250's aren't on the list (unless they're banned), so that last bit is directed at them I would have thought.

You're right. That's pretty clear cut.

I just dug out my email from when I asked about my old 250 and the person from NZTA told me it had to remain standard to be legal also. Dunno why I thought it said the opposite..

So legally you're not allowed one but I've seen plenty of learners/restricted riders with em and have heard of cops not knowing about this rule either though. Especially strange that a guy can do his Ls to Restricted test with an aftermarket zorst.

Seeing as it's illegal, I'd be mainly concerned about the insurance company not paying out if they find out you have an illegal mod if you happen to bin your bike.

GTRMAN

9th June 2014, 18:22

A cbta assessor will check for any obvious signs the bike has been modified in a way that would make it non LAMS compliant.

Pound

9th June 2014, 18:24

:( So does this mean I can't ride around on a 636 on my Ls? :(

Tazz

9th June 2014, 19:25

You're right. That's pretty clear cut.

I just dug out my email from when I asked about my old 250 and the person from NZTA told me it had to remain standard to be legal also. Dunno why I thought it said the opposite..

So legally you're not allowed one but I've seen plenty of learners/restricted riders with em and have heard of cops not knowing about this rule either though. Especially strange that a guy can do his Ls to Restricted test with an aftermarket zorst.

Seeing as it's illegal, I'd be mainly concerned about the insurance company not paying out if they find out you have an illegal mod if you happen to bin your bike.

They just were either lazy, didn't care or (I'd like to think) were just not paper pushing, power tripping bureaucratic Nazis as some people can be.
At the end of the day you crashing and not getting insurance isn't going to make a difference to them, and they can just say you had a standard exhaust when you took the test if for some real random reason it ever came up.

However if you rocked up with a turbo bolted on.....

At the end of the day a lot of the law is interpretive and only a guideline. You just have to pick and choose your battles/risks.

:( So does this mean I can't ride around on a 636 on my Ls? :(

It's not on the list but a 659 is :blip:

Erelyes

9th June 2014, 19:35

They just were either lazy, didn't care or (I'd like to think) were just not paper pushing, power tripping bureaucratic Nazis as some people can be.

AFAIK they were correct. Before the LAMS rules there was just straight up '250s and under' and I don't think there were any restrictions on mods. Could be wrong there though.

The Pre-LAMS legislation (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0100/80.0/DLM281347.html) only talks about it being 250cc and under, doesn't talk about mods.

gammaguy

9th June 2014, 19:39

Apparently the police commissioner sent an email to all police stations nationwide advising them not to talk about it

the email subject was
The silence of the LAMS

FJRider

9th June 2014, 19:43

Not licensed to operate the vehicle, therefore no insurance. Try get insured to drive a truck and trailer without a truck licence.

I think it's actually "Riding outside the conditions of License" ...

You can buy a non-LAM's legal motorcycle ... register/WOF in your name. You can even insure it in your name (choose policy options carefully)... but they may not pay out if you are/were in breach of your license conditions ...

ELectronicFlesh

9th June 2014, 19:50

Thanks for all the replies guys. When taking insurance into account, I think I'll wait for my full until upgrading to something a bit more powerful.

Apparently the police commissioner sent an email to all police stations nationwide advising them not to talk about it

the email subject was
The silence of the LAMS

Fuckin lol.

Drew

9th June 2014, 20:02

Waaaaaaaay back in the day, any modification resulting in something like 15% increase in power above standard required a low volume engineers certificate. These days, it's pretty much any modification to a vehicle needs it.

Bikes not mentioned specifically in the LAM list that are under 250cc, are subject to the rules before the list existed.

Whether a cop can be fucked looking over a bike, is luck of the draw. Anyone who cannot figure this shit out themselves, shouldn't be allowed on the fucken road!

strumpet

9th June 2014, 21:09

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

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

Driftmonkey

8th July 2014, 16:47

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

Alright sweet *prints new rego*.

Win at life.

Gremlin

8th July 2014, 18:42

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

Alright sweet *prints new rego*.

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

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

Yep, win... for anyone else.

Driftmonkey

9th July 2014, 00:00

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

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

Yep, win... for anyone else.

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

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

Gremlin

9th July 2014, 00:05

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

Or could just master the almighty 250 first and wait patiently for full license. That's a little easier. :innocent:
Well, a bike in Chch went up in flames when wire chatted to frame... Implode not common, but don't mess with electricity.

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

ELectronicFlesh

11th July 2014, 22:28

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

Akzle

11th July 2014, 22:44

SMOKEU

12th July 2014, 09:15

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

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

Owl

12th July 2014, 09:42

They have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

Are you a barista?:confused:

SMOKEU

12th July 2014, 10:03

Are you a barista?:confused:

Not at all.

Bikemad

12th July 2014, 10:54

Are you a barista?:confused:

nah.......hes a responsible meth user:laugh:

Mike.Gayner

12th July 2014, 11:30

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

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

aws

14th July 2014, 19:44

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

Larksea

15th July 2014, 15:09

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

Akzle

21st July 2014, 06:56

you ride outside the rules, you ride without insurance.

yes, i do both of those, whats your point

Banditbandit

22nd July 2014, 09:33

yes, i do both of those, whats your point

His point is that you are a naughty boy - riding outside the rules.

(Me too ... )

I do have insurance - I can afford it and if anything happens, the bike gets fixed or I get another one ... but that's not a rule, that's my choice

kevinator9

9th September 2014, 21:25

I was pulled up for a random wof/rego check. Got asked what type of licence I had (restricted) and how many cc my bike was (500). Got the 'isn't that a bit big for your licence?' to which I proceeded to explain that it was LAMS approved. The officer admitted he didn't know much about those fancy new LAMS machines and I was on my way.