wof Q

[tommorth]

i have a suzuki gp125 and it needs a wof now it has no switch for the brake light on the front brake has one for the back does it need one? or does it not matter .i know it would be safer but there apears to be no provision for on on the master cyl

[Motu]

You need a brake light.If there is no provision for it they are a bit hard to retro on an old bike.

[geoffm]

I think it depends on the age of the bike. GP125s have been around forever, so it could be from before the time it was required. My GT250X7 didn't have a front brake light switch (1980 vintage).
Geoff

[Ixion]

Argh. This question !. The ARGUMENTS I have about this everytime the Suzukis need a WoF.

1978 is the magic date



A motorcycle first registered in New Zealand on
or after 1/1/1978 must be fitted with one or two
stop lamps.

and

A mandatory stop lamp must operate when a
service brake is applied.



So, pre 1978 you don't need ANY stop light. If you have one, operated by the rear brake, that's a bonus. If the front brake doesn't operate it, that's OK. But do you think the blurdy testers can cope with that. Nowdays I just say "No , no stop lamps at all. Not required, pre 78, I use hand signals". And so far no-ones noticed the rear stop switch and done the "Wahh - but if its fitted its got to work, and the front one doesn't so that's a fail even though it's not fitted and not required anyway, and even thought the if it's fitted it's got to work thing no longer applies wah wah wah " bleat.

Post 1978, it's a bit greyer if you don't have a front switch. Rule says "must operate when *A* service brake is applied". I can interpret that to mean that so long as it lights when *a* brake is applied (ie the rear one) it's all good . It doesn't say *any* service brake. But I wouldn't be so confident about that argument. So far I haven't encountered a post 78 without provision for a front switch, though they could well be out there.

[Motu]

The grey area is with later model bikes - they were complied with a front brake light switch,and must stay within compliance.But then there is ''The RULE'',which as I previously stated says ''a'' brake light.

[Ixion]

Rule says must have at least ONE brake light. But is sort of silent on the switch bit. I suspect the people who wrote it didn't realise that bikes have separately operated brakes. But it does say "must operate when "a" service brake". Not any service brake. And if there was no front switch when new, (ie no missing bit on the lever etc), then it's entitled by reason of original compliance.

[Motu]

The foot brake is generaly considered the service brake....it's only sprotsbike riders who don't use the rear brake.Changes in the VIRM over recent years have not been rule or wording changes,but rather by leaving words out it changes the whole meaning.Like removing area figures for lamps,just means there is one less thing we can use our discretion on.New VIRM in use next month....no big changes,but it's a pretty LTNZ green instead of LTSA orange.But the web site is still orange....too hard basket.

[Ixion]

I think that technically the service brake is the rear brake (however applied) . Cos it dates (as does the weird name itself) from the days when you only had to have a rear brake (I can't remember when that changed but it was a long time ago). I remember when I started riding you could get a council testing station warrant without a front brake. I still don't use the front brake much, never got into the habit of it.

Originally, on cars, the service brake was the rear wheel brake(s) - no front wheel brakes until the 30s. The "emergency" brake was on the transmission. For emergency use only, cos it was always a visious bastard of a thing.

I learned to drive on a 1926 Studebaker, no front wheel brakes. And the rear wheel ones didn't do naff all either. (My father was a sadist !)

[tommorth]

i will take it in this weekend and see how it goes should be fine as it had a wof when i got it pointles having any lights with 6v as far as im concerned