WOFs. Did you know...

[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:Me]

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:Me]

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.

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....

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.

[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.