WOFs. Did you know...

[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..

[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

[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.

[avgas]

Read the legislation, fool.

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.

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...

[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...

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.