If there was no WOF would you keep your bike up to standard?

[awa355]

You and me 'might' keep our bikes/cars up to scratch, but, what about all the other clowns out there on the roads with defective brakes, tyres ( in particular), There may be a lot already, irrespective of the law now, but would be a hell of a lot more without any wof.

[imdying]

If there was no WOF then no I would not keep them up to any particular standard, I'd probably find something old to ride around on and never do anything I didn't need to to it.

[Brett]

A WOF is not the benchmark imo. There are a few things which are pretty critical to rider safety that a WOF will not pick up/doesn't often pick up. I make it my responsibility (whether my bike has a WOF or not) to ensure that what I ride is safe, and this far surpasses what is covered in a WOF inspection. If I didn't have to have a WOF, only think I might consider would be running slicks on the road so that I don't have to swap rims for track days (but modern tyres are pretty bloody good anyway, I loved the Supercorsa's I used to have on my GSXR) and would probably run the bike without side mirrors...I usually check with a turn of the head anyway.

[cheshirecat]

So far we've got 90% keeping their Bikes roadworthy, cic pass WOF and only 3% not doing so. Is this the same as we have now with the WOF, if so we don't need it and so save the Government some admin so they could put the resources to more useful ends like being useful and cost effective to the population they are acting for or even the Police dounut fund. Rant rant rant rant . . . .
Interesting to see what our boys in blue find when they pull bikes over - are 90% roadworthy?

The 6% couldn't give a what'sit I reckon are die hards who would look after their bikes anyway.