WOF Question?

[rastuscat]

I just took my BMW R1200RT in to VTNZ yesterday for a warrant and the dude didn't get on it. Checked the lights and horn worked, gave the wheels a wiggle and then tried and failed to find the VIN number. On the form however it said stopped in 3M at 35kph. Passed with flying colors (which it would have anyway even if he did check it properly.)

That's fraud.

Imagine how you'd feel if he failed you based on a brake test he hadnt done.

It doesn't matter how convenient it is, that's BS that should be reported.

[rastuscat]

Consider this. If a tester is happy to shortcut the brake test for your bike, what else is he happy to shortcut?

It's a question of integrity. You either have it or you don't.

[awayatc]

That's fraud.

.

Fraud?....
No it isn't. ...

Fraud:

"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"........

A wrongful deception would be for instance to say that speed kills....
Or that speed causes accidents...
Etc.etc.etc.

Financial gain is the millions and millions of $ the nz police collects each year by enforcing those untrue statements...and being fraudulent.

Now THAT is fraud....

Or is it extortion...?

Or worse: both

[Jeeper]

Where's that definition of fraud from?

[awayatc]

First one that came up when I googled definition of fraud.....

Guy not riding bike at wof inspection is many things...

But fraud it is most certainly not

[Jeeper]

Right or wrong, you picked the definition of fraud that suits your viewpoint. But in reality it is fraudulent behavior to declare something has been done when it has not been done. It could become criminal charges if the bike's brakes fail a meter down the road and the rider dies.

[awayatc]

No... I did not "pick " anything....
I just copied definition that Google provided..
Free of charge. So also not fraudulent.

Weather pigs can fly or not is a different story again.

Wof inspector was however not fraudulent....

Lazy he was most likely.
But if that became a criminal offense then most of the NZ police force would on the other side of the bench in court daily...

RC himself has more then once srated on this very forum that to try and issue "infringenent notices" on anything but speeding "offenses" was a lot of hard work without much results.

That translates into being lazy don't you think?

[AllanB]

Wof inspector was however not fraudulent....

He was charging for a service that he stated he supplied but did not. Also knowingly filled out a legal document stating he had carried out the inspection.


If you took your motorcycle/car into a shop for a oil and filter change, got charged for both and later found out the filter had not been changed what would it be?

[Jeeper]

He was charging for a service that he stated he supplied but did not. Also knowingly filled out a legal document stating he had carried out the inspection.


If you took your motorcycle/car into a shop for a oil and filter change, got charged for both and later found out the filter had not been changed what would it be?

Laziness? According to above logic. But to each their own.

[awayatc]

It's not that I think wof inspector did a great job.

Just don't think it's fraud.

People that go with well looked after bikes for wof only go to get legally required sticker.
Not to find out if their bike is safe or not.

Unlike a wof for a car/truck....
There is fuck all to a bike wof check...

So I don't go/pay for a service...

I go /pay to get my sticker.

Doesn't matter what they do or do not check

[rastuscat]

The fraudulent part is filling out a form declaring that a brake test was done and signing it as true.

You either have integrity or you don't. My signature means something. Others clearly are happy to lie.

[pritch]

The fraudulent part is filling out a form declaring that a brake test was done and signing it as true.
You either have integrity or you don't. My signature means something. Others clearly are happy to lie.

The guy I normally go to has a good attitude. He doesn't fuss about silly shit, but neither does he pass faults. I have complete confidence in his work.

I had occasion to go elsewhere due to him having a health problem and saw checks done that I've never seen before. VTNZ sure as Hell never did that stuff. I suspect that none of the testers test absolutely everything unless they suspect there is a problem.

If you turn up with a late model bike that looks in good shape it may be that you get one sort of check. If you turn up with an out of shape heap of shit so loud it makes peoples' ears bleed there may well be a different - more extensive - set of checks. Sure, there's probably just the one set of checks in the book. Then there's the real world.

[awayatc]

Imagine if you would rely on your friendly wof inspector solely for your steeds safety requirements......

Once a year ( or 6 monthly for those with older bikes) somebody looks at your 2 wheeled fire chair and gives you the all clear.....

That's it?

You trust your life and limbs on the strength of of that wee sticker alone....?

Most bikers that have managed to survive thus far will most certainly have developed their own life preserving strategies around all that.

So how relevant is a wof for a serious bike rider?

Plus what is the inspector checking by riding it for 100 or so meters?

[Usarka]

VTNZ can lick my scrote.

[rastuscat]

VTNZ can lick my scrote.

Clearly you're not fussy about who does that.