Cycletread pedants!

**boomer** · 28th December 2009, 17:18

it seems you're a tad pissed, go get laid and have a beer ya queer cnut.

they failed mine cos it had no rear reflector, $25 spent upstairs and 15minutes later my wallet was significantly lighter.

rules are rules..

BTW.. i don't have a pillion seat or pegs... go the mighty suuuuuper DuKe R....!!!!!

**breakaway** · 28th December 2009, 17:40

Take it to the guy at Action Wreckers a couple of driveways down. Guy there is a top bloke and will not fuck you about.

**Hitcher** · 28th December 2009, 17:46

Originally Posted by p.dath

Also remember if they give you a WOF, and your bike fails to meet the actual WOF conditions, and then someone subsequently dies as a result, the person who gave the WOF can be convicted of negligent manslaughter.

Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

**p.dath** · 28th December 2009, 18:32

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

Perhaps your right. Certainly there have been several cases of mechanics working on cars/trucks that have been charged with negligent manslaughter.

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

So I guess I'm calling your bullshit ...

**Hitcher** · 28th December 2009, 18:35

Originally Posted by p.dath

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

**Tone165** · 28th December 2009, 20:07

I see your point, but also know that "common sense" does not appear as a defence in court very often.

It is silly...but Cycltreads has to "cover their ass" and do things by the book.

I had a problem once from Cycletreads..I emailed them with the details, and I have to say i was most pleasantly surprised with the response.

The manager there bent over backwards to put things right, without throwing blame on anyone else (the employee that did the work)

Then, last time we were over, I needed a tyre....on holiday sometimes you forget what day it is, and we rocked up at about 2pm (on Sunday) to get one...the workshop had closed, but when I told them I was heading off to South Island in the morn they found someone who would fit a tyre, re-opened the shop, sold me a $250 tyre for $218, fitted and balanced it, plus picking up a couple of missing screws and replacing those at no extra charge.

Suffice to say I am a fan of Cycletreads!

Over here we have "Team Moto" they are pretty good.....until your cheque clears and then forget it!

I have a good relationship with one of the few remaining "Family owned" bike shops, and avoid the "big boys" as much as possible.

**Taz** · 28th December 2009, 20:17

Cycletreads eh..... That's a good joke that place.

**Ixion** · 28th December 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Bullshit. A WOF certifies that a vehicle passed inspection at the time it was presented. Its condition deteriorates immediately it leaves the inspector's premises. A WOF does not mean that a vehicle is at WOF standard for the next 6 or 12 months. If there was a contingent liability, as you suggest, I believe that nobody in New Zealand in their right mind would issue one.

Correct. It is a snapshot in time. How could it be otherwise, there is no way to know how many miles the rider/driver may do in the next six months.

My BMW does not normally have a pillion seat. Or pillion pegs. It has passed many WoFs without either with no question (they generally look at the box which occupies the rear seat postion and sort of blink).

Last time I had had the pillion seat on , and then removed it prior to the WoF. When the seat was on, I had fitted pillion pegs, which I had omitted to remove. The presence of pegs for which there was no seat seemed to disconcert the tester, he looked, looked again, stepped back and had a think, and then carried on.

The law requires that there be pegs for each person the bike is capable of (legally) carrying . If there is no provision for a second seating place, no pegs are required. But note that quick detachable cowls that cover a functional seat do require pillion pegs(distinguish here from cowls with no seat under them - ie they replace the seat) . And some seats could at a pinch take two people , even though clearly only designed for one.

**boman** · 28th December 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by p.dath

Perhaps your right. Certainly there have been several cases of mechanics working on cars/trucks that have been charged with negligent manslaughter.

I would have thought that if you had wrongly certified a vehicle as being safe, and then subsequently a person was killed because you had failed to pick up that fault that sufficient liability (as in establishment of negligence) would have been established for the charge. As in, a person died as a direct result of negligence in your work.

So I guess I'm calling your bullshit ...

I know of and have seen a vehicle drive into a WOF place legal. 1 hour later it was sacked, no springs and bald tyres. When the firm gave out the WOF the car was fully compliant with the regulations. The young guys went home, remodded the car and then it wasn't legal. The WOF place refused to give them a WOF the next time based on the evidence that they would just go and modify the car back.

So I think that the WOF guarantee is only good for a limited period. As in this case, where he is going to remove the foot pegs straight away. The only way I feel that a firm can be held accountable is, if the vehicle they gave a WOF to has remained unmodded, and then a part fails causing death or injury.

**rwh** · 28th December 2009, 20:34

Originally Posted by boman

I know of and have seen a vehicle drive into a WOF place legal. 1 hour later it was sacked, no springs and bald tyres. When the firm gave out the WOF the car was fully compliant with the regulations. The young guys went home, remodded the car and then it wasn't legal. The WOF place refused to give them a WOF the next time based on the evidence that they would just go and modify the car back.

Interesting. Sensible as it may be, my understanding is that they're not allowed to fail a compliant vehicle - so there would be grounds for complaint there. Not much sympathy, though.

Richard

**red mermaid** · 28th December 2009, 20:44

Originally Posted by Hitcher

There's the thing. A WOF certifies a vehicle as having passed the necessary criteria at a certain point in time. It doesn't represent the vehicle as being "safe". You'll have to present evidence to support your claims before I withdraw my bullshit statement.

I don't about a vehicle subject to a Wof and any possible manslaughter charge, but I do know of a recent case in the Wellington area where a truck maintenance company did some work on some B-train trailers, that work was subsequently found to be defective whereby the brakes did not work.

This contributed to a crash in Ngauranga Gorge. The maintenance company was charged under the Health and Safety in Employment Act (OSH) and fined $60,000. This fine was reduced to $30,000 after an appeal.

Therefore I would suggest that a WoF issuing authority does have a degree of legal liability.

**sAsLEX** · 28th December 2009, 20:54

Originally Posted by Ixion

The law requires that there be pegs for each person the bike is capable of (legally) carrying . If there is no provision for a second seating place, no pegs are required. But note that quick detachable cowls that cover a functional seat do require pillion pegs(distinguish here from cowls with no seat under them - ie they replace the seat) . And some seats could at a pinch take two people , even though clearly only designed for one.

I have the type that replaces the seat.

But that was still not good enough.

Where did you get the bold info from?

**sunhuntin** · 28th December 2009, 21:09

Originally Posted by red mermaid

I don't about a vehicle subject to a Wof and any possible manslaughter charge, but I do know of a recent case in the Wellington area where a truck maintenance company did some work on some B-train trailers, that work was subsequently found to be defective whereby the brakes did not work.

This contributed to a crash in Ngauranga Gorge. The maintenance company was charged under the Health and Safety in Employment Act (OSH) and fined $60,000. This fine was reduced to $30,000 after an appeal.

Therefore I would suggest that a WoF issuing authority does have a degree of legal liability.

there was something similar on motorway patrol a few weeks back... truck hauling along and the wheels literally came off. it had been in for work and the nuts had been hand tightened only. the driver was found not at fault... not sure if the company faced fines or not.