Cycletread pedants!

[sAsLEX]

I'd be keeping quiet about it taking you two hours to screw in four bolts and then take them back out again.

Have to move the tools to the carport to work on the bike having no garage, the remove the seat and a couple of other fairings, then undo and redo up the four bolts, replace the fairings and the seat, then return said tools.

Smart arse.

[oldguy]

I have the type that replaces the seat.

But that was still not good enough.

Where did you get the bold info from?

you said it got a WOF at VTNZ no problem, why didn't you just go back there?
only goes to show that not all WOF/Testing stations see things the same, reguardless of how we interpret the law on what having a WOF means.

[McJim]

Is the single seat an aftermarket job or did it get built like that? With Ducati Monoposto bikes (manufactured single seat) there are no rear seats nor pillion pegs and they pass WOF fine as is however if your bike was first built with a pillion seat and pegs then it falls under the umbrella of a two seater bike.

To save trouble in future buy a Ducati Monoposto. You will never have to face disappointment again.

[Grahameeboy]

Minimised, you need those for control. No need for pillion pegs if you don't have a rear seat.

So if you have control no need to worry about catching the rear pegs

[Grahameeboy]

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.

If the shop failed to check something then the "cause" is that moment regardless of whether the damage, accident etc happened 3 days later and they would potentially be negligent...

The WOF debate becomes irelevant....because the issue is one of "Liability".

[p.dath]

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.

Consider this scenario. Your brakes don't work at all. The WOF inspector fails to pick this up. You die driving out of the WOF inspectors premise because you couldn't stop before getting hit by a truck.

Could the death of this person have been otherwise prevented if the WOF inspection had not been negligent?
Alternatively, was negligence of the WOF officer a direct and contributing factor to the death of the motorist? If the WOF inspector had done their job correctly could this death been prevented?

If you answer yes to any of these, then you can extended negligent manslaughter into many other situations.

[boman]

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

Yea well they were teenagers, and their mum came in and had a huge argument with the manager. He said he would rather lose there business than issuw WOf knowing that the car will be illegal after an hour. She reluctantly agreed. Interestingly, a car with no springs rolled and killed the occupants only a few days after this incedent. The fact that the car bounced off the road was the main factor in the crash, justifies, IMO, the WOF places stand on the matter.

[Ixion]

You must distinguish between the situation where something is clearly defective AT THE TIME OF THE WOF INSPECTION, but is passed by the tester; and something that is OK at the time of the test , but is found to be defective some time (anything from an hour to months) later.

In the first case the tester may be liable for negligence (because he was negligent - the fault was there and he passed it when defective). In the second case he is not.

So in your brake case, if the brakes didn't work when tested and the vehicle was passed, then the tester is liable. But if they worked OK when he tested them, then failed as the vehicle left the premises (hose burst without previous signs of damage; intermittent ABS fault ; etc), then he is not liable .

The tester tests the vehicle as it is at that moment in time. If he negligently passes something that is defective THEN , he may be liable . But he is not required to have a crystal ball to see the future.

[Ixion]

Yea well they were teenagers, and their mum came in and had a huge argument with the manager. He said he would rather lose there business than issuw WOf knowing that the car will be illegal after an hour. She reluctantly agreed. Interestingly, a car with no springs rolled and killed the occupants only a few days after this incedent. The fact that the car bounced off the road was the main factor in the crash, justifies, IMO, the WOF places stand on the matter.

Technically they cannot FAIL a vehicle on the "we know that it is only temporarily compliant" basis . But, like any business, they may decline to TEST the vehicle. They are perfectly within their rights to say "We do not want your business, please go away".

[p.dath]

You must distinguish between the situation where something is clearly defective AT THE TIME OF THE WOF INSPECTION, but is passed by the tester; and something that is OK at the time of the test , but is found to be defective some time (anything from an hour to months) later.

In the first case the tester may be liable for negligence (because he was negligent - the fault was there and he passed it when defective). In the second case he is not.

So in your brake case, if the brakes didn't work when tested and the vehicle was passed, then the tester is liable. But if they worked OK when he tested them, then failed as the vehicle left the premises (hose burst without previous signs of damage; intermittent ABS fault ; etc), then he is not liable .

The tester tests the vehicle as it is at that moment in time. If he negligently passes something that is defective THEN , he may be liable . But he is not required to have a crystal ball to see the future.

So pulling this back to the original splinter from the thread on this; if the bike is meant to have pillion pegs (and lets make that assumption), and the WOF tester can see that they are not present, then they could be found negligent should an accident occur as a direct result.

It would be dangerous for a WOF inspector to exercise too much discretion in an area where the rules are clear - by passing a vehicle in an area where it should fail. They could end up in jail as a result (for negligent manslaughter if they were really unlucky).

[Ixion]

Well, the tester can only make that assumption if the bike has a seat for a pillion passenger. Otherwise he would also need to fail it on not having a seat!

It is the same deal as vans, which sometimes have seats in the rear, sometimes don't. If you have rear seats, there must be seat belts for them. But if the van has no rear seats you don't have to have seat belts for the non existent seats.

EDIT

This is the VIR Manual wording (my emphasis)

1. A motorcycle is not fitted with adequate footrests:
a) for the rider, or
b) for the pillion passenger where there is a pillion passenger seating position

"seating position" being undefined ! But clearly if there is a seat there is a seating position. If there is nowhere for a pillion to rest his/her bum, then there isn't a seating position. What about, I wonder, things like the old BSA Bantam that had a flat luggage carrier on the rear mudguard where the pillion seat would normally be . But had no pillion footrests as standard. It was quite possible to carry a pillion seated on that carrier. So would that be a "seating position" ?

[sAsLEX]

So pulling this back to the original splinter from the thread on this; if the bike is meant to have pillion pegs (and lets make that assumption), and the WOF tester can see that they are not present, then they could be found negligent should an accident occur as a direct result.

It would be dangerous for a WOF inspector to exercise too much discretion in an area where the rules are clear - by passing a vehicle in an area where it should fail. They could end up in jail as a result (for negligent manslaughter if they were really unlucky).

How could an accident occur due to lack of pillion pegs on a bike without a rear seat?

[davebullet]

Hang on... if your vehicle fails a WOF, are you legally allowed to drive / ride it home anyway?

Re the rear footpegs... Ixion has your answer. Strap some huge box or other contraption onto the back where the pillion seat would normally go. Unless your pillion is a daddy long legs, no one could sit on the said contraption hence the bike is not setup to take a pillion.

Of course they could fail it for an unsafe load or something similar.

Seriously... do you have any paperwork from previous WOFs where something like no rear pegs was noted, that you can use for consistency?

Failing that, the law is the law and if Cycletreads are applying it, and VTNZ did not, you cannot blame Cycletreads.

[marty]

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

Really? Several? In NZ? Links please.

[sunhuntin]

It was quite possible to carry a pillion seated on that carrier. So would that be a "seating position" ?

what about the scooter riders who seem to think that, yes, we can fit two people on this bike, and no, her legs cannot reach the "floor" of the step through, so yes, they are dangling in mid air with only strappy sandals between them and a life time of stumpy feet. [see it 1000 times, mostly high school age, though i did know a mother who insisted on taking her daughter to school in this fashion. terribly unsafe for the kid... hardly anything to sit on and nothing to brace her feet on.