Oh, no, I crashed - and apparently I am at fault...?

**MIZXR** · 29th August 2008, 18:52

[/QUOTE=Katman]The 'brake test' is carried out during the road test (which is an integral part of the inspection) performed by the WOF inspector.[/QUOTE]

A "road test" is NOT a integral part of the inspection = It's only an opinion of someone who sweep floors in a garage for so many years.
feel free to find something in writing so I can ask my testing stations why they use testing devices instead of just guessing.

Oh wait you'd be the sort who said tyres with 2mm would need replacing judging on your amazing inhuman ability to assess and measure without using a tool.

When in the 30's, you think your opinion is more accurate than a machine? Sorry but I live in a city no way in hell I would let anybody drive my vehicles to gauge if it was safe. I can't believe anybody would take that risk.

Originally Posted by Motu

Then insist on it!
Nothing I like better than a fang on some else's bike with some good hard emergency breaking thrown in.

And that's a good reason why.

**Katman** · 29th August 2008, 19:04

Originally Posted by MIZXR

........blah, blah, blah..............

A road test is an integral part of a WOF inspection. There are a number of things that can't be checked without one. The testing stations that choose not to perform a road test are just soft cocks who have become scared of motorcyclists who say "not fuckin' likely, mate". As I've said, any motorcyclist that won't allowed me to ride their bike can find another issuing authority.

It is a mandatory requirement that any issunig authority has an area that they can test the stopping distance of the brakes from 30kph.

**Ixion** · 29th August 2008, 19:07

I have a simple test for this. "Yeah sure mate. No electric leg (or, the leccy starter doesn't work). If y' can start it go for it"

I figure if they can start a big bike without an electric leg, then they probably know what they're about.

Amazing how many bike WoF testers have never ridden anything bigger than a scooter.

**sinned** · 29th August 2008, 19:46

Originally Posted by niero

Should have given up while you were ahead.

be careful and learn from my mistakes

good riding everyone

Originally Posted by dipshit

niero is probably just talking shit. More than likely he was caning it away from the lights to keep up with his boy-racer mate in the WRX.

Originally Posted by Griffin

Geez this threads taken off since I went to sit down for dinner... personally - after reading all this drivel, Id like to say 'good on ya Niero for stepping up and accepting that you are responsible for this wee learning curve fuck up'.

Niero there is one thing you can learn from this: if you tell KB about a cock up you made the best thing to do is not feed it with more posts - it will be all down hill. Thanks for the humour guys - it has been a good after dinner read.

**Matt_TG** · 29th August 2008, 20:13

Originally Posted by Katman

It is a mandatory requirement that any issunig authority has an area that they can test the stopping distance of the brakes from 30kph.

I've always used On Road for my car and bike WOF's.

They have never "road tested" anything apart from the ride from one end of the shed to the other. Maybe the roller thing with dials tell them whether your brakes will stop the bike at 30km/h? I guess it must do or they better start shutting them down aye.

**Ixion** · 29th August 2008, 20:18

or most AVIs the "ride from one end of the she dto the other" is sufficient to check that the brakes pass. Mainly because the brake performance required for a WoF is so ludicrously small that it would be almost impossible for a modern bike to fail, unless the brake was completely inoperative (eg, no hydraulic hose). Even the old 1950s cast iron ornaments could pass it.

Seriously, is there ANYONE who doubts their (or their bikes) ability to stop in 7 metres from 30kph. That's not much faster than walking pace.

**Mom** · 29th August 2008, 20:22

You are at fault. There is no "grey area" in law at all.

No matter the circumstances, no matter the appalling driving from them in front at all. No matter anything, you failed to stop! IIRC it is $70 infringement offence, no record, no shame. Pay and walk away! (sorry)

Unfair? YES sometimes it really is unfair. Insurance fallout can be immense!

Try as you might you do everything right and some arse makes it impossible to stop, unless of course you are travelling at 2 kmph, TUI anyone? Katman disagrees with this notion, we should have been traveling at 1.5kmph on the open road to have avoided this accident!

I have spoken to cops that shake their head and give the $70 ooopps ticket, then ticket the C*&T that caused the pile up with careless, causing injury

My response was brought up in court when one of the 5 decided to defend his $70 ticket. What a dick! Yelling is for the time it happenes.

I got out the car and abused the friggen daylights out of the old farker that stopped in the middle of the road around a blind corner, that caused the ongoing mayhem behind him. I had a 7 week old baby in the back of my car, I was NBM for surgery and as the car goes round a corner all I can see is mayhem! I was not polite to this old guy at all, I spent many hours in an A&E department getting my neck looked at, wore a rigid neck brace for weeks, and was refused the surgery I was needing for another couple of months

Where is the teeth grating icon at times like these? We paid the fine, we failed to stop in the distance available. Made no difference the stopping was impossible, we still got a fine.

There is no defense that I am aware of to get out of being at fault if you rear end/collide with from behind another road user. What you need to do is ensure the driver up front gets done for his/her careless actions

You pay the fine, and try better to travel at 1.5kmph in future to avoid these situations...LOL

**Matt_TG** · 29th August 2008, 20:22

Yeah 7 metres at 30km/h is pretty do-able.

However, 30km/h walking pace? Bloody hell, try running at 30 km/h. The treadmill at the gym goes to about 17, that's pretty full on! Not knocking what you said, I get what you mean though

**Katman** · 29th August 2008, 20:23

Originally Posted by Matt_TG

They have never "road tested" anything apart from the ride from one end of the shed to the other.

Yeap, that sounds like On Road.

**Katman** · 29th August 2008, 20:25

Originally Posted by Mom

Katman disagrees with this notion, we should have been traveling at 1.5kmph on the open road to have avoided this accident!

Are you serious?

**Ixion** · 29th August 2008, 20:33

Interesting. Checking the VIRM manual, I notice that the requirement is the same for front and rear brakes (50%). But pre 1977 does not need a front brake. I did not realise it was a s late as that.

And the rule applying to separate wheels gives an advantage to coupled brakes.

Not that it really matters , because any bike dshould be able to laugh at the requirement.

**Mom** · 29th August 2008, 20:39

Originally Posted by Katman

Are you serious?

Yes, I dont see too much grey in your attitude to these accident situations, or any for that matter. We should have been able to avoid this.

Actually I will test you here. Has to be our fault eh?

Open road, 100k speed limit. Husband driving reasonably sick wife to hospital for an operation. They had spent the previous day in the hospital just for the hell of it. She is Nil By Mouth in preparation for surgery that morning. There is a 7 week old baby in the back of the car. This is a true story BTW.

Doubt the car was travelling more than 80kmph, cruise around a tightish lefthand blind bend to be faced with cars everywhere!
Failed attempt to stop resulted in a mild tap to the car infront of us. As I (the sick wife) was about to get out of the car and bearing in mind this was a blind corner, we got hammered by a car from behind!

All accidents are the result of the driver/riders negligence though.

Gospel according to Katman.