13-02-2019, 06:26 PM
These types of organisations seem the same world over, very vague rules open to interpretation and on the day it all seems to come down to the person you end up talking to as what they happen to think is right and will allow. And god help you if you get one of the officious little ******* who will immediately get their backs up if you ever question them.
I get it with my MGB which doesn't have sun visors fitted. It gets mentioned in the WOFs sometimes. I point out to them the rule actually says if reasonable and practical:
1. A vehicle other than of class LE must be fitted with a sun visor for the driver’s use if it is reasonable and practicable to do so (Note 1).
Out of interest, and it took me 5 minutes of searching to find it, a class LE vehicle seems to be a 3 wheel half bike trike thing.
I say it's not reasonable or practical since the bloody things were fitted late in MGB production as an afterthought and are a pain in the neck. They fall down more often than not and even when not falling down block vision more than helping it. I had fitted them originally then removed them. I find it far more reasonable and practical to wear a brimmed hat and sunglasses. Luckily the place I go to now accepts that and let me get away with it.
I find the legislation seems to be written in a way that's hard to follow and deliberately vague in places. Lots of cross references, notes and use of words like 'reasonable' and 'practical' with no indication of who gets to say what that is. I bet in the case of an insurance claim the insurance company will claim it's them!
Interestingly the agency behind it all, NZTA, is in a right mess. Recently the chief exec and three directors all resigned. Something like 20000 WOF checks were found to have been done badly and need to be redone. It seems there has been no checking that the certifiers have been doing what they should be and they've know about this for a while and done nothing about it.
It worries me, with a car nearing completion, that there is going to be a backlash and everything is going to get tightened up to the point trying to get a (slightly - but period correct) modified car through might be a mission!
Simon
I get it with my MGB which doesn't have sun visors fitted. It gets mentioned in the WOFs sometimes. I point out to them the rule actually says if reasonable and practical:
1. A vehicle other than of class LE must be fitted with a sun visor for the driver’s use if it is reasonable and practicable to do so (Note 1).
Out of interest, and it took me 5 minutes of searching to find it, a class LE vehicle seems to be a 3 wheel half bike trike thing.
I say it's not reasonable or practical since the bloody things were fitted late in MGB production as an afterthought and are a pain in the neck. They fall down more often than not and even when not falling down block vision more than helping it. I had fitted them originally then removed them. I find it far more reasonable and practical to wear a brimmed hat and sunglasses. Luckily the place I go to now accepts that and let me get away with it.
I find the legislation seems to be written in a way that's hard to follow and deliberately vague in places. Lots of cross references, notes and use of words like 'reasonable' and 'practical' with no indication of who gets to say what that is. I bet in the case of an insurance claim the insurance company will claim it's them!
Interestingly the agency behind it all, NZTA, is in a right mess. Recently the chief exec and three directors all resigned. Something like 20000 WOF checks were found to have been done badly and need to be redone. It seems there has been no checking that the certifiers have been doing what they should be and they've know about this for a while and done nothing about it.
It worries me, with a car nearing completion, that there is going to be a backlash and everything is going to get tightened up to the point trying to get a (slightly - but period correct) modified car through might be a mission!
Simon