Changes to WoF system announced [Archive]

Madness

27th January 2013, 12:02

I foresee the inspection sites to be testing harder than previously ... tyres/brake pads etc ... would need to be able to last untill the next WoF check.

ANY doubt about ANY part lasting the distance would get a fail.

As per usual ... the tests only show it's condition ... at the time of the test.

It will still be the drivers responsibility to ensure their vehicle is safe to operate.

That isn't going to change unless the inspectors get issued with a crystal ball. How will they know how many K's the vehicle is going to travel in the next 12 months?

Sucks if you own a VTNZ franchise, or similar. Still, it's progress and apparently all progress is good :facepalm:

actungbaby

27th January 2013, 12:04

NZ Herald article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861731

about time what about bikes, you take them and the pass evertime anyway

Apart from lights working and the police and ticket on this anyway or warn esp know day time running:Police:

Marmoot

27th January 2013, 12:07

He said the changes brought New Zealand into line with other countries.

What it really meant is the changes brought us backwards into the line with other undeveloped countries, such as Australia where fitness comes into the discretion/opinion of the roadside inspecting police (assumed to be the expert of all vehicle makes/models and road safety elements) and the relationship you have with him/her at the time.

Not to mention trusting each and every car users to know when to change bad tyres.

FJRider

27th January 2013, 12:15

That isn't going to change unless the inspectors get issued with a crystal ball. How will they know how many K's the vehicle is going to travel in the next 12 months?

Sucks if you own a VTNZ franchise, or similar. Still, it's progress and apparently all progress is good :facepalm:

Most go on km's done since the last WoF ... as a guide to expected travel ... Small garages where the WoF is the bread and butter might notice a drop off in business.

On the bright side ... those getting WoF related traffic infringement notices ... will come under closer scrutiny. And TPTB have then the option of issuing a 3 month (maybe even less) WoF requirement (Boy racers come to mind)

actungbaby

27th January 2013, 12:27

What it really meant is the changes brought us backwards into the line with other undeveloped countries, such as Australia where fitness comes into the discretion/opinion of the roadside inspecting police (assumed to be the expert of all vehicle makes/models and road safety elements) and the relationship you have with him/her at the time.

Not to mention trusting each and every car users to know when to change bad tyres.

Marmoot you tail light out .. no it isnint sound breaking glass opps know it is..or actually breaking plastic:Police:

manxkiwi

27th January 2013, 12:36

What it really meant is the changes brought us backwards into the line with other undeveloped countries, such as Australia .

You mean the rest of the world? I think 6 monthly is too often and revenue gathering. A WOF only checks a few basic things. It'll never guarantee that something won't fail.

I think the people you need to worry about are the ones who don't have warrants full stop!

No test can allow for a vehicle doing 50,000k in 6 months versus 500k can it?

It's basically up to the vehicle owner to keep on top of things. So Lord help us all!!

FJRider

27th January 2013, 12:41

Not to mention trusting each and every car users to know when to change bad tyres.

And not to mention the HEAVIER fines for being found by :Police: (roadside) with a vehicle not up to WoF standard. :shit: (even if the WoF sticker is up to date) ... :facepalm:

ALL in the interest of cost saving to the motorists ... right .. ??? :scratch: <_<

tigertim20

27th January 2013, 12:42

I foresee the inspection sites to be testing harder than previously ... tyres/brake pads etc ... would need to be able to last untill the next WoF check.

ANY doubt about ANY part lasting the distance would get a fail.

.

Nope.

A WOF is an ON THE SPOT check - they can RECOMMEND you replace a tyre/brake pad etc etc before the next WOF, however, if it meets the required specifications AT THE TIME of inspection, then it is a pass, end of story. WOF issuers are protected in the fine print if you read it all clearly enough, so there isnt any real validity to the argument of them getting 'stricter' to save their own bacon either.

Does it mention when these changes will come in?

bosslady

27th January 2013, 12:42

what does that mean for my little 2000 ford laser first registered mid Oct 2000? I just got a warrant for it a few days ago.

Ocean1

27th January 2013, 12:51

You mean the rest of the world? I think 6 monthly is too often and revenue gathering.

It's another half-arsed policy change trying to ballance the motoring industry interests against commercial common sense.

They should have abandoned the whole system, a WOF "service" is about as useful to the fleet as a bunch of stable hands.

FJRider

27th January 2013, 12:55

Nope.

A WOF is an ON THE SPOT check - they can RECOMMEND you replace a tyre/brake pad etc etc before the next WOF, however, if it meets the required specifications AT THE TIME of inspection, then it is a pass, end of story. WOF issuers are protected in the fine print if you read it all clearly enough, so there isnt any real validity to the argument of them getting 'stricter' to save their own bacon either.

Does it mention when these changes will come in?

There is a large variance in what some testers will pass fail now. Those keen to fail now ... wont get easier on the test. Having ANY "validity" to be harder (or not) .. wont change their opinions ... if they (the tester) think it required.

It will be interesting to see if the number of items tested on a vehicle will be increased as well.

frogfeaturesFZR

27th January 2013, 12:58

what does that mean for my little 2000 ford laser first registered mid Oct 2000? I just got a warrant for it a few days ago.

Still WOF every 6 months, same as previously

bogan

27th January 2013, 13:10

This bit lost any respect I had for MTAs side of the argument.

He dismissed Government claims that few accidents are caused by vehicle defects and that the six-monthly WOF are therefore an unnecessary expense.

"Take a typical situation where a child runs out in front of your car. Whether or not that child gets killed may well depend on the state of your vehicle's brakes and shock absorbers,'' he said.

a) scaremongering
b) WOF checks only do a visual check of your suspension, and some only do a by feel check of the brakes operation
c) his argument doesn't address the governments claims at all

what does that mean for my little 2000 ford laser first registered mid Oct 2000? I just got a warrant for it a few days ago.

* vehicles which are more than three years old and first registered after 1 January 2000 will require annual inspections.

So that will be annually.

Katman

27th January 2013, 13:19

That isn't going to change unless the inspectors get issued with a crystal ball. How will they know how many K's the vehicle is going to travel in the next 12 months?

Exactly. As it stands, if a tyre tread measures 1.6mm it is a pass. (And according to NZTA the inspector doesn't even have the right to suggest to the owner that it may not pass it's next inspection).

SNF

27th January 2013, 14:04

nosebleed

27th January 2013, 14:25

This bit lost any respect I had for MTAs side of the argument.

a) scaremongering
b) WOF checks only do a visual check of your suspension, and some only do a by feel check of the brakes operation
c) his argument doesn't address the governments claims at all

* vehicles which are more than three years old and first registered after 1 January 2000 will require annual inspections.

So that will be annually.

Despite the MTA's previous scaremongering bullshit (read; The Greg Murphy tv ad's) to be fair to them that quote was not attributible to them.
It came from that rampaging fucktard Clive Matthew-Wilson

Interesting to see that "child v car" is a typical kiwi road incident

bogan

27th January 2013, 14:27

So still 6 months for both my vehicles, car = 24, bike = 25. I don't agree with 1 year for some of 13 year old vehicles - some of the crap you look at and wonder how its still on the road. Just hope they don't get a power trip and decide all old vehicles are unsafe and try to banish them.

Can just see it now, vehicles produced before 2000 are failing wof checks twice as often on average :bleh: Unfortuneatly that could be just the calims we see in a few years :facepalm:

Zedder

27th January 2013, 14:43

Does it mention when these changes will come in?

No, but other sources point to 2014.

tigertim20

27th January 2013, 15:49

There is a large variance in what some testers will pass fail now. Those keen to fail now ... wont get easier on the test. Having ANY "validity" to be harder (or not) .. wont change their opinions ... if they (the tester) think it required.

.They cannot fail an item if it meets specs, end of story. if you are retarded enough to not know how to check your vehicle over yourself, and argue if you know you are being screwed over then thats your own fault.

I have twice had a wof inspector try to fail items I knew to be legit - I demanded I speak to their supervisor, and discussed the requirements with them, and both times my wof was issued - along with a sheepish apology.
there is no 'discretion' about whether at item should be passed or failed if it is 'borderline' or close to, it either meets specs and passes or it doesnt. If you think youre getting screwed, ARGUE!

The only possibility is that smaller garages may try to bullshit people and claim that certain work needs to be done - which is no different than the current state of affairs - a situation that can be avoided by taking the initiative in understanding, and becoming well versed in the legal requirements etc of your vehicle.

* vehicles which are more than three years old and first registered after 1 January 2000 will require annual inspections.

So that will be annually.
untill next year when it will be 6 monthly - as it will be over 13 years old

Hitcher

27th January 2013, 15:52

I support the changes. Anybody who needs a sticker to tell them their vehicle is "safe" shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one. It's only "safe" at the time it's tested. A regulator has no control over what happens between inspections. I hope that the Police start throwing the book harder at people who they catch in non-compliant vehicles.

I also think that there should be compulsory third-party insurance. A related other story.

bogan

27th January 2013, 15:55

untill next year when it will be 6 monthly - as it will be over 13 years old

Is it over 13 years old, or is the cutoff always 2000? I read it as the later, 13 years is a strange number if its the former...

bosslady

27th January 2013, 16:07

I'm not going to lie. When it comes to cars I DO rely on my wof to pick up on shit. Does that mean I'm retarded? lazy even? yea probably, I'm pretty useless however what's most unfortunate is the fact that there's folks out there worse than me :shit:

I'd like to see them funding and advertising classes where clueless people like me can learn about car maintenance and shit. Some highschools do community education classes but they don't advertise really, cost $$ of course and seem few and far between these days..

Ocean1

27th January 2013, 16:10

I support the changes. Anybody who needs a sticker to tell them their vehicle is "safe" shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one.

Vehicles are much safer than they were just a decade ago, they're almost an order of magnitude safer than they were in the 70's. They're simply better designed, but they're also much more sophistocated. I doubt your average corner garage is capable of issuing a WoF that represents the intended criteria. In fact I'd be surprised if the manufacturer's principal dealer got it all correct.

And even if they did the difference it makes to road injuries and fatalities is small enough that comparitive studies can't discriminate between data from states that do require regular basic checks and those that don't. Knowing all this, most people close their minds to the evidence and say... But... we want WoFs anyway. You can lead a donky to water but you can't stitch it in a brick... no... ah fuckit, where's me drink?

Marmoot

27th January 2013, 16:11

No test can allow for a vehicle doing 50,000k in 6 months versus 500k can it?

It is illegal to do 500k kms in 6 months, because it averages 114.15 kph.

FJRider

27th January 2013, 16:17

They cannot fail an item if it meets specs, end of story. if you are retarded enough to not know how to check your vehicle over yourself, and argue if you know you are being screwed over then thats your own fault.

I have twice had a wof inspector try to fail items I knew to be legit - I demanded I speak to their supervisor, and discussed the requirements with them, and both times my wof was issued - along with a sheepish apology.
there is no 'discretion' about whether at item should be passed or failed if it is 'borderline' or close to, it either meets specs and passes or it doesnt. If you think youre getting screwed, ARGUE!

The only possibility is that smaller garages may try to bullshit people and claim that certain work needs to be done - which is no different than the current state of affairs - a situation that can be avoided by taking the initiative in understanding, and becoming well versed in the legal requirements etc of your vehicle.

untill next year when it will be 6 monthly - as it will be over 13 years old

Or plan B ... on the way home from the testing station after a fail ... biff it in the tide and claim insurance ... done.

tigertim20

27th January 2013, 16:20

Is it over 13 years old, or is the cutoff always 2000? I read it as the later, 13 years is a strange number if its the former...

good question - Im not sure, it left it a little open to interpretation (or I didnt read it correctly - possibly the latter!)
I thought 13 seemed odd, then I thought New car only needs one after three years, then ten annual ones after that = 13 years?

I guess we will find out in due course

DEATH_INC.

27th January 2013, 17:12

I support the changes. Anybody who needs a sticker to tell them their vehicle is "safe" shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one.
You've hit the nail on the head right there. Too many thick people are allowed to own cars (and some bike riders too).
Anyone who thinks the longer wof span is a good idea should come and sit in our warrant bay for a day and see some of the shit driving around on the roads, and meet the owners who think that bald tyres/worn brake pads/worn steering parts etc etc are fine to drive around on and we are just trying to put one over them.

It is f*cken stupid.

schrodingers cat

27th January 2013, 17:25

And not to mention the HEAVIER fines for being found by police (roadside) with a vehicle not up to WoF standard. (even if the WoF sticker is up to date) ...

WOF sticker only ever ment the vehicle complied AT THE TIME OF TESTING.
Throws the responsibility back on the owner I would have thought.
Oh, but I forgot - we don't like taking responsibiliy do we?

BMWST?

27th January 2013, 17:29

i dont hink it will change a thing,the unsafe cars now will still be unsafe car in the future,

FJRider

27th January 2013, 17:34

WOF sticker only ever ment the vehicle complied AT THE TIME OF TESTING.
Throws the responsibility back on the owner I would have thought.
Oh, but I forgot - we don't like taking responsibiliy do we?

That is what I alluded to in my post ... it always was the responsibility of the driver to ensure the vehicle they operated ... was up to standard. The sticker proves nothing.

Just a pity more didn't understand that ...

bluninja

27th January 2013, 17:46

I'm happy with this system....had it in the UK and it worked fine......take the car for it's annual service and WOF(MOT) at same time. Of course if you never service your vehicle and only fix things when it breaks, or you are no longer allowed to drive it, then how do you legislate against that?

Over here if I fail a WOF I've got a month to get it fixed and then just return for a free recheck...in other places, you take your broken shit to a test and they fail it and make you pay a retest fee. There's no financial incentive to make sure the car passes the WOF (ie meets the basic requirements).

Kickaha

27th January 2013, 17:48

I support the changes. Anybody who needs a sticker to tell them their vehicle is "safe" shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one.
Thats 50% of the driving public parked up then

Anyone who thinks the longer wof span is a good idea should come and sit in our warrant bay for a day and see some of the shit driving around on the roads,
I think it's one of those things that unless you've seen it you're unlikely to believe it

bogan

27th January 2013, 18:00

Over here if I fail a WOF I've got a month to get it fixed and then just return for a free recheck...in other places, you take your broken shit to a test and they fail it and make you pay a retest fee. There's no financial incentive to make sure the car passes the WOF (ie meets the basic requirements).

Thats a good point, creates a reliance on the testing station to tell them what needs fixing, rather than having the owner try and get everything right before testing.

caspernz

27th January 2013, 18:56

In practical terms it will change the current situation very little, the number of crappy cars or poorly maintained cars will stay about the same...just the boy racers won't have to take their car to WOF passable condition twice a year now? :innocent:

Berg

27th January 2013, 19:42

And anyway, a huge percentage of the really shit vehicles out there don't have a WOF anyway. This only affects the more honest amongst us.
A larger worry to me is the fact a testing stn will test a fully loaded log truck (new regs require load or simulated load for brake testing) then cannot do a damn thing when it fails on 6 from 8 brakes. They are required to watch said fully loaded log truck leave, go and finish its day then go to a workshop for repair. I hope that scares the crap out of more than just me.

GingerMidget

27th January 2013, 20:20

Its a very grey area at the moment. My car, though registered as a 1998, was first registered in 06. Does that mean I can yearly wofs? I hope not, because its starting to show its age, and despite servicing every 6 months, little things keep popping up.

Speaking from a personal point of view, where is that going to leave staff of testing agents? Out of the job I'm thinking! Despite some of the mouth breathers and knuckle draggers I quite like my job. I'm waiting for more details with bated breath. I can't give an opinion yet as to wether its a good idea or not, because I don't have enough details to go by yet.

98tls

27th January 2013, 20:33

i dont hink it will change a thing,the unsafe cars now will still be unsafe car in the future,

About it.We have a wee 97 Mitsi hatch that i use to go to work/shopping hack etc,just clicked over 34,000 kms:laugh:

ducatilover

27th January 2013, 21:34

Just abolish the system altogether and introduce road side testing.

That'll be fun :Punk:

nerrrd

28th January 2013, 08:40

What's to stop the testers from just charging twice as much for the same test (since they would be doing roughly half as many warrants)? The people with 13 year old cars would pay twice as much, which might make up for the people with 3 year old cars paying nothing. Garages could still undercut the main testing stations as they do now but get more per test. Then the motorist on average saves nothing (except maybe a bit of time...).

Competition might prevent that, I suppose.

I don't really see what the problem was with the existing system. Have they perhaps been head-hunting too many policy advisors from overseas who are wondering why they have to get their brand new BMW/Audis/Mercs checked every six months?

manxkiwi

28th January 2013, 10:19

It is illegal to do 500k kms in 6 months, because it averages 114.15 kph.

50 thousand not 500 thousand. Equals 11.38kph. Just to be pedantic! He he.

Madness

28th January 2013, 10:38

I can't give an opinion yet as to wether its a good idea or not, because I don't have enough details to go by yet know wether these changes will see me made redundant.

Fairy nuff. Good luck with that!

willytheekid

28th January 2013, 11:06

bogan

28th January 2013, 11:32

...its about corporate money...not YOUR safety!

Obviously; WOFs have always been more about the former than the latter, why should the new laws change any of that?

Scuba_Steve

28th January 2013, 11:33

I think your all missing the point

Think of the MONEY this will save for "maintaining" corporate fleets!! <_<

...its about corporate money...not YOUR safety!

(Honestly...look WHO benefits from this new law...and then look WHO pushed for this law change...link?...sure is!)

You're right the only ones benefiting here are corporates. Fleets get it cheaper, MTA keeps their cash cow VTNZ (watch the prices increase to cover the shortfall). The only ones here not getting a good deal is the avg person. This is probably the worst option they could've picked

huff3r

28th January 2013, 12:39

(Honestly...look WHO benefits from this new law...and then look WHO pushed for this law change...link?...sure is!)

Look who is disadvantaged, and then look who pushed so hard against it! The MTA argued against it purely because they were scared of the affect on their profits!

pzkpfw

28th January 2013, 13:55

Are people in the countries with 1 year checks campaigning to shift to a 6 month system like New Zealand?

R650R

28th January 2013, 14:42

But no one here ever campaigned to change our old system either. Political jobsworths making change for the sake of it and for their big business buddies.

And as for the English system, well they have road salt which shortens the life of the chassis so they don't have many old shitters on the road like we do. So what about a cruddy early nineties japper that was imported after 2000???

So if you recently purchased a new vehicle does your current wof expire or is it automatically 3 years from initial date... Smashed mine off in the forest witha rockstrike somewhere other day damnit, never park it in town so not a worry at moment.

Some of us can check our vehicles properly but how many of us can honestly say we get underneath and have a real decent nosey about? Testing station picked up perished rubber boots on steering rack once, while not a wof issue itself the guy told me it would turn into an expensive problem if not fixed soon. Its little things like that which make the current system ok to me. Just wait for the first highspeed crash on the motorway when some highflying corporate salesman has a tyre blowout and plays ping pong on the motorway. Something I saw often in UK with their longer check periods...
A mate of mine was a rep for a packaging company, the kms and hours driving he did in commodore SV6 would have seen a truck driver arrested. Can asure you he never climbed under that wagon or did any thorough checks on it whilst driving it like he stole it.

actungbaby

28th January 2013, 14:52

But no one here ever campaigned to change our old system either. Political jobsworths making change for the sake of it and for their big business buddies.

And as for the English system, well they have road salt which shortens the life of the chassis so they don't have many old shitters on the road like we do. So what about a cruddy early nineties japper that was imported after 2000???

I think yuor getting tad carried away car not going to fall to pieces my crappy mx5 car was

Awsome car nothing wrong with in fact alot better than alot those crappy 4 wheel drive

Lorrys people seem to be obessed with that tip over.

its for cars 13 years and under that makes year 2000 not 1990

So if you recently purchased a new vehicle does your current wof expire or is it automatically 3 years from initial date... Smashed mine off in the forest witha rockstrike somewhere other day damnit, never park it in town so not a worry at moment.

Some of us can check our vehicles properly but how many of us can honestly say we get underneath and have a real decent nosey about? Testing station picked up perished rubber

For new vechiles its been 1 year warrent for decades where have you been

boots on steering rack once, while not a wof issue itself the guy told me it would turn into an expensive problem if not fixed soon. Its little things like that which make the current system ok to me. Just wait for the first highspeed crash on the motorway when some highflying corporate salesman has a tyre blowout and plays ping pong on the motorway. Something I saw often in UK with their longer check periods...
A mate of mine was a rep for a packaging company, the kms and hours driving he did in commodore SV6 would have seen a truck driver arrested. Can asure you he never climbed under that wagon or did any thorough checks on it whilst driving it like he stole it.

Well if you stubid engough to drive like that all power too you 6 month warrent cant change that

imdying

28th January 2013, 15:24

Anybody who needs a sticker to tell them their vehicle is "safe" shouldn't be allowed to own or operate one.Not much hair, what's there is gray, so I assume you're old? Your mother, assuming she is still with us, is probably pretty old too?

Get her out in the driveway to see if her Suzuki Swift has cracks in the front chassis member will you. After she's raised her eye brows, she'll probably want to know what a front wotsit member is and how on earth she should get under there to inspect it.

Then tell her because if she's not prepared to conduct proper safety checks personally, she shouldn't be driving. Once she has finished laughing her arse off, maybe she can knock some sense into you? I don't see how little old ladies etc can rely on any other system other than a WOF to periodically check the safety of their vehicles? Some have restricted mobility, even the easy things such as bending over to check their tyres aren't bald is an issue.

I personally don't want to live in a New Zealand where personal transport is restricted to people who're competent and able bodied enough to check their own vehicles. Good luck with that.

huff3r

28th January 2013, 16:06

Not much hair, what's there is gray, so I assume you're old? Your mother, assuming she is still with us, is probably pretty old too?

Get her out in the driveway to see if her Suzuki Swift has cracks in the front chassis member will you. After she's raised her eye brows, she'll probably want to know what a front wotsit member is and how on earth she should get under there to inspect it.

Then tell her because if she's not prepared to conduct proper safety checks personally, she shouldn't be driving. Once she has finished laughing her arse off, maybe she can knock some sense into you? I don't see how little old ladies etc can rely on any other system other than a WOF to periodically check the safety of their vehicles? Some have restricted mobility, even the easy things such as bending over to check their tyres aren't bald is an issue.

I personally don't want to live in a New Zealand where personal transport is restricted to people who're competent and able bodied enough to check their own vehicles. Good luck with that.

Little old ladies should be servicing their vehicles regularly, not hard for a garage to have a quick looksie while they are changing the oil is it? If people can't check their cars, then it's not hard for them to get someone else to! Why rely on a legal requirement to get your vehicle checked, it should be checked regularly regardless.

unstuck

28th January 2013, 16:22

I thought perished steering boots would of been a WOF fail.:blink:

R650R

28th January 2013, 16:24

Well if you stubid engough to drive like that all power too you 6 month warrent cant change that

If your going to reply with a quote do it properly instead of inserting your blurb inside mine...

Just remember that tired sales rep with a distracting stomach ulcer might be about to slide across your side of the road on the next tarbleed wet corner... Anyone whose worked for a big company know they will defer any maintanance and expenses for as long as they can...

As for the old lady comment above, yep few of them can afford the basics let alone car servicing and many wouldn't know a brake/steering fluid leak from an oil leak on the driveway...

Another thing in general about the stats that only 2.6% in crashes have defects... wonder if thats because the ones that didn't have defects got them fixed because of a recent wof failure???

imdying

28th January 2013, 16:40

Little old ladies should be servicing their vehicles regularly, not hard for a garage to have a quick looksie while they are changing the oil is it? If people can't check their cars, then it's not hard for them to get someone else to! Why rely on a legal requirement to get your vehicle checked, it should be checked regularly regardless.Not hard, but it's time they'll have charge for. A quick looksie... tell me again what that includes? You've no idea of course, because that could mean anything. Given that, how about we outline a standard of what should be checked? Hey I know, let's call it a warrant of fitness.

Why rely on a legal requirement? Because otherwise I'll jut check my vehicle myself, when and if it suits. Am I qualified to do that? Maybe.. maybe not... who would ever know? Will when it suits be once a week or once a decade? Who knows... but does not matter, I'm under no obligation. Given that, how about we outline a schedule for people to follow? Hey I know, let's call it a warrant of fitness.

bogan

28th January 2013, 16:49

Another thing in general about the stats that only 2.6% in crashes have defects... wonder if thats because the ones that didn't have defects got them fixed because of a recent wof failure???

Can't remember where I read it, but those sort of numbers are pretty common across all the European fleets too, which generally have yearly checks or less frequently.

I think its quite telling how the only evidence in favor of frequent checks is either hypothetical or anecdotal.

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 17:02

only 2.6% in crashes have defects... wonder if thats because the ones that didn't have defects got them fixed because of a recent wof failure???

I doubt it, the last time I looked there were more than 2.6% of defective cars that hadn't crashed.

Obviously WoFs cause crashes.

FJRider

28th January 2013, 17:14

Why rely on a legal requirement? Because otherwise I'll jut check my vehicle myself, when and if it suits. Am I qualified to do that? Maybe.. maybe not... who would ever know? Will when it suits be once a week or once a decade? Who knows... but does not matter, I'm under no obligation. Given that, how about we outline a schedule for people to follow? Hey I know, let's call it a warrant of fitness.

Maybe YOU can ... and qualified to do it too.

But Fast food businesses make a fortune from people that can't ... or too fucking lazy to cook. You think THOSE people will check their vehicles on a regular basis ... if at all. They may whinge at the cost ... but know they will have to pay somebody to check it ...

A regular ... legally required ... vehicle test, is a fair (for all) method. Not perfect ... but an option we can live with. They could come up with a worse system.

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 17:46

Little old ladies should be servicing their vehicles regularly, not hard for a garage to have a quick looksie while they are changing the oil is it? If people can't check their cars, then it's not hard for them to get someone else to! Why rely on a legal requirement to get your vehicle checked, it should be checked regularly regardless.
BECAUSE...read My earlier post.
MANY people in this dumb arse country will NOT change a bald tyre/worn out steering part/brake pads/disk etc etc unless they HAVE to. I see this EVERY day (that I'm at work) and I'll bet everyone else that has anything to do with wofs does too....
Look at how many come in at the end of the 28 days grace period to get a recheck, after failing on stuff and still driving around on it for a month.
That's why.

BTW, I've personally seen a Mitsi with a completely shot steering component at only 40,000 k's, about 6 months old, not that long ago....

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 17:47

A regular ... legally required ... vehicle test, is a fair (for all) method. Not perfect ... but an option we can live with. They could come up with a worse system.

Bollox. Show me where WoF checks reduce accidents.

bogan

28th January 2013, 17:54

BECAUSE...read My earlier post.
MANY people in this dumb arse country will NOT change a bald tyre/worn out steering part/brake pads/disk etc etc unless they HAVE to. I see this EVERY day (that I'm at work) and I'll bet everyone else that has anything to do with wofs does too....
Look at how many come in at the end of the 28 days grace period to get a recheck, after failing on stuff and still driving around on it for a month.
That's why.

BTW, I've personally seen a Mitsi with a completely shot steering component at only 40,000 k's, about 6 months old, not that long ago....

And thats why the legal requirement fails to address the safety issue; because it shifts the public's views on it to a legal issue, and not a safety one.

FJRider

28th January 2013, 17:57

Bollox. Show me where WoF checks reduce accidents.

Prove they don't.

With the dangerous defects they do find ... ones I might add ... am glad they find and (hopefully) remove from road use. It would be a lottery on the road if NO checks were done. That same we all might be on at some stage.

Agreed it wont find and fix all possible problems ... but fixing some, will remove some ...

A few on here have "met" some motorists with no WoF or Rego. Much :angry::angry::angry: was usually involved. Even those WITH insurance.

With NO WoF scheme ... it wont get better.

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 17:58

And thats why the legal requirement fails to address the safety issue; because it shifts the public's views on it to a legal issue, and not a safety one.
No argument there, but some people (a larger number than you think) in this country are to f*cken thick to think of their, and others especially, safety.

Katman

28th January 2013, 18:00

Bollox. Show me where WoF checks reduce accidents.

You sound as retarded this time as you did the last time you used that argument.

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:03

No argument there, but some people (a larger number than you think) in this country are to f*cken thick to think of their, and others especially, safety.

I do wonder if this number would shrink if they weren't forced to get somebody else to check it for them.

With the dangerous defects they do find

But how many defects do they indirectly create?

caspernz

28th January 2013, 18:04

Katman

28th January 2013, 18:05

But how many defects do they indirectly create?

Are you seriously asking how many defects the WOF process indirectly creates?

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 18:06

And 1 other thing that has been mentioned, the mta/vtnz thing. I'm guessing that most people don't know how this came about. I'm not gonna explain it (I only got the abbreviated version) but it was the lesser of the evils.
You can put your money on the fact they thought long and hard about the potential damage the campaign they ran to keep the wof system as is (was) could do.
The average garage makes very little from a wof check (the owner of our business has considered dropping them in the past). True, there is money to be made from the repairs, but they need doing in any case don't they?

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 18:07

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:08

Are you seriously asking how many defects the WOF process indirectly creates?

Ever heard somebody say "I know my tyres are a bit bald, but they'll last until the next wof"

Katman

28th January 2013, 18:10

Ever heard somebody say "I know my tyres are a bit bald, but they'll last until the next wof"

Are you blaming the WOF process for a vehicle owners stupidity?

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 18:11

Ever heard somebody say "I know my tyres are a bit bald, but they'll last until the next wof"

All the time, that's my point. Now imagine if it's 12 months instead of 6....

FJRider

28th January 2013, 18:15

Are you seriously asking how many defects the WOF process indirectly creates?

I have no idea WHAT he means ...

bluninja

28th January 2013, 18:16

Are you blaming the WOF process for a vehicle owners stupidity?

It seems some people have strongly suggested that, because people are stupid, they need a WOF to make them maintain their vehicles to a safeish standard. The counterpoint here is that some people will maintain only enough to pass each WOF, rather than fixing things as needed. Or they pass their WOF and drive an unsafe vehicle 'believing' it to be safe cos it passed it's WOF...pretty stupid huh? We all know the WOF is just a snapshot of a vehicles condition at the time it was tested.

caspernz

28th January 2013, 18:16

Ever heard somebody say "I know my tyres are a bit bald, but they'll last until the next wof"

That problem will be cured by roadside executions won't it? :innocent:

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:17

All the time, that's my point. Now imagine if it's 12 months instead of 6....

Well, with a long enough time, they'll realise they wont last... hopefully. My point is simply that its more complex than just, wofs fix the issues and do no harm.

Are you blaming the WOF process for a vehicle owners stupidity?

Are you having trouble interpreting the word 'indirectly'? Their stupidity is always the root cause, the question is how well the wof process addresses that, and in my example, it does more harm than good.

bluninja

28th January 2013, 18:19

That problem will be cured by roadside executions won't it? :innocent:

But only after they've paid their fines...no money in fines. Wait they could bring in a law to gain posession of a dead persons estate that's been executed for their bald tyre. Money in the coffers and remove the morons from the street....RESULT! :bleh:

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 18:19

Prove they don't.

With the dangerous defects they do find ... ones I might add ... am glad they find and (hopefully) remove from road use. It would be a lottery on the road if NO checks were done. That same we all might be on at some stage.

Agreed it wont find and fix all possible problems ... but fixing some, will remove some ...

A few on here have "met" some motorists with no WoF or Rego. Much :angry::angry::angry: was usually involved. Even those WITH insurance.

With NO WoF scheme ... it wont get better.

What won't get any better?

I'm not arguing that cars don't develop faults. I'm also not saying car WoFs don't find faults. I'm saying that they don't improve the accident rates.

If you bothered looking at a representitive sample of research on the subject you'd have known that.

Here: the most rabidly spun piece of research I could find: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/defects.html#_Toc480769760

Fill yer boots.

You sound as retarded this time as you did the last time you used that argument.

So you've got nothing either?

DEATH_INC.

28th January 2013, 18:20

It seems some people have strongly suggested that, because people are stupid, they need a WOF to make them maintain their vehicles to a safeish standard. The counterpoint here is that some people will maintain only enough to pass each WOF, rather than fixing things as needed. Or they pass their WOF and drive an unsafe vehicle 'believing' it to be safe cos it passed it's WOF...pretty stupid huh? We all know the WOF is just a snapshot of a vehicles condition at the time it was tested.
This is correct too. But the vehicle only has to do 6 months at a time now. What's gonna happen when it has to do 12? The owners aren't gonna get smarter...

imdying

28th January 2013, 18:22

MANY people in this dumb arse country will NOT change a bald tyre/worn out steering part/brake pads/disk etc etc unless they HAVE to. I see this EVERY day (that I'm at work) and I'll bet everyone else that has anything to do with wofs does too....Yep, me too, some scary shite... we keep the best of them in the show room! Mind you, we almost need a license to work on vehicles here given some of the home repairs I've seen :laugh:

Look at how many come in at the end of the 28 days grace period to get a recheck, after failing on stuff and still driving around on it for a month.Which is because they only get a month!

And thats why the legal requirement fails to address the safety issue; because it shifts the public's views on it to a legal issue, and not a safety one.The alternative is that it would simply shift off of the radar completely.

You sound as retarded this time as you did the last time you used that argument.It's a fair thing to want to know. Of course, it can't be answered is the catch.

Ever heard somebody say "I know my tyres are a bit bald, but they'll last until the next wof"Yep, and if there was no legal obligation, it would be till they blow.

caspernz

28th January 2013, 18:22

But only after they've paid their fines...no money in fines. Wait they could bring in a law to gain posession of a dead persons estate that's been executed for their bald tyre. Money in the coffers and remove the morons from the street....RESULT! :bleh:

Ah yes, that was in the fine print...thanks for pointing that out...:2thumbsup:innocent:

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:29

The alternative is that it would simply shift off of the radar completely.

It's a fair thing to want to know. Of course, it can't be answered is the catch.

Yep, and if there was no legal obligation, it would be till they blow.

Or some form of random checks, that'll keep it on the radar for those whose own safety isn't.

Can't be known, but would account for why there isn't large amounts of statistical evidence showing wofs make the roads safer.

Some cases it would be sooner, some not at all, some don't bother at all currently either; again, can't be known but worth thinking about...

FJRider

28th January 2013, 18:31

I'm saying that they don't improve the accident rates.

So what you are saying ... is although faults ARE being found ... there is no proof the faults found may have caused accidents in the future ... if they were NOT found ... ???

I would find that hard to believe ... and prove. Considering it would take many years without a WoF system to prove that. (at least in the statistics)

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:40

FJRider

28th January 2013, 18:46

There's also no way to prove they wouldn't be found and fixed if the wof system wasn't there.

Or you could just get stats from other parts of the world...

Like India you mean ... ??? :mellow:

Or do you have a country in mind that might prove your argument better .. ???

How would faults be found if nobody looks ... ???

Katman

28th January 2013, 18:50

There's also no way to prove they wouldn't be found and fixed if the wof system wasn't there.

Fuck's sake man. I've had people come in for a WOF that have clearly spent considerable time before coming in cleaning off the fork oil that has been running down over their brakes.

(Except they didn't have the intelligence to actually clean the oil off their brakes). :facepalm:

imdying

28th January 2013, 18:52

Or some form of random checks, that'll keep it on the radar for those whose own safety isn't.

Can't be known, but would account for why there isn't large amounts of statistical evidence showing wofs make the roads safer.

Some cases it would be sooner, some not at all, some don't bother at all currently either; again, can't be known but worth thinking about...In the end, you have to ask yourself whether you think an acceptable percentage of New Zealanders could be trusted to self manage the safety level of the national fleet. I do not think they could.

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:53

Like India you mean ... ??? :mellow:

Or do you have a country in mind that might prove your argument better .. ???

How would faults be found if nobody looks ... ???

Probably pick somewhere which has a more similar road laws/terrain/vehicle quality than india...

as I've been saying for many many posts now, perhaps somebody else would choose to look if the wofs guys didn't have to

Fuck's sake man. I've had people come in for a WOF that have clearly spent considerable time before coming in cleaning off the fork oil that has been running down over their brakes.

yet another example of just how brilliantly the wof system is working :rolleyes:

bogan

28th January 2013, 18:55

In the end, you have to ask yourself whether you think an acceptable percentage of New Zealanders could be trusted to self manage the safety level of the national fleet. I do not think they could.

Well, when you put it like that, we better make sure there is a lot of random checks if the wof system is ever abandoned :laugh:

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 18:58

So what you are saying ... is although faults ARE being found ... there is no proof the faults found may have caused accidents in the future ... if they were NOT found ... ???

I would find that hard to believe ... and prove. Considering it would take many years without a WoF system to prove that. (at least in the statistics)

Not only are the faults found not measurably preventing accidents; the stat's prove they don't. There's been a metric shitload of reports commissioned on the topic, most of theose reference Aussie and US states where the only difference across a border is a WoF. Same demographics, same culture, same fleet age, same urban/rural split... same accident and fatality rates.

Even that report I posted slid off the very numbers it referenced and fell back to what it called "roadworthyness". And that had no effect on accidents either.

There's also no way to prove they wouldn't be found and fixed if the wof system wasn't there.

Or you could just get stats from other parts of the world...

You don't need to prove whether a hypothetical fault may have cause an accident, you just need to make the comparisons the above studies have. No measurable difference.

imdying

28th January 2013, 18:58

There's also no way to prove they wouldn't be found and fixed if the wof system wasn't there.I could give you circumstantial evidence, in the form of disc rotors with pads eating into the disc rotor internal vents, replaced not until the car towing its caravan to the Picton ferry from lower Canterbury smoked enough to look like the wheel was on fire :blink: Tell me, how does one not hear what must have been quite a few thousand kilometres of violent griding noises? Of course, they will have heard it... and maybe the only slightly crazy would take a car in that state to the dairy... but what sort of fuckwit tries tow a caravan six hundred kms with it? These are the people a no WOF reality will leave to their own devices. Fun times :D

imdying

28th January 2013, 19:01

Well, when you put it like that, we better make sure there is a lot of random checks if the wof system is ever abandoned :laugh:That would be worth investigating. Perhaps it would be cheaper to administer it that way. If you can get the same outcome for less dollars, I'm not opposed. Collections is doing their best to whack away at defaulters, but you can't get blood out of a stone. In that case any vehicle being found not to comply should be impounded on the spot?

Katman

28th January 2013, 19:02

yet another example of just how brilliantly the wof system is working :rolleyes:

Exactly - the WOF process picked a fault that was being deliberately hidden.

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 19:02

bogan

28th January 2013, 19:06

I could give you circumstantial evidence, in the form of disc rotors with pads eating into the disc rotor internal vents, replaced not until the car towing its caravan to the Picton ferry from lower Canterbury smoked enough to look like the wheel was on fire :blink: Tell me, how does one not hear what must have been quite a few thousand kilometres of violent griding noises? Of course, they will have heard it... and maybe the only slightly crazy would take a car in that state to the dairy... but what sort of fuckwit tries tow a caravan six hundred kms with it? These are the people a no WOF reality will leave to their own devices. Fun times :D

I can just imagine the conversation taking place in that vehicle

passenger: whats that noise?
driver: not too sure mate, but she'll be right
passenger: are you sure, it sounds pretty serious
driver: looks to passenger, looks to windscreen, taps on wof sticker; mate, she's right as rain, got another two months on this baby

:bleh:

That would be worth investigating. Perhaps it would be cheaper to administer it that way. If you can get the same outcome for less dollars, I'm not opposed. Collections is doing their best to whack away at defaulters, but you can't get blood out of a stone. In that case any vehicle being found not to comply should be impounded on the spot?

Depends on the defect I reckon, smaller ones just a fine should do.

Exactly - the WOF process picked a fault that was being deliberately hidden.

But how many times had it been successfully deliberately hidden before?

R650R

28th January 2013, 19:09

As a non logging truck driver I object to that statement, there's plenty of other types of trucks running around with safety defects that would scare the bejeesus out of a few KB members...:innocent::facepalm:

Ones I know of:

Turntable seperating from tractor unit while truck loading at coolstore
Cracked steerer wheel rim, discovered by tyre changer
Cracked/Broken chassis rail discovered during loading
Swap partner bringing set of trailers with no brakes at all fully loaded halfway to auckland - management "its ok its just for tonight" same shit for three more nights...
Major chassis cracks in critical assorted places
Sheared turntable mount bolts just sitting there by gravity alone.
Leaking retarder systems spraying hydraulic fluid over roadway.
NON wof/cof condition scalloped steer tyres reversed to "even out the wear mate, that'll fix it" wrong...

And those are just the ones off the top of my head...

_Shrek_

28th January 2013, 19:13

we have 5 trailers, 1 4x4, three utes, 4 motor bikes on WOF & 1 truck on a COF, the way I read it is that once your vehicle reaches 13yo it's back to 6 monthly, this suits me & Mrs S coz it will save us a few bucks, & as a WOF/COF is only as good as the day it was put on, it is still up to the individual to see the vehicle/s is up to standard at all times,

our old truck passed a COF & my brake lights stopped working the next day due to a micro switch ie: no longer up to COF standard get it fixed asap

the way I see it average jo citizen will keep the cars, bikes etc... up to standard but the tossers that don't do it now an't going to do it when it comes in

& the local :Police: are going to have more shit dumped on their plate, & told there are going to be less staff to do it with :facepalm:

Katman

28th January 2013, 19:17

But how many times had it been successfully deliberately hidden before?

Who fucking cares?

The fault was picked up by the WOF process.

Nova.

28th January 2013, 19:18

More emphasis should be put on training people to know what to look for in regards to car safety, I'm still amazed at the amount of people that don't know how to check their oil :shit:

Katman

28th January 2013, 19:20

I'm still amazed at the amount of people that don't know how to check their oil :shit:

Or change a car wheel for the spare - (males included).

bogan

28th January 2013, 19:27

Who fucking cares?

The fault was picked up by the WOF process.

I would think anyone concerned with road safety would care about how many times dodgy road users have kludged dodgy vehicles to get a wof. But if you're more concerned with telling us all how good a wof tester you are, by all means go on, I'll just be off looking for some silly hats :whistle:

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 19:28

Did it have a WoF?

:laugh: It did, din't it?

imdying

28th January 2013, 19:33

Did it have a WoF?Admittedly no, but the owner did have a lot of body odour :laugh:

GTRMAN

28th January 2013, 19:34

So are these changes going to apply to motorcycles as well?

Katman

28th January 2013, 19:37

I would think anyone concerned with road safety would care about how many times dodgy road users have kludged dodgy vehicles to get a wof. But if you're more concerned with telling us all how good a wof tester you are, by all means go on, I'll just be off looking for some silly hats :whistle:

I've got plenty on my plate already without going on a crusade to expose those WOF inspectors who don't know what they're doing.

_Shrek_

28th January 2013, 19:39

So are these changes going to apply to motorcycles as well?

:yes: mrs S hobbit bike is now 6yo so has to have a 6 monthly WOF

huff3r

28th January 2013, 20:17

Who fucking cares?

The fault was picked up by the WOF process.

And perhaps with a little training, could've been picked up MUCH sooner by a roadside check of the vehicle... as other countries do. FFS people aren't saying get rid of any checks of vehicles, the cops are still gonna be out there to pink or green sticker the cars with bald tyres!

And as for little old ladies who can't afford servicing... can't afford to own a car, then you shouldn't bloody own one!

Oh and for the quick look-a-round or even a safety check during a service, the labour cost shouldn't be much as most mechanics leave the car on the hoist dribbling oil for at least 20mins while they go out back and have a fag, and still charge you the labour anyway!

Katman

28th January 2013, 20:22

Oh and for the quick look-a-round or even a safety check during a service, the labour cost shouldn't be much as most mechanics leave the car on the hoist dribbling oil for at least 20mins while they go out back and have a fag, and still charge you the labour anyway!

Then you're using the wrong workshop.

bogan

28th January 2013, 20:24

I've got plenty on my plate already without going on a crusade to expose those WOF inspectors who don't know what they're doing.

Always the other wof inspectors eh. It's all fine to catch out a dodgy fucker every now and then, but how do you know how many dodgy fuckers you've missed?

huff3r

28th January 2013, 20:26

Then you're using the wrong workshop.

But the receptionist has big knockers, and likes short skirts... how could I possibly go wrong?! :mellow:

Ocean1

28th January 2013, 21:02

Who fucking cares?

The fault was picked up by the WOF process.

Tell you what else was once picked up by the WoF process. A complete Monaro front end, the arseholes swapped it for an HQ one.

awa355

29th January 2013, 00:52

If I knock up a home made car trailer, will it require a wof once a year? or none for the first 3 years?

Zedder

29th January 2013, 08:34

But the receptionist has big knockers, and likes short skirts... how could I possibly go wrong?! :mellow:

Just because the receptionist likes you wearing short skirts doesn't mean it's going to help the situation...

Anyway, I see the former head of the Waitemata Serious Crash Unit is against the WoF changes: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10862004

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 09:25

I also think that there should be compulsory third-party insurance. A related other story.

Insurance is an interesting one .. currently insurance companies largely rely on warrant of fitnesses in case of an accident .. when determining whether to paty out or not ... (When I made a claim last year the company wanted a photograph of the warrant .. they did not want a vehicle inspection .. so they relied on the warrant).

With the changes will Insurance companies NOT rely on the warrant - and do their own post-accident checks to make sure the vehicle was in a safe condition?

Given the pain-in-the-arse that insurance companies can be - do you want these companies to have their own inspectors not-pick over vehicles and refuse to pay out? They have the perfect excuse now to bring n their own post-accident inspections

How many here think all their vehicles will pass an insurance company post-accident inspection right now? ('sorry, there's a bald spot on your tyre' .. 'sorry, your brake master cylinder was low on fluid - contributing to poor brake performance' .. 'sorry - there was too much play in your steering wheel' ... sorry, but your tail light was out ... " 'sorry, your windscreen wipers were inadequate' ... )

In practical terms it will change the current situation very little, the number of crappy cars or poorly maintained cars will stay about the same...just the boy racers won't have to take their car to WOF passable condition twice a year now? :innocent:

That's a naive attitude .. there are lots of people who only maintain their vehicle because they are forced, every six months, to get it done .. they wil be doing less safety maintenance now ... do you want them coming the other way on a wet road at speed with balding tyres?

Little old ladies should be servicing their vehicles regularly, not hard for a garage to have a quick looksie while they are changing the oil is it? If people can't check their cars, then it's not hard for them to get someone else to! Why rely on a legal requirement to get your vehicle checked, it should be checked regularly regardless.

Because that's the way the world is ... and wishing it otherwise or suggesting it should be otherwise will NOT make it otherwise ... teenage pregancy proves that .. "Teenage girls chould not get pregnant" .. I agree .. reality is different!!!

Bollox. Show me where WoF checks reduce accidents.

Unfortunately, the proof will come now ... when they are more accidents ..

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 09:33

Well, when you put it like that, we better make sure there is a lot of random checks if the wof system is ever abandoned :laugh:

YES!!! So why not just keep the WOF system ??? If it's not broke - why fix it?

bogan

29th January 2013, 09:36

YES!!! So why not just keep the WOF system ??? If it's not broke - why fix it?

You think its not broken? :killingme

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 09:48

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 09:52

You think its not broken? :killingme

So tell me .. what is wrong with the current system .. and how wil the change make it better ??? (I've heard John Key say it will save people money .. that's all ... a bullshit neo-liberal excuse ... )

bogan

29th January 2013, 09:58

So tell me .. what is wrong with the current system .. and how wil the change make it better ??? (I've heard John Key say it will save people money .. that's all ... a bullshit neo-liberal excuse ... )

Current system wastes time and money, the change will waste less.

Now cue all the anecdotal and hypotheticals about little johny getting run down by some muppet with dodgy shocks and brakes which happens so often in every other country they are flocking to emulate this very effective world leading but on just frequent enough wof system NZ has bravely pioneered <_<

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 10:55

Current system wastes time and money, the change will waste less.

Right there we do not agree ... we will only find out who is wrong and who is right when the number of accidents and road deaths increase ... or not ... you are gambling people's lives that you are right .. I'm not prepared to make that gamble ..

Now cue all the anecdotal and hypotheticals about little johny getting run down by some muppet with dodgy shocks and brakes which happens so often in every other country they are flocking to emulate this very effective world leading but on just frequent enough wof system NZ has bravely pioneered <_<

See ... that's a '20,000 blowflies can't be wrong' type of argument ...

PS ... are you sure ... right now, today, that your vehicle/s would pass an insurance company check that it is road worthy and that an insurance company will pay out ??? If such a test was required???

bogan

29th January 2013, 11:08

Right there we do not agree ... we will only find out who is wrong and who is right when the number of accidents and road deaths increase ... or not ... you are gambling people's lives that you are right .. I'm not prepared to make that gamble ..

See ... that's a '20,000 blowflies can't be wrong' type of argument ...

PS ... are you sure ... right now, today, that your vehicle/s would pass an insurance company check that it is road worthy and that an insurance company will pay out ??? If such a test was required???

Actually, its a 'there is data from other countries, so argue that instead of the numberless what-ifs and I've seens' argument, don't you think if NZ was better off at 6month wofs, MTA would have presented this data as evidence to the fact?

What an insurance company check? If its anything like a wof, then my stickers say they will :shifty:

Katman

29th January 2013, 11:56

Actually, its a 'there is data from other countries, so argue that instead of the numberless what-ifs and I've seens' argument,

Even data from other countries isn't much use to your argument.

Have you ever been to Germany?

80% of the vehicles sitting in their wrecking yards would probably still be being used on New Zealand roads. We seem to have a penchant for driving old shitters.

bogan

29th January 2013, 12:09

Even data from other countries isn't much use to your argument.

Have you ever been to Germany?

80% of the vehicles sitting in their wrecking yards would probably still be being used on New Zealand roads. We seem to have a penchant for driving old shitters.

Makes lot more of a convincing argument than anything else I've heard on the subject though.

Btw, you don't have to find a perfect match for NZ, you could just compare similar countries with different types of wof systems.

bluninja

29th January 2013, 12:10

PS ... are you sure ... right now, today, that your vehicle/s would pass an insurance company check that it is road worthy and that an insurance company will pay out ??? If such a test was required???

Even if you were driving a shitter without a WOF and insurance company would have to pay out (eventually) if the failures were not a direct or contributory cause of the accident. ie your brake lights don't work and you t-bone someone who drives out in front of you.

huff3r

29th January 2013, 12:17

Because that's the way the world is ... and wishing it otherwise or suggesting it should be otherwise will NOT make it otherwise ... teenage pregancy proves that .. "Teenage girls chould not get pregnant" .. I agree .. reality is different!!!

Except... it's a lot easier to sell a car you can't afford to keep, than to sell a baby! That's a bit of a stupid comparison. Owning and operating a vehicle is a privilege, if you can't afford it, then don't!

Saying people need cars they can't afford is like saying people need the ciggies they have to sacrifice their entire benefit for every week...

Katman

29th January 2013, 12:24

Btw, you don't have to find a perfect match for NZ, you could just compare similar countries with different types of wof systems.

Even Australia's system isn't comparable.

There, the authorities have the threat of having your vehicle put 'over the pits'. If a cop deems your vehicle to be unroadworthy it's not just a little fine. The hassle involved in taking your vehicle 'over the pits' is sufficient to encourage most over there to pay particular attention to the safety of their vehicle.

Are you looking forward to cops becoming roadside vehicle inspectors here?

Ocean1

29th January 2013, 12:29

Unfortunately, the proof will come now ... when they are more accidents ..

So NZ is different to everywhere else that doesn't have WoFs? 'Cause their accident stat's are no worse.

So tell me .. what is wrong with the current system .. and how wil the change make it better ??? (I've heard John Key say it will save people money .. that's all ... a bullshit neo-liberal excuse ... )

The very same thing that's wrong with most of the other systems around here: The people who want the "service" aren't the ones paying for it.

But you do get points for slipping in "neo-liberal", leme see, now that makes your arguement worth... well look at that: Fuck all.

bogan

29th January 2013, 12:30

Even Australia's system isn't comparable.

There, the authorities have the threat of having your vehicle put 'over the pits'. If a cop deems your vehicle to be unroadworthy it's not just a little fine. The hassle involved in taking your vehicle 'over the pits' is sufficient to encourage most over there to pay particular attention to the safety of their vehicle.

Are you looking forward to cops becoming roadside vehicle inspectors here?

Try thinking less about how comparable it is to NZ's current way of doing things, and instead focus on how well it affects road safety. And yes, I'd prefer cops doing roadside inspections than have to waste my time and money every 6 months.

Katman

29th January 2013, 12:32

And yes, I'd prefer cops doing roadside inspections than have to waste my time and money every 6 months.

Be careful what you wish for.

I can see far more revenue going to the government due to these new changes than ever went to vehicle inspection agencies.

bogan

29th January 2013, 12:35

Be careful what you wish for.

I can see far more revenue going to the government due to these new changes than ever went to vehicle inspection agencies.

I was assuming they would only give a fine for non compliance, not charge an inspection fee for every vehicle stopped :rolleyes:

imdying

29th January 2013, 12:43

I was assuming they would only give a fine for non compliance, not charge an inspection fee for every vehicle stopped :rolleyes:Possibly you'd be better off paying when you were stopped, otherwise you'll be paying your portion of every inspection through their agents wages.

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 12:45

What an insurance company check? If its anything like a wof, then my stickers say they will :shifty:

Read my previous post ... currently insurance companies largely rely on a current WOF (they only neded to see it for my last claim .. and do no other ispection of the bike ...) But with these changes the insurance compaies MAY do their own post-accident inspection, looking for "contributing factors" - lookign for reasons not to pay out because a vehicle is not road worthy ...

Your current "stickers" are OK .. but if insurance companies do their own post-accident checks .. then are you sure your vehicle will "pass" and therefore get paid out by your insurance company?

If I was working in insurance I would certainly be looking at this issue - and lookign to write into policy clauses about vehicles maintained to a proper standard ... and would be doing post-accident checks on all vehicle claims ... (one blown light bulb and you don't get a pay out ...)

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 12:48

Even if you were driving a shitter without a WOF and insurance company would have to pay out (eventually) if the failures were not a direct or contributory cause of the accident. ie your brake lights don't work and you t-bone someone who drives out in front of you.

Really ?? I want to be insured by thesame company as you - my policies all say the vehicles must have current rego and wof ...

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 12:51

Except... it's a lot easier to sell a car you can't afford to keep, than to sell a baby! That's a bit of a stupid comparison. Owning and operating a vehicle is a privilege, if you can't afford it, then don't!

Saying people need cars they can't afford is like saying people need the ciggies they have to sacrifice their entire benefit for every week...

Huh ?? What ??? Did I say something about owning cars you can't afford?

Even if I did .. you are trying to make a case based on the way the world should be - not the way it is .. Babies or cars .. unimportant .. People are trying to argue from the way the world shoudl be .. not the way it is !!!

Get off the grass and look at the way the world actually is ..

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 12:53

And yes, I'd prefer cops doing roadside inspections than have to waste my time and money every 6 months.

Yeah .. 'cause cops do them for free .. and currently we have to pay for them ...

But seriously .. more roadside inspections means LESS time spent catching crims and preventing crime ... I think most people here want them catching crims - not stopping motorcyists for a full check over ..

Katman

29th January 2013, 13:18

... I think most people here want them catching crims - not stopping motorcyists for a full check over ..

You would think so, going by 90% of the bitching and moaning threads on here.

It appears Bogan feels differently though.

Katman

29th January 2013, 13:29

Truth be known, that's probably why the government have pushed through these changes.

They probably figure it's going to be a tidy little earner for them.

bogan

29th January 2013, 13:42

Possibly you'd be better off paying when you were stopped, otherwise you'll be paying your portion of every inspection through their agents wages.

Comes to a balance then, would either portion cost me more than the 150 bucks per year I pay now? Or even the 90odd bucks single vehicle owner pay? I very much doubt it.

Read my previous post ... currently insurance companies largely rely on a current WOF (they only neded to see it for my last claim .. and do no other ispection of the bike ...) But with these changes the insurance compaies MAY do their own post-accident inspection, looking for "contributing factors" - lookign for reasons not to pay out because a vehicle is not road worthy ...

Your current "stickers" are OK .. but if insurance companies do their own post-accident checks .. then are you sure your vehicle will "pass" and therefore get paid out by your insurance company?

If I was working in insurance I would certainly be looking at this issue - and lookign to write into policy clauses about vehicles maintained to a proper standard ... and would be doing post-accident checks on all vehicle claims ... (one blown light bulb and you don't get a pay out ...)

So it plugs a loophole that insurance companies use to get out of paying, why is this a bad thing?

Yeah .. 'cause cops do them for free .. and currently we have to pay for them ...

But seriously .. more roadside inspections means LESS time spent catching crims and preventing crime ... I think most people here want them catching crims - not stopping motorcyists for a full check over ..

Either add more cops or pull some off speeding duty...

Both you and Katman really need to look past the status quo, and ask if there is a more effective alternative. You seem to be looking pretty hard to find anything to back up the 'this is the way it is, and I'm used to it' arguments.

Truth be known, that's probably why the government have pushed through these changes.

They probably figure it's going to be a tidy little earner for them.

You mean by the tiny increase in tax take due to people not wasting money and time getting wofs? I got no problem with that!

Banditbandit

29th January 2013, 14:38

Both you and Katman really need to look past the status quo, and ask if there is a more effective alternative. You seem to be looking pretty hard to find anything to back up the 'this is the way it is, and I'm used to it' arguments.

That's not my argument - and if you think it is, then you are too stupid to argue with ...

willytheekid

29th January 2013, 14:45

.....And yes, I'd prefer cops doing roadside inspections than have to waste my time and money every 6 months.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/590795/Spittake.jpg

:blink:
Ive met a few popo who "thought" they knew the right end of a spanner:rolleyes:...but Ive never met a popo who was an actual "bike" mechanic!

And...no fucking way!!!!, will I rely on, or even ALLOW!, an unqualified person to inspect my bike and deem it safe or not..."in there view!"

popo are just that...popo!...certainly NOT mechanics! (yes..I realise they DO have actual mechanics...but the average traffic enforcement officer?..."having a go" :nono:)

...REGO=TAX!, WOF=BIKE IS SAFE TO OPERATE!...its that simple really (And I think the current WOF checks are "thin"...I demand MUCH more checks from my mechanic...and he knows it!)

5150

29th January 2013, 15:07

So if my car was MADE in 1989, but was first registered in NZ in 2001.. Does that mean it has to have a WOF check every 6 mnths or every 12? That bit is what confuses me? :confused:

Bassmatt

29th January 2013, 15:21

scumdog

29th January 2013, 16:11

I am still undecided on this issue, but have found some interesting stuff to feed the debate:

"German research suggests that 10% of vehicle accidents are caused or strongly affected by defects in the vehicle. Monash University in Australia, suggests the figure is actually 24%."

"NZ Government scientists acknowledge that the WOF changes will lead to an increase in road deaths, but suggest that the numbers will be quite low: between 0.7 and 33.6 extra fatalities per year, however, if the Monash University figure is correct, then the actual road deaths that result from the WOF changes could be many times higher: up to 80extra deaths per year."

So if we take the midpoint of our own Govts. figures we are looking at 15 extra deaths on our roads a year. Thats all good I guess, provided one of those 15 isn't you or someone you love, eh?

So, at present how many deaths a year do we have that can be attributed to cars not up to WOF standard?

And how many death are atributed to cars not up to WOF standard and that have not had a WOF for two years or more?

'Cos there's a shitload of cars out there that haven't had a WOF for yonks.

And hence no rego either - but that's another story...

OH, and the KB 'Sky is falling' crew seem to be in full song - good on yaz!:laugh:

Bassmatt

29th January 2013, 16:16

So, at present how many deaths a year do we have that can be attributed to cars not up to WOF standard?

And how many death are atributed to cars not up to WOF standard and that have not had a WOF for two years or more?

'Cos there's a shitload of cars out there that haven't had a WOF for yonks.

And hence no rego either - but that's another story...

OH, and the KB 'Sky is falling' crew seem to be in full song - good on yaz!:laugh:

Why make the situation worse, if what you say is correct then a tightening of the regulations should be happening not a relaxing of them. These are the Govts. figures not mine. Drinking and driving still kills plenty too, are you advocating the same relaxing of rules around that?
I not part of the "sky is falling crew", once again, these are the Govts figures not mine.

scumdog

29th January 2013, 16:24

bogan

29th January 2013, 16:26

Why make the situation worse, if what you say is correct then a tightening of the regulations should be happening not a relaxing of them. These are the Govts. figures not mine. Drinking and driving still kills plenty too, are you advocating the same relaxing of rules around that?
I not part of the "sky is falling crew", once again, these are the Govts figures not mine.

Have you got a link to the figures? sounds like it would be an interesting read.

That's not my argument - and if you think it is, then you are too stupid to argue with ...

Thats exactly what your insurance argument boils down to though. No wofs, no insurance clause, no issue; I don't know why you even brought it up?

:blink:
Ive met a few popo who "thought" they knew the right end of a spanner:rolleyes:...but Ive never met a popo who was an actual "bike" mechanic!

And...no fucking way!!!!, will I rely on, or even ALLOW!, an unqualified person to inspect my bike and deem it safe or not..."in there view!"

popo are just that...popo!...certainly NOT mechanics! (yes..I realise they DO have actual mechanics...but the average traffic enforcement officer?..."having a go" :nono:)

...REGO=TAX!, WOF=BIKE IS SAFE TO OPERATE!...its that simple really (And I think the current WOF checks are "thin"...I demand MUCH more checks from my mechanic...and he knows it!)

I agree that the WOF checks are thin, so disagree with the WOF=safe, as it appears you do as well? It all hypothetical, so lets just say that hypothetically (and this should be an obvious solution here, cmon), the only cops doing regular roadside check have been trained. Despite how scumdog sounds online, I'm pretty sure they do get trained for what they do. :bleh:

FJRider

29th January 2013, 16:31

So how would 'tightening of the regulations' prevent this? Firing squad for the driver and owner if vehicle not up to WOF standard?.

A bit messy ... a Glock in the glove box for that and similar ... to save wasting court time of course ... :shifty:

willytheekid

29th January 2013, 16:59

I agree that the WOF checks are thin, so disagree with the WOF=safe, as it appears you do as well? It all hypothetical, so lets just say that hypothetically (and this should be an obvious solution here, cmon), the only cops doing regular roadside check have been trained. Despite how scumdog sounds online, I'm pretty sure they do get trained for what they do. :bleh:

My Mechanic has 30+ yrs experience, his other mechanic has 30+ yrs experience as an Aeronautical engineer!...and the both took over 4yrs to train, and then had to be the "floor bitch" for 2000+ hours!....and that's just to pass there apprenticeship's!

AS much as I love Ol Scummy:love:....I would definitely NOT be "ok" with him fumbling around with my bike, pretending he's some sort of trained mechanic, and then passing judgement on what is safe and what is not <_< :laugh:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D8VwTKAphks/So9e9NkFAPI/AAAAAAAALVk/fDLr7xKQrAc/s800/funny-pictures-pony-mechanic.jpg

....I think I would prefer to stick with my guy?:blink:

But as usual mate, we do agree on something :drinknsin...the current WOF checks are already "thin", just have to look at some of the "legal" crap on NZ's roads :facepalm:
But my biggest concern, is I can just see certain HUGE corporate fleets going for hundreds of thousands of miles, with NO actual mechanical checks being "legaly" required....and we have to share the road with these vehicles!

Ya think there dangerous now!....just wait till they start throwing bits at ya!:laugh:
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1170462.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Wheel+hits+windshield

bogan

29th January 2013, 17:09

My Mechanic has 30+ yrs experience, his other mechanic has 30+ yrs experience as an Aeronautical engineer!...and the both took over 4yrs to train, and then had to be the "floor bitch" for 2000+ hours!....and that's just to pass there apprenticeship's!

AS much as I love Ol Scummy:love:....I would definitely NOT be "ok" with him fumbling around with my bike, pretending he's some sort of trained mechanic, and then passing judgement on what is safe and what is not <_< :laugh:

....I think I would prefer to stick with my guy?:blink:

But as usual mate, we do agree on something :drinknsin...the current WOF checks are already "thin", just have to look at some of the "legal" crap on NZ's roads :facepalm:
But my biggest concern, is I can just see certain HUGE corporate fleets going for hundreds of thousands of miles, with NO actual mechanical checks being "legaly" required....and we have to share the road with these vehicles!

Ya think there dangerous now!....just wait till they start throwing bits at ya!:laugh:

Agree with all that. However, my point is most of the wof testers (VTNZ etc) have training comparable to what a cop would get, not to the level your guy has. There just seems to be lot of complaining that the new way, or other suggested ways are broken, but not applying the same level of examination and critical thought to the currently broken process.

DEATH_INC.

29th January 2013, 17:09

And yes, I'd prefer cops doing roadside inspections than have to waste my time and money every 6 months.

Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly.

I've seen cars that cops have stickered that are perfectly legal.

One was for noise, it was well under the limit when tested, and another was for lowering, even though it had a cert, and it was exactly as the cert stated. These are just a couple I can think of off the top of my head....

Wait till they start fining you for shit that isn't wrong :laugh:

Banditbandit

30th January 2013, 09:27

Have you got a link to the figures? sounds like it would be an interesting read.

Some of the figures are in the story which is linked in the first post on this thread .. if you had bothered to read passed the headline and the first sentence (You only have to read to the fifth sentence ... even you should be able to do that )

bogan

30th January 2013, 09:50

Some of the figures are in the story which is linked in the first post on this thread .. if you had bothered to read passed the headline and the first sentence (You only have to read to the fifth sentence ... even you should be able to do that )

Um, perhaps you should bother to read back on what I was quoting, the figures in #143 is what I was after.

Also, still waiting on the reason you brought up the insurance thing, or could you not get to the second sentence of my previous post? which would be quite ironic considering what you just posted...

Exactly.

I've seen cars that cops have stickered that are perfectly legal.

One was for noise, it was well under the limit when tested, and another was for lowering, even though it had a cert, and it was exactly as the cert stated. These are just a couple I can think of off the top of my head....

Wait till they start fining you for shit that isn't wrong :laugh:

Meh, I've had the same from wof places. Once I was asked to go a get a note from a bike shop declaring my 'its a bit soft' suspension was fine, other times to go and do my own research on what needs certing or not...

Swoop

30th January 2013, 11:35

Have you ever been to Germany?

I can only hope that we follow the German example.
Car goes for "WoF" and fails = put DIRECTLY on to the tow truck. NO 28 days grace bullshit. Directly to a place of repair and the vehicle does not move under its own power until repaired.

Scuba_Steve

30th January 2013, 12:15

I can only hope that we follow the German example.
Car goes for "WoF" and fails = put DIRECTLY on to the tow truck. NO 28 days grace bullshit. Directly to a place of repair and the vehicle does not move under its own power until repaired.

you don't want the option or ability to work on your own vehicles/fix your own faults??? Glad you've got the cash to piss away 60/hr & 20/bulb to get an indicator or headlight fixed but not all of us are that well off.

GingerMidget

30th January 2013, 12:45

I'll be the first to say I don't know enough about my car to know exactly whats wrong with it, but I know enough to know when somethings not right. Maybe some company could start to run courses on how to do a basic maintenance check on your car? I suspect there could be some good money in that one!

I can change my car and bikes oil easily enough, my parents taught me years ago but so many people don't know how. Some don't even know how to pump up their own tyres or check pressure! Something that should be done a lot more often than most do it. Admittedly I only do it every second time I fill the tank up, but thats about once every three weeks. Check oil, water and tyres. Easy.

Because of where I work, I hear a lot of "your tyres are close to the limit and should be replaced soon" or similar, and people saying things like "oh I'll just get them replaced when I can see canvas etc. That scares me. People coming in with the belts showing, "oh they were marginal at the last wof" (which was longer than 6 months ago because the car is way overdue anyway) Things like belts in the engine being badly perished and cracked, missing radiator and oil caps. No oil showing on the dipstick, disgusting black and low oil (not part of the wof itself, checked as a courtesy)

As a personal view, 10 years on yearly inspections, from brand new, and 6 monthly after that. Thats not just because the place I work would lose a lot of work, but because we do get a lot of imports here, and the lack of maintenance on cars in general worries me.

Swoop

30th January 2013, 14:28

you don't want the option or ability to work on your own vehicles/fix your own faults??? Glad you've got the cash to piss away 60/hr & 20/bulb to get an indicator or headlight fixed but not all of us are that well off.

Here's a concept. Check the vehicle before it is inspected. If people don't know how to do that (even the basic shit like lightbulbs), get their mechanic to do that.
Or another: Maintain your vehicle so it doesn't fail the inspection.

If people are too dumb to do that, the vehicle deserves to be put on a towtruck - especially if it is an annual inspection.

imdying

30th January 2013, 14:56

What I'm trying to say is that DESPITE a shitload of cars/bikes without a WOF out there I do not see too many crashes that can be linked to anything that would fail a WOF.Any time I've crashed a car without a WOF/substandard condition, I've not rung the police. Funny that :shifty:

imdying

30th January 2013, 15:12

Here's a concept. Check the vehicle before it is inspected. If people don't know how to do that (even the basic shit like lightbulbs), get their mechanic to do that.A WOF inspector who I met through work told me it was always worth cleaning the car and ensuring all the bulbs worked; cars like that he generally gave less of a rigorous test. That's something I disagree with as I prefer one rule for all, but it's an insight into typical human behaviour.

SNF

30th January 2013, 16:57

Took the car for a wof. 3 blown bulbs, a tie rod bush, foglights n/w - I haven't even wired them in and it looks stupid without them - they're staying, rear seat belt clip missing (fell under the seat). Wiper spray nozzle loose (fuck it, still cleans the windscreen and gets the tailgater behind me too!). I wonder if they do stuff like that on purpose, fail you on a bunch little things until you get fed up sell/dump the old car/bike and get something else.

Not that I'd ever want to get rid of either - generally a 250cc sports bike today is a pissy 2 cylinder thing with 32 bhp and a 12,000 k redline. I change gear at 12,000 - hell, I can go to 18 if I like (I don't though, don't trust a 25 year old 37,972 km engine at redline lol). The modern day equivalent of my car is everything I do not want in a car, stupid auto gearbox, no mid range or top end, boat-like suspension. I'd happily keep my ancient machines from the late 1980's, all day every day. Sunday's wrench day for me.

scumdog

30th January 2013, 17:07

Any time I've crashed a car without a WOF/substandard condition, I've not rung the police. Funny that :shifty:

So...they weren't REAL crashes - nobody killed eh!:bleh:

FJRider

30th January 2013, 17:08

Took the car for a wof. 3 blown bulbs, a tie rod bush, foglights n/w - I haven't even wired them in and it looks stupid without them - they're staying.

If any ancillary lights are fitted ... they MUST work ... for a WoF.

No exceptions ...

scumdog

30th January 2013, 17:08

Here's a concept. Check the vehicle before it is inspected. If people don't know how to do that (even the basic shit like lightbulbs), get their mechanic to do that.
Or another: Maintain your vehicle so it doesn't fail the inspection.

If people are too dumb to do that, the vehicle deserves to be put on a towtruck - especially if it is an annual inspection.

Check all my vehicles a couple of days before WOF check - more likely to be a drive-in-drive out WOF!:Punk:

FJRider

30th January 2013, 17:14

Any time I've crashed a car without a WOF/substandard condition, I've not rung the police. Funny that :shifty:

The good news is ... you wont have been the first. The bad news is ... you wont be the last.

Your (reason for) lack of reporting your crash to the authorities ... is why no accurate statistics on the number of WoF related accidents.

Funny that ... :shifty:

ducatilover

31st January 2013, 08:34

If any ancillary lights are fitted ... they MUST work ... for a WoF.

No exceptions ...

Except reverse lights.

Go figure... they tell you not to use your fog lights, yet they must work, but I've passed a few times without reverse lights

imdying

31st January 2013, 09:19

So...they weren't REAL crashes - nobody killed eh!:bleh:I'll go plow into Rastuscat's popo bike when he pops off his steed for take a piss. When he comes out I'll say no worries mate, no need to report this, scummy says it's not a real crash cos I didn't kill ya :laugh:

Swoop

31st January 2013, 11:00

Check all my vehicles a couple of days before WOF check - more likely to be a drive-in-drive out WOF!:Punk:
Yup. Revolutionary concept to some, eh?:laugh:

_Shrek_

31st January 2013, 15:02

Except reverse lights.

Go figure... they tell you not to use your fog lights, yet they must work, but I've passed a few times without reverse lights

reverse lights don't come into it as it is illegal to have white lights facing rear when driving down the road,

sort of makes you :facepalm: when you see tractors on the road with their rear lights on & other times :angry2: coz it looks like another vehicle on your side of the road

scumdog

31st January 2013, 16:55

reverse lights don't come into it as it is illegal to have white lights facing rear when driving down the road,

sort of makes you :facepalm: when you see tractors on the road with their rear lights on & other times :angry2: coz it looks like another vehicle on your side of the road

A tad o.t. but I know of a guy who owned an automatic Morris 1300, the trans conked out - except for reverse.
He left home early one morning to drop the car off at the garage, didn't want a tow or breakdown truck

So drove 13km on the highway from his home to the garage - remember he's only got reverse:facepalm:.

Imagine the poor buggers rounding a bend at 100kph to see a car on the wrong side of the road apparently heading towards them!:shit:

Banditbandit

1st February 2013, 10:34

Imagine the poor buggers rounding a bend at 100kph to see a car on the wrong side of the road apparently heading towards them!:shit:

Seen exactly that mate - too many times ... brick-shitting material ... fucking dickheads ...

AndyR1

2nd February 2013, 16:56

I can only hope that we follow the German example.
Car goes for "WoF" and fails = put DIRECTLY on to the tow truck. NO 28 days grace bullshit. Directly to a place of repair and the vehicle does not move under its own power until repaired.

Well, I'm German and just to clarify our rules:
New cars, first WoF after 3 years, then every 2 years...
Motorcycle every 2 years from the first year on...

They don't let you drive anymore if your vehicle shows safety concerns like brakes, chassis, steering, hoses etc..
But but but don't forget, the people who are doing the WoF are studied engineers and highly skilled people and it's not so easy to argue with them if you are not a mechanic as well...they know what they are doing and taking our rules very seriously - by the way, we have too many of them :-)

Normally you have 2 weeks time to fix this...so hurry up, if they stop you you have to tell them why you are driving around etc. etc. etc. Even the police have basic knowledge so even you have a WoF doesn't mean if they stop you and they have some concerns you can leave with a 2 weeks notice to bring your car to WoF again...there are always some police guys around specialized in tuned cars and bikes and they check each modification. Therefore you have each additional not-standard part in your documents which you need to carry all the time with you.

Here on my motorcycle no police ever wants to see my LVV plate even only the frame and the engine are still stock :-) With my car I have the same experience here - AP Racing brakes, no LVV and nobody even notice this...

As foreigner living here for more than 2 years I would recommend NZ: leave your system as it is and just tighten up the rules a little bit more so no crappy car/bike will leaving the WoF station anymore for serious safety issues, 2 weeks time should be ok to fix them and train the WoF guys at VTNZ for exmaple a little bit more please :-)

Therefore you can't apply other country systems to NZ, it's just much more than only increasing the intevall from 6 to 12 month....

Enjoy :scooter:

tigertim20

2nd February 2013, 17:29

Except reverse lights.

Go figure... they tell you not to use your fog lights, yet they must work, but I've passed a few times without reverse lights

Reverse lights aren't striclty a requirement - if they are there they are supposed to work to pass, but you can get a wof without them altogether

Swoop

2nd February 2013, 19:06

They don't let you drive anymore if your vehicle shows safety concerns like brakes, chassis, steering, hoses etc..
But but but don't forget, the people who are doing the WoF are studied engineers and highly skilled people and it's not so easy to argue with them if you are not a mechanic as well...they know what they are doing and taking our rules very seriously - by the way, we have too many of them :-)

Normally you have 2 weeks time to fix this...so hurry up...

My German workmate passed on that info.
I can't see why we have more than 2 weeks to get things fixed. Bloody ridiculous having a month!
Unfortunately a lot of our "examiners" come from Fiji and are not engineers.

Scuba_Steve

2nd February 2013, 19:20

My German workmate passed on that info.
I can't see why we have more than 2 weeks to get things fixed. Bloody ridiculous having a month!
Unfortunately a lot of our "examiners" come from Fiji and are not engineers.

probably because when it was created they were intelligent enough to work out, you fail a WoF just before xmas you're pretty fucked otherwise & the fact NZ quite often has to wait for parts to be shipped half way round the world, especially if you drive Euro or old

AndyR1

2nd February 2013, 20:25

My German workmate passed on that info.
I can't see why we have more than 2 weeks to get things fixed. Bloody ridiculous having a month!
Unfortunately a lot of our "examiners" come from Fiji and are not engineers.

Yep, Fiji or other nice countries - they don't even know that there are full floating discs available on bikes and keep telling me, my front wheel bearing is loose :facepalm:

I said really - then I move the discs left and right and the guy said: oh :shit:

I mean they should have at least experienced car/bike mechanic to international standard - not being just an mechanic/engineer from .... :no:

And all these driving wrecks should be banned from public roads, they can drive on their farms :bye:

But the standard just needs to be raised....mhmmm, let's say 200% - then we are all good. If you can't effort a car or even fix it, don't use one :scooter:

So, enough, I'm happy in NZ and nothing can change that...You all should be happy that the standard is so low and not so many rules and regulations :done: