WOF reforms.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes you do, thats the point.A lot of people can say they know how to do something, because they have read a book on it, do you realise you fall into this catagory?

yea I'm confused now, I don't read books (it destroys your eyes)

[davereid]

If you compare those Aussie states with testing regulations with those without you'll find the difference in accident stat's is... Zero. Same with the US. So, y'see in the real world it's only a better system for the Wof service suppliers, for the rest of us it's a waste of time.

Im not sure about that. Possibly we test to often.

But if the alternative is me going to the airport for my holidays, and I get caught roadside by a bunch of overall-ed NZTA inspectors determined to my vehicle inspection right then, I'd prefer the WoF check.

[Woodman]

Extend the yearly warrant testing for new cars to say 8 years. If our fleet gets newer then that would sorta sort a lot of it out anyway.

[Ocean1]

Im not sure about that. Possibly we test to often.

But if the alternative is me going to the airport for my holidays, and I get caught roadside by a bunch of overall-ed NZTA inspectors determined to my vehicle inspection right then, I'd prefer the WoF check.

Me too.

But the report I had pre-dated spot checks, and although WA police regularly check tyre tread depth it's far more blatently for the revenue than safety. So the raw data is accident rate with WoF and Without any checks. No difference.

And again, in the US I know cops will ping you for observed failures like tail lights, but I've not heard of roving WoF units.

So, for me I'd just as soon we left out the usual gratuitous pillaging of the motoring public's purse and did without both.

[Motu]

yea I'm confused

I agree - you haven't got a fucking clue.

[Zedder]

Me too.

But the report I had pre-dated spot checks, and although WA police regularly check tyre tread depth it's far more blatently for the revenue than safety. So the raw data is accident rate with WoF and Without any checks. No difference.

And again, in the US I know cops will ping you for observed failures like tail lights, but I've not heard of roving WoF units.

So, for me I'd just as soon we left out the usual gratuitous pillaging of the motoring public's purse and did without both.

See what you make of this Ocean1, it's a 2009 study of the effectiveness of Pennsylvania's vehicle safety inspection programme.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms...ss%20Study.pdf

[FJRider]

Me too.

But the report I had pre-dated spot checks, and although WA police regularly check tyre tread depth it's far more blatently for the revenue than safety. So the raw data is accident rate with WoF and Without any checks. No difference.

And again, in the US I know cops will ping you for observed failures like tail lights, but I've not heard of roving WoF units.

So, for me I'd just as soon we left out the usual gratuitous pillaging of the motoring public's purse and did without both.

New Zealand Police to the roadside safety checks on groups of Boy-racers now ... And regular roadside stopping points (purpose built) for commercial vehicles too. With NO WoF tests as such ... we can expect such roadside checks in NZ ... for ALL vehicles, as a matter of course. To NOT expect them would be foolish ...

[GrayWolf]

Interesting bleating about rip off etc,
the UK was yearly MoT when I left there, and the 6 monthly thing seemed a bit OTT. I dont think it is.... It's not just about rust and ancillary lights.

Yearly WoF's? lets see, as a poster in KB was bleating about being ripped off by a bike shop, for chain sprockets etc??
Most people in this day and age CANNOT do bugger all under the hood of a car. The days of a packet of rizla papers to set the points gap are long gone. Vehicles are so damned reliable, they have'nt fitted starting handles since thee 60's and bike kick starts were gone by the early 80's. electronic ignition ND now computer management has rendered the 'home tinkerer' obsolete.
WoF's dont just catch faulty parts, vehicles that have been in an impact are seen, and anything that is a danger to the public with sharp protruding bits are failed. Wheel bearings, steering head bearings can as pointed out in the mentioned thead, GO in 5000km's. worn tyres? are picked up, or should be. worn ball joints can just 'appear' as far as the driver is concerned. Front wheel drive CV boots? leave one of those split for a whole year? I think the current 6 system of certain age yearly, then 6 monthly is quite resonable,,, maybe they are going to include rego with the WoF? and good on them if they do, catch all the slackers about their rego.

[schrodingers cat]

Now I'm referencing behaviour in the worlds largest free range lunitic asylum but here goes.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5158599_ca...gulations.html

I'm not advocating such a lax system but it does explain a lot about the shitters you see on 'Pimp my Ride"

So no system is perfect and this being kb I don't expect consensus

It just shows that there are different standards everywhere.

Without question driver/rider behaviour, dismal skills and poor decision making are the biggest roadblokes to road safety. Despite all the puffery.

[Ocean1]

See what you make of this Ocean1, it's a 2009 study of the effectiveness of Pennsylvania's vehicle safety inspection programme.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms...ss%20Study.pdf

I'll read it later. I note it's funded by the entity in question, namely the one currently carrying out the testing...

The Exec Summary confirms the regime's efficacy. And yet a couple of pages in I see:

“The analysis considered vehicle failure as reported at the fatal crash site as a
potential explanatory variable. Reporting of this variable across states appears to
be inconsistent, and the volumes available are not suitable to a full model formulation.”

… with which analysis they then proceed.

This also looks dodgy:

Table 4.1 Fatal Crashes per Billion VMT
2004 to 2007 Average

Group of States Weighted Evenly Weighted by State VMT
Without a Program 12.6 12.0
With a Program 11.1 11.1
Pennsylvania 12.7 12.7

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System 2004 to 2007 data, stratified by state inspection program
presence.


But I'm not certain the reports I read indicating the opposite were any better.

[mashman]

May as well just scrap the WOF entirely and bring in spot checks.

[Ocean1]

To NOT expect them would be foolish ...

Of course. I fully expect unrestrained buerocracy to produce unfounded ideological idiocy every chance it gets.

Your point?

[Zedder]

I'll read it later. I note it's funded by the entity in question, namely the one currently carrying out the testing...

The Exec Summary confirms the regime's efficacy. And yet a couple of pages in I see:

“The analysis considered vehicle failure as reported at the fatal crash site as a
potential explanatory variable. Reporting of this variable across states appears to
be inconsistent, and the volumes available are not suitable to a full model formulation.”

… with which analysis they then proceed.

This also looks dodgy:

Table 4.1 Fatal Crashes per Billion VMT
2004 to 2007 Average

Group of States Weighted Evenly Weighted by State VMT
Without a Program 12.6 12.0
With a Program 11.1 11.1
Pennsylvania 12.7 12.7

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System 2004 to 2007 data, stratified by state inspection program
presence.


But I'm not certain the reports I read indicating the opposite were any better.

Yes, it seems fairly inconclusive from both sides.

[Scuba_Steve]

I agree - you haven't got a fucking clue.

I see your've got rule #4 of interweb discussions down.
When your opponent has totally "shut down" your argument & proven you to be talking shit, always resort to personal attacks to try & distract from your "shut down".

[FJRider]

... Your point?

My point is ...

Those that interpret the (possible) abolishment of the WoF system, as being, there will no longer any testing done ... will be in for a big supprise.

The variations of possible implemented regulations (and associated penaltys for non complience) are endless ...

Almost endless to the stage, where discussion on the subject is ... pointless. I doubt if "Joe public" will be be asked for any input into any change ... nor will any discussion be entered into ... after (if) any changes are announced.