Changes to WoF system announced

[bogan]

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]

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]

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.

[nosebleed]

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]

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 Unfortuneatly that could be just the calims we see in a few years

[Zedder]

Does it mention when these changes will come in?

No, but other sources point to 2014.

[tigertim20]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.