Changes to WoF system announced

[schrodingers cat]

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?]

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

[FJRider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Berg]

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]

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]

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

[ducatilover]

Just abolish the system altogether and introduce road side testing.

That'll be fun

[nerrrd]

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]

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]

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]

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!)