Warrant system, when are they going to change it to be less a pain in the arse?

**vtec** · 1st May 2009, 05:56

Having six monthly warrants is retarded and huge example of nanny state. I've been living and travelling abroad for the last couple of years, and NZ is the only place where they require detailed vehicle "safety" (or rather legislative adherence) checks every six months. If you've got a few vehicles such as a car a motorbike and a trailer, it feels like your vehicles are perpetually lapsing. Not to mention the cost to the economy and the decrease to efficiency. What are your opinions.

**vtec** · 1st May 2009, 05:58

forgot the option, of only requiring checks when safety hazards are identified by police. This has been inspired by the latest nzherald article about the ducati fatality, they mentioned that it was unwarranted, well in my opinion that's because warrants lapse way too fast and not because of safety concerns. Did they need to mention the lapsed warrant and was it relevant in my opinion no, what is relevant is if the brakes failed or the tyres were past the wear indicators apart from that I can't think what would be relevant to a Ducati hitting a tree in terms of vehicle failure.

**CookMySock** · 1st May 2009, 06:33

If kiwis maintained their vehicles properly they wouldn't need a bunch of rules. Seriously, it's only a 20 minute check, and its more about trying to SAVE your gay ass rather than inconveniencing it.

I have got two cars, two work vans, a trailer, and three road bikes so I know what you are saying.

I say leave it as it is.

Steve

**Aa7** · 1st May 2009, 07:24

Originally Posted by vtec

Having six monthly warrants is retarded and huge example of nanny state. I've been living and travelling abroad for the last couple of years, and NZ is the only place where they require detailed vehicle "safety" (or rather legislative adherence) checks every six months. If you've got a few vehicles such as a car a motorbike and a trailer, it feels like your vehicles are perpetually lapsing. Not to mention the cost to the economy and the decrease to efficiency. What are your opinions.

and NZ is also one of the few countries that willingly imports and sells used vehicles that other countries have deemed unsafe for their roads so go figure??? the checks are there for YOURS and EVERY other road users safety not to hinder your use and enjoyment of said vehicles. Would you prefer that there where bi-annual shake-downs of your vehicles and any vehicle that is over four years old gets a real rogering and needs most of the consumable parts and more than likely some structural parts replaced before it is even allowed again to be used on the roads??? while you where traveling did you also notice that NZ has probably the oldest fleet of vehicles on its public roads too?

**JimO** · 1st May 2009, 07:35

Originally Posted by Aa7

and NZ is also one of the few countries that willingly imports and sells used vehicles that other countries have deemed unsafe for their roads so go figure??? the checks are there for YOURS and EVERY other road users safety not to hinder your use and enjoyment of said vehicles. Would you prefer that there where bi-annual shake-downs of your vehicles and any vehicle that is over four years old gets a real rogering and needs most of the consumable parts and more than likely some structural parts replaced before it is even allowed again to be used on the roads??? while you where traveling did you also notice that NZ has probably the oldest fleet of vehicles on its public roads too?

really??? all the imports being sold here are a vast improvement of the fleet of aging pommy crap that everyone drove pre import days

**Morcs** · 1st May 2009, 08:02

Kiwis in general are quite stupid when it comes to vehicle maintance, they think because they have a warrant, that the vehicle must be sweet.
Then they neglect things like servicing...

In the UK you dont have any checks in the first 3 years from new, then you have a yearly MOT every year. much better system.

**BOGAR** · 1st May 2009, 08:32

I would love to say once a year WOF minimum, but there are too many people out there where the only check the vehicle gets is when it goes for a WOF. Often that is not soon enough. I would be for a system where if you get a WOF without any major things (i.e one number plate light out) then you get it for 12 months if there are too many things or anything major its 6 or even 3 months. Also reduced to 3-6 months if stopped for anything.

**MSTRS:Me** · 1st May 2009, 08:47

Originally Posted by vtec

...huge example of nanny state....

Really? I've been operating vehicles for 36 years and it's always been 6 monthly wofs. It seems to work, and despite the regular hassle to prove your vehicle(s) are up to scratch, why change something that isn't broken.

Originally Posted by jimjim

... imports being sold here are a vast improvement of the fleet of aging pommy crap that everyone drove pre import days

But, but, but....all cars are better than 'back then'. Still no reason to neglect them.

**Mully** · 1st May 2009, 08:52

The trouble with NZ is that we have too many fuckwits, who don't bother to keep their vehicles in good order.

Much like speed limits, they therefore must dumb the system down to the lowest common denominator.

I'd rather have these people checked than have them running around putting my life at risk

It's a pain in the arse, but I can't think of a better system.

(btw, the Ducati could have run off the road because it slipped on something dropped from another vehicle that didn't have a WOF)

**Dealer** · 1st May 2009, 08:53

Current WOF system is 1 year wof for vehicles up to 6 years old (from time of 1st registration) and then 6 monthly wof after that. Which IMHO is a perfectly good system, as the older a vehicle gets, the more it deteriorates.
However, they could put a clause in for vehicles returned to as new condition, i.e rebuilt.
Is it so hard to get a wof if your vehicle is in good condition? my bike passes every time, though i got a warning once about low brake pads, which i then replaced.

**Pixie** · 1st May 2009, 09:42

Originally Posted by vtec

forgot the option, of only requiring checks when safety hazards are identified by police. This has been inspired by the latest nzherald article about the ducati fatality, they mentioned that it was unwarranted, well in my opinion that's because warrants lapse way too fast and not because of safety concerns. Did they need to mention the lapsed warrant and was it relevant in my opinion no, what is relevant is if the brakes failed or the tyres were past the wear indicators apart from that I can't think what would be relevant to a Ducati hitting a tree in terms of vehicle failure.

This would require cops diverting their attention from their donuts

**xwhatsit** · 1st May 2009, 09:43

Originally Posted by vtec

I've been living and travelling abroad for the last couple of years, and NZ is the only place where they require detailed vehicle "safety" (or rather legislative adherence) checks every six months.

True that the UK's MOT checks aren't every six months -- they're yearly -- but nonetheless they still have them and they're far more detailed than what we do here. They do all sorts of things WOF inspectors here aren't allowed to do (visual external check only) and the machines are kept to a higher standard.

In Queensland, there's nothing. Not at all. No checks in the slightest. For the most part in Brisbane people drive around in fancy new Mazdas or Toyotas or Holdens or Fords; but you often see the most painfully dangerous pieces of crap rolling along too. If a policeman stops you he can give you a ticket but of course there's a lot that slips through the cracks.

**Pixie** · 1st May 2009, 09:47

Originally Posted by Dealer

Current WOF system is 1 year wof for vehicles up to 6 years old (from time of 1st registration) and then 6 monthly wof after that. Which IMHO is a perfectly good system, as the older a vehicle gets, the more it deteriorates.
However, they could put a clause in for vehicles returned to as new condition, i.e rebuilt.
Is it so hard to get a wof if your vehicle is in good condition? my bike passes every time, though i got a warning once about low brake pads, which i then replaced.

I had a testing station MENSA candidate test my bike's spokes for tightness once.- on a cast alloy wheel

Saved my life it did

**vtec** · 1st May 2009, 12:12

I really don't agree with the safety thing. Living in Aussie last year, they don't get warrant checks at all, there are some shitheaps around, but they have a far lower crash rate than NZ. Actually my younger brother just had a pretty nasty accident, but that was totally driver error, his car was old but had been well looked after, I inspected it for him when I was still there. It's destroyed now. I think most people are capable of driving to their vehicles ability. There are cars that pass warrants etc but have skinny useless or sunhardened tyres and you don't see them crashing all the time. Stop being soft people. Over here in the states, they do emissions testing yearly I think something NZ doesn't do, but I think the safety checks if anything are far less rigorous than in NZ.

Numbers are starting to agree with me.

**davebullet** · 1st May 2009, 12:46

It should be mileage based or minimum one year. A vehicle is unlikely to rust to death in 1 year. Conversely if I drive only 3,000kms per year, do I really need a WOF every 1,500kms when garaged and no rust? (PS: the ol' 92 honda accord sh1ter passed her WOF today as it happens without any issues)....