As many of you are aware, NZTA and the MOT are developing a reform package that, among other things, will mean possible and maybe significant changes to both the relicensing and WOF systems that we currently have, including the change of frequency and/or even the discontinuing of inservice WOF checks altogether.Transport minister Gerry Brownlee has hintd that these changes are going to be implemented fairly quickly too.The MTA have indicated in this above document that they are intending to push for even tougher WOF checks.It clearly spells out the attutude they have towards their members customers and their obvious concern they have of the commercial impact that these changes will/could bring.Whoever wrote the document also seems to have ignored the fact that the stated objective of the reforms is to SAVE money and compliance costs, and their proposals could well do the opposite.Its also worthy of note that it would involve significant investment on the part of their members in new equipment such as new or upgraded diagnostic gear, brake rollers etc that many of the smaller low volume IO's probably won't want to do.They also seem to ignore the fact that a 6 month interval isn't practiced anywhere else in the world and are very thin on real justification as to why its needed.Their poll results are somewhat surprising, do you really agree with their survey results!One wonders if they polled a flock of sheep who wish to be lead around by the nose everywhere.
Interested in your thoughts as this affects everyone who operates a motor vehicle,. Public submissions for this open in September and everyone should make their opinion known I reckon.
twink19,
Jul 14, 5:14am
have heard that could be no wof for new cars under service agreement with dealer, and after that every year until 10 years old.on the other side if the wof inspections were 12 months for every car, I would be concerned about the amount of unsafe cars on the road, as some people have unroad worthy cars, and some are down right dangerous
r15,
Jul 14, 5:56am
with any luck natural selection will get these people and the whole country will be a cheaper place for the rest of us to live in as a result.
natural selection is way too held back by the nanny state
smac,
Jul 14, 5:58am
If some have un-roadworthy now, what difference will no WoF make!
On the flip side, what are you basing this assertion that many are un-roadworthy!
Anyone got figures for how many accidents are caused by vehicle condition! If MTA had them, they;d be waving them about.but they have nothing. They are approaching this solely as a financial risk to their members, practicality be damned.
franc123,
Jul 14, 7:50am
This is exactly the point, the "dangerous fringe" being talked about don't bother with WOF's anyway. The answer to the second point is very very few, its nearly always the fault of the driver or road/weather conditions and misjudgement.Data from Serious Crash Units backs this up too. I seem to remember reading somewhere that vehicle faults were under 5%
skin1235,
Jul 14, 8:01am
if they move to 12 mt warrants there will be a tightening of the margins, things that may get a warning today will be a fail the minimums will lift to compensate for a longer interval between checks(min 2mm tread will be min4mm etc)
the worry re un-roadworthy cars is hogwash, no car today goes from warranted to un-roadworthy in 6 months without serious issues not picked up at last warrant, most cars would remain roadworthy even if the warrants were checked every 24mths
carkitter,
Jul 14, 8:05am
Rubbish. The so-called experts pushing for a law change will be setting up businesses to profit from it. It's just wealth creation for those in power as usual.
skin1235,
Jul 14, 8:19am
!, so every testing station 'those in power', the fails will be just as trivial and more so, that speck of rust on an exhaust system today that doesn't even get a note will be a full replacement cos 'it will not last another 6 mths to the 12 mth test, similar rack boots etc, a slight dust cover will be deemed as imminent perish thus fail, more of a worry is the number of 1 eyed ( headlights) that the drivers are not even aware of, and even if they were they will not put a new bulb in until the next warrant is tomorrow
smac,
Jul 14, 9:08am
I think you missunderstood what I meant.
kaymay88,
Jul 14, 10:04am
an unsafe car is just as likely to kill someone else, as it is the driver.
gunhand,
Jul 14, 10:33am
True, but it always seems to work out the dropkick survives and the inocent die.
aredwood,
Jul 14, 11:46am
I guess it comes down to the usual "the devil is in the details". One of the proposals listed in the presentation would be the "check engine light" illuminated be a WOF fail. And possibly checking for trouble codes as well. How that would work for cars that have had carb to EFI or EFI to carb conversions! And cars that have a different EFI system than the factory one!
One check I think should be included in the wof is a check that the demisting systems work. IE rear demister if fitted. And a working heater OR aircon and fan for front windscreen.
franc123,
Jul 14, 10:10pm
Ongoing compliance between checks is acknowledged as being a big failing of the current system, this of course varies between lights being broken to people swapping out illegal suspension parts and tyres.The MOT is floating the idea of booze bus style random checks that could be far more effective in this area, either to complement or even replace normal inspections.
smac,
Jul 14, 10:27pm
That's pretty much the Aussie model. Most states have a lower bar as far as checks, but if you are pulled over and not up to spec the penalties are high. Personally I think it's the right idea - shift the responsibility back from the state to the operator.
skin1235,
Jul 14, 10:37pm
the amount of legislation is oppressive though, if it were warranted it wouldn't be so bad but there is just too much petty legislation
no we do not need fails because the rear demister is not working, nor the legislation laying out how it should be checked and what reaction time it must be able to clear a screen etc, equally we do not need legislation re a perish sign on axle boots or age signs on fan belts these are not safety issues, they are issues that can be brought to the attention of the owner so they can avoid a potential broken journey - but WOF is not there to assist for that, it is to check the vehicle is at the time of checking, safe to be on the road
modie61,
Jul 15, 8:45am
I agree smac. It will have to be policed to a higher degree,like they do in Aussie.
franc123,
Jul 15, 9:25am
Of course, its your car, you are responsible for its upkeep at all times, and you are to seek advice or repair ASAP if you suspect something might be wrong or non compliant between inspections. When you read the back of a WOF checksheet this is what it states anyway!I'm sure if in Queensland for example there were scores of road deaths occuring because of dangerous cars they would have introduced periodic inspections, but regular checks while a private vehicle is with the same owner don't exist.
franc123,
Jul 15, 9:25am
Of course, its your car, you are responsible for its upkeep at all times, and you are to seek advice or repair ASAP if you suspect something might be wrong or non compliant between inspections. When you read the back of a WOF checksheet this is what it states anyway!I'm sure if in Queensland for example there were scores of road deaths occuring because of dangerous cars they would have introduced periodic inspections, but regular compulsory checks while a private vehicle is with the same owner don't exist. Queenslanders must have a better servicing ethic perhaps!
modie61,
Jul 15, 9:30am
South Australia has the same system,but NSW has yearly checks done on all vehicles older than 3 years,called a pinkie.
tigra,
Jul 16, 2:34am
This is what we get when people behind desks ( who may even ride bicycles to work) are given the task ofdrawing up rules and policy management.Its just crap.As said elsewhere it seems not many of our bad crashes are caused by an unsafe car and even those listed as unsafeprobably have some minor fault such as moisture in the foglamps. Its relly time the NZTA kept records about faulty cars and crashes.
smac,
Jul 16, 3:47am
Surely if anyone was going to it would be Police, or perhaps the insurance industry!
skin1235,
Jul 16, 4:14am
its the NTZA that cobbles up an amendment to existing laws because their old aunts sister in law had a fogged up screen and bowled the NZTA blokes mailbox though, so we get stupid laws, to punish her, inflicted on everyone NZTA should at least have a database relevant to the issue of unsafe vehicles involved in accidents
They've banned hand held phones, are they less obtrusive than bluetooth or console mounted ( when used for oral communication), we are about to get nonsmoking laws while incar, too distracting they claim I know of one vehicle that was failed for a wof due to the heater not being present in the car, the claim was that the untidy mess left behind somehow made the vehicle unsafe - if they'd claimed the lack of ability to clear a fogged screen it may have made more sense, but even that is not a wof standard - yet I've also heard of a VW with heated ext mirrors being failed because it was missing the outer shroud therefore the mirror on that side ( left) could possible be fogged up, the rule re one mirror on the right is suffice has become, if fitted it must be perfect
absolutely crazy stuff, snuck in by a Gestapo that has never had any creds or accountability
smac,
Jul 16, 4:33am
I have no idea what you just meant to say for most of that.
But I did pick up one comment that seemed coherent: you think hand held phones are less intrusive/distracting than hands free. Cool, somehow you know more than pretty much every single piece of research ever done on the topic. Go you.
berg,
Jul 16, 5:02am
Just on hand held phones, their use was banned because dickwads use them for texting while driving. If they banned texting while driving without banning hand held phones alone anybody caught would just say they were calling somebody not texting. As for extended time WOFs or no WOFs at all, suits me. Will mean I have all the work I can handle for the rest of my days
skin1235,
Jul 16, 6:10am
lol, my kids would tell you the more tired I am the more I ramble and the more incoherent I get
I need a holiday, or 3 days up the bush
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.