WOF s

We can always find extremes, but is not our wof regime heading toward the obtuse. Failure because the screen washer is empty,the fuel flap doesnt open properly etc.
I was surprised a couple of years ago at how extreme our standards were while traveling through the UK and Scandinavia. They had yearly wofs which were not as strict as ours, speaking with garage owners there the comments were of amazement at our strict standards.
While happy having high standards, may we not have gone too far and time has come for yearly wofs .

Roadside police inspections the method it does in OZ

Personal responsibility is all very well for those of us that are able to afford to be personally responsible !

Many many people 'claim' that they cannot afford $50.00 every six months for a WOF inspection, let alone having their vehicle serviced and maintained in a mechanically safe state.

If you cannot afford to put aside 28 cents or so a day (a couple of dollars a week), then you cannot afford to own and maintain a motor vehicle to the required standard !

If they cannot afford the above, how do they then afford the fines that they subsequently accumulate !

Ummmm correct, but there is currently a system that alerts the appropriate authorities that the vehicle is presently not up to the required standard !

You are missing the point with something as simple as the screen wash scenario. The thing has to operate and be seen to operate correctly. Nobody seems to care whether their (or others) screen wash systems are operational until they have to use the thing and it converts a dirty screen from something that you have marginal vision thru to something that you have no vision thru because you attempted to use the thing . so something very trivial becomes something highly dangerous in a matter of seconds.

There are pedantic aspects associated with WOF's, that is the aspect that needs addressing.

The screen wash not operating because it isn't full is usually VTNZ . if you use anyone other than VTNZ you will probably find that the inspector has checked the operation, heard the motor run, the bonnet is probably up for under bonnet inspection and the VIN anyway, so they will slosh a bit of water into the bottle and then check the operation and no one other than the inspector is any wiser !

AND the best thing I found about the system in the UK was when you went to get your Road Tax disc you HAVE to produce documentation to state that your vehicle has a current MOT (our WOF) and Insurance. No paperwork, no tax disc! And if you're caught driving without any of it, the fines are substantial, you get demerit points on your licence AND your car is towed. If you don't get it all up to date and pay the fines that's the last you see of the car. I for one have no problem with that. It keeps everyone much safer.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I used to use vtnz, but they got silly, use an independant organisation now. When I took my camper to them last time, hadn't used it for two months, he asked about it's use, when told seldom, told me to drive down the expressway with brakes gently on to remove the surface rust on the discs. I know if I took it to vtnz it would have been a failure, with a total lack of concideration. Btw, the brakes were totally ok, nicely in balance.

Hell yes, on a few episodes of that UK motorway patrol show that was on a while back, when the cops picked up untaxed and uninsured vehicles they went ballistic at the drivers, not only was the book chucked at them but concrete blocks as well damn near, they made the buggers walk from that point on.

There's something screwy about WOFs as they are .
60 years ago, when I learned to drive, in a 10hp (1 litre) Hillman that had wire-actuated (string) brakes that took real courage to use at any speed, crossply tyres with half the grip of today's radials, 'Armstrong' steering via an abortionate Burman worm and pinion, friction shocks, solid front axle that developed a vicious shimmy that forced one to slow right down, and other abominationate mechanicals, the WOF was every six months.
With today's cars, immeasurably better design and construction, radial tyres, power steering, etc., we still need a 6-month WOF!
Apart from the few idiots who do not look after their vehicles, I do not believe that modern cars, even 12-year old ones, need a 6-monthly WOF.
There are about 2.4 million cars in NZ. Warrants at about $45 twice yearly adds up to a massive annual take of two hundred and sixteen million dollars, guaranteed by law.
That's 216,000,000 reasons for the WOF industry to keep the status quo, in my book.

'A few idiots' !

I think you need to spend some time with an inspecting organisation and actually see what they see on a daily basis !

And 99% of the 'few idiots' that you make reference to are not idiots at all. And the 99% that are not idiots are dropping their cars off for a WOF not thinking for one second that there is anything safety related presently in existence on their vehicles and that they are being subjected to an unnecessary inspection that they do not feel that they and their vehicles should be subjected to only to find that there are currently safety related issues and that their vehicle has not met the basic requirements, with the biggest failure usually being bad wheel alignment as a consequence of who know what and tyres being worn thru to the plies on the inside, with 5mm of tread visible with a cursory inspection from the outside of the vehicle. One of whom was a local constable with a late model vehicle that he maintains in top order. When told that his vehicle had failed its inspection as a consequence of plies exposed on the insides of the front tyres he indignantly responded that 'there is nothing wrong with my tyres', where upon he marched over to the vehicle and said the tyres are fine. He was pointed in the right direction and straightened out accordingly.

Is this the sort of 'idiot' that you are making reference to !

So therafter1, serious question for you. Not trying to wind you up, I'm curious what you think about this.

The countries with less strict inspection regimes than ours do not display a worse issue with vehicle related crashes. I know the data on this is light, but I've never seen any suggestion that this is the case.

However, we also know that there are many owners out there that use the WoF as a service check, and only fix what they have to (your own comments above show this)

SO, if we went to a less frequent check, it seems we would need to bring the owners along for the ride, educating them and bringing theor awareness up to the point where they take responsibility for the safety of their own car.

IF we can do that (it's a big if), would you agree we are then in a better place as a country!

Nice to see that you aren't trying to wind me up, and also nice to see that you haven't inferred that I am a 'bullmanurer', as happened in a previous thread when I wasn't actually 'bullmanuring' !

The data is light yes. It is difficult to compare NZ to other countries in respect of roads, vehicles, the age of the vehicles, the varying surfaces of the roads, the nature of the roads and the terrain that the roads traverse and the manner in which many in this country drive the roads.

It is my belief that the present system is working, and any tweaks that there 'may' be will be minor. There will still be inspections, albeit with a longer time frame between inspections in some cases. Whichever way you look at it there are plus's and minus's.

It must also be remembered that we are the land of the JUC. In many cases we are seeing reasonably late model vehicles with very low odo readings that in reality are past their use by date regardless of the odo reading. They have been pranged and repaired and they have been modified. Sometimes that modification may be as simple as wheel sizes. The manufacturers label inside the door recommends wheel sizes up to blah blah blah, but some berk, either here or over there has ignored that totally and fitted enormous wheels both in width and diameter and consequently the steering geometry and probably a whole lot of other things have gone out the window and they become tyre eaters.

In reality I do not know the answer. What I do know is that every day we see vehicles that are not compliant in many ways and they are owned by people that have the financial wherewithal to be personally responsible, but as a consequence of their own lack of knowledge in respect of their vehicle they are not aware that their vehicle is not presently compliant from a safety perspective and is a potential hazard to themselves and other road users when 'they believe' the vehicle is presently compliant.

I also understand that under the present legislation many people that do look after their vehicles, that do live in urban environments with the associated lower speed limits, that do do low annual KM's due to the utilisation of public transport etc etc that WOF's can be an inconvenience to them. Unfortunately (just like speed limits) we still have to cater to the lowest common denominator for the benefit of us all.

Educate them (pass me my brick on a rope). We constantly explain to people that they have an expensive alignment problem that needs addressing, we explain why, we show them why, we point them in the direction of the best local source of alignment and explain that it is a reasonably inexpensive process that in many instances you can have done while you wait . and six months later they present their vehicle for a WOF after failing the last WOF for tyre wear as a consequence of bad alignment and they need replacement tyres in order to pass a WOF ! . you can lead horses to water but you cannot make them drink !

How are the MTA competing with themselves! The reason that the MTA wants WOFs to stay as they are has been very publicly announced and makes good sense. I personally agree with Mileage based WOFs and one option put forward is every 12,000 kms. But it would impossible to enforce. The real reason we have more frequent wofs is because our roads in this country are rubbish. Most of our cars are old as the hills, and honestly - if the current system fails around 30% of the cars inspected then GOD help us if it moves out to yearly inspections! I am an inspector and seriously I am daily failing cars that are looking for somewhere to kill someone! Come and work in out shop for a week and see what I see.

Its quite simple about seeing things that may or may not last 6 months. The WOF is a snapshot of the vehicles condition at the point in time it is being inspected. That is all it can ever be. You cant see into the future to fail a vehicle for something that may not make it to next inspection. thats when it becomes the operators/ owners responsibility. Every checksheet says those words. Have a look.

You claim to work in this industry and you do not know the commercial relationship between MTA and VTNZ! LMAO yours is one of the funniest posts so far. Km based WOF's are the dumbest idea out, all that will encourage is more odo disconnecting on top of the existing RUC farce. The only reason we still have 6 month WOF's is because thats the way its always been, the system has been in place since 1938 when clearly both component reliability and road standards were far lower than now, and the majority of people lived rurally. All thats happened is the system has stayed and had minor upgrades since to take into account new technology, the rest of the rule changes over the years are the result of bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs. Hence the WOF's transition from a 10 minute check that cost a few dollars of the core safety items like brakes, steering, suspension, tyres, lights and rust in critical areas, to the 45 minute odyssey it is now where you get failed for empty screen washers and minor abrasions on seatbelts that don't undermine their strength. The average age of vehicles is 13, which isn't significantly older than the US or Australia. What is practiced here is not done IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. The vast majority of your correct 25-30% fail rate is for minor faults, of course we have nitwits who haven't noticed bald or damaged tyres or a worn steering part but no more than anywhere else. It has been proven here that vehicle faults are a contributor in about 4-7% of fatal and injury crashes here, which again is in line with overseas data. Which is all why the system needs revision, the problem lies with the lack of self directed vehicle maintenance and attitude from some people, which needs to be altered for them through more vigorous random roadside enforcement. And no I don't need to visit you, have been an AVI since 1997.

I reckon cars 50 years old and older should be WOF free. They just made all pre 1960 cars MOT free in the UK _b

no:
i worked on lots of classics- some of their owners were tight as when it came to wof items--
"ohh i only use it twice a year she'll be right"
" ohhh I've got one coming"
" they all do that"
yeah right

I have a mate with a 1952 Jaguar XK-120.
Itbrakes are almost the 'throw an anchor' type. The doors have a 1cm gap between them and the frame when fully closed. Fortunately, being a Jag, it fails to proceed rather a lot, so its less dangerous.

He's an enthusiast, but even though he thinks his car is perfect, the truth is its really awful. That car should have to have a new wof every time it gets driven.

That's the thing about a lot of classic owners, one is the type who checks makes sure everything is sorted, even if it costs a few $$ (if not, just leave it and wait until you've got the $$ to fix) and then the other kind who treat it like a POS and never expect to pay a cent to run it, which is like a lot of modern car owners it seems lol "What! I have to check oil and change brake pads!! sod that!"

Any inspector with a crystal ball you mean. Is the vehicle going to do 40 000km or 400km in that 6 months!

That's not how the system works and there's no way that it could. The onus of roadworthiness between inspections has always been on the owner and should remain so. It's just the tightarse Kiwi mindset that has lead some to believe that if their car passes an inspection it doesn't need anything doing before the next one. Do these morons think the faults develop just as they pull in the driveway for the inspection and up until it was discovered it was perfectly safe to drive with exposed cords on the tyres!

I personally don't consider that pedantic. Any driver too lazy to put some water in the washer bottle should be inconvenienced by a recheck - perhaps it will teach them to actually do some elementary maintenance. However, failing a vehicle because the fog lamps don't work and not failing it because the reverse lamps don't work are completely the wrong way around!

agree 100%

Government's own analysis (off what is a low base) shows that without significant interventions, over the next decade, between 7 and 84 extra deaths and 16 and 179 extra serious injuries will occur. Their interventions include additional enforcement, roadside checks and an eductaional programme.
There are currently 275,000 cars on the road withouit a WoF now, so how are they going to increase enforcement without extra costs!
Who is the best operson to check a car. A cop at the side of the road where they can't effectively check much beyond tyes, lights and belts - or someone with a hoist or proper facuility that's trained to do it for a living!
Do you think most cops actually join up to check out cars on the side of the road!
Is this what we want the Police doing! Ever tried to get them to attend a burglary or theft from your car within 24 hours - they're busy already.
As for changing attitudes. Come on. We have been trying to halt drink driving for 40 years. We have spend a fotune on it. Yes it's less than it used to but it's still the biggest killer we have.
Do you really trust the government to do all those things properly and without adding to costs. Remember their drive for this is increased efficiency and less cost.

I voted for change. You can vote here:
http://www.handsoffthewof.co.nz/

I'm in favour of dumping the lot. It's time that the wof gravy train was pushed into a siding somewhere