Gee people are trusting. I saw the head of NZTA on TV3 'reassuring" us that they'd be able to avoid any problems that their study says could occur. I was unconvinced.
All Governments have long, long history's of telling us 'trust us, everything will be alright'. In this case, if they don't get it right, then there will be real problems. A big worry I say.
I'd rather keep paying $50 twice a year to know I and everyone else on the road was in a safe vehicle. Its cheaper than paying for an accident, or worse.
willy911,
Oct 13, 9:13am
hi just back from ozto retire, building a targa car, do you have to have your inside lining(rear seats etc) in the car for wof, and what special rego is avail for lack of road use cheers
geedubu,
Oct 13, 10:24am
If it has a rollcage, six-point harness and other safety mods etc (which it will have) you will need MotorSport NZ certification and your own motorsport license to get an authority card so it can be driven on the road.Not hardBUT you should (actually you would be mad not to) join a car club & get all the gen before you get too far down the track.So to speak.
smac,
Oct 13, 1:45pm
Actually I think that's 0.5%.
2.5% of crashed vehicles have a fault, but only .5% can be shown as the sole reason for the crash.
There's also behavioral aspects muddying the water. As I understand it if somebody was to crash because their windscreen was obscured, or there lights were not on, those are not vehicle faults (but are recorded as such and contribute to the 2.5%).
franc123,
Oct 13, 2:06pm
Yes I realise that pinpointing exact causes of vehicle crashes is extremely difficult at times, as is what you define as a 'vehicle fault'. That is why the percentage can vary so much. If you take the 0.5% figure as being faults that would have caused the vehicle to fail WOF immediately prior to a crash, and were directly responsible for it, adds further weight to the argument that such frequent official checks aren't needed, and makes even more of a mockery of the MTA's claims. These estimates and the experts that came up with them I suspect were created over smoko one day in an office building in Wellington by people who are very concerned about the shrinking of an empire. Its fiction.
smac,
Oct 13, 2:36pm
Ya I'm agreeing with you. Was just meaning the MTA's claims were more off than you'd said.
rob_man,
Oct 13, 2:45pm
I notice they've gone silent, maybe somebody up top saw that their argument was too easily picked apart and told the minion to shutup.
llortmt,
Oct 13, 4:12pm
I think you'll find 'themta' was a fairly regular contributor who didn't wish to use that user name.
bjmh,
Oct 15, 8:26am
i've just been sent an invoice from mta for vehicle licensing reform promotional campaign support.$172-50.i wonder if this includes themta time on trademe !
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 15, 2:49pm
The MTA have been posting on stuff as well, really working hard to push their barrow. Nice to see plenty of people seeing through their incessant lobbying though.
mantagsi,
Oct 15, 5:45pm
Oh my goodness, why on earth do people still insist that the WoF is a vehicle maintenance program! Unfortunately it is not. 12 month warrants please. I have to agree with Jazz here on the point that the fleet may be older but the safety standards are still advancing. Both sides do raise valid points but I just can't help but feel biased against MTA as it seems very much like $$$ motivation. Doesn't help that Murphy is a pain in the ass, they would have been better off with the Briscoes lady
sifty,
Oct 16, 6:17am
Heard murph trying to justify his stance on the wireless this morning.
didn't help their case.
smac,
Oct 16, 6:24am
I'm genuinely interested if he actually believes it, or if he's been forced into it to honor his contract with them. I think there's been a few cases now where the mouthpiece has been held accountable for claims of an organisation. Thought they would have wized up and put an out clause in the contract.
franc123,
Oct 16, 8:22am
This was the Radiolive interview! Missed it myself, did it sound like his personal opinion or something he has simply been told to say! Was there much banging on about the huge danger we will all be in if we start doing what most of the rest of the world does or any accurate figures quoted!
sifty,
Oct 16, 8:26am
He fudged the figures, saying the official figures were wrong, and that around 10% of incidents were directly warrant/safety related. then prattled on about how it could be the car coming towards you and your family etc.
Definitely sounded like a paid mouthpiece.
bleetbleet,
Oct 16, 9:21am
i could be wrong ,but i understood a lot of workshops actually lose money on wof checks.20 mins work for a standard charge of $35
rsr72,
Oct 16, 9:29am
It's no longer a valid argument for anyone to say that we have 'an aging car fleet'. Our fleet has been constantly got younger with the average age of the NZ fleet now being just over 13 years compared with the age of the USA fleet at just over 11 years. - - not such a great difference at all. Don't fall for motor trade and government skewing statistics to suit their agendas at any time.
smac,
Oct 16, 9:29am
Yep, a "loss leader". Get them in the door, then make the money back on work done. It doesn't necessarily mean they are being dishonest, it's just a way of getting customers in the door that might not otherwise come there.
The bit that those in the industry don't like to talk about is the fact that non-testing station WoF garages have a higher fail rate (than testing stations). A cynic would say this is to get work, while the opposing view is that the testing stations pass too many because fails (rechecks) cost them time for no revenue. ie it's in their interest to pass you.
ct9a,
Oct 16, 9:51am
gosh if only the rest of NZ had the same cond. and case by case as you lot the change would be great but sadly people the rest on the road are far from fine and dandy she'll be right mate. perhaps some of the people who say yes should have a week in a workshop and just see how worn things get between 6months.
any play on steering and suspension and the roads/weight/suspension work on it ,it has to take that movement up before operationg correctly.just one basic example please everyone think outside the box and more wider far and feild the huge range of variables.
ct9a,
Oct 16, 9:56am
and what are people's thoughts on the aftermath More crashes,acc rates, huge loss of jobs as workshops close/downsize the price on parts,,repco,super cheap etc etc.
smac,
Oct 16, 10:14am
ct9a it's about weighing up the cost versus the benefits. It's also about using the best method to keep vehicles safe, and a periodic inspection isn't it.
Do some crashes happen because of vehicle condition! Of course they do. But they are a tiny percentage, and despite what the MTA are saying the % here is not significantly different from jurisdictions that have far looser controls.
If you follow the argument that the best way of keeping the vehicle fleet up to scratch is a regular check, then we'd have daily or weekly checks, because that would be safer. Sound silly! Of course it is, so the term gets extended. But as soon as it gets pushed out to more than a few weeks, you are no longer relying on the test to keep vehicles safe, because things wear out, sometimes fast. You have to fall back on things like education, driver awareness etc and THAT is where the current thinking is heading.
It doesn't matter what frequency inspection you choose, there will always be a vehicle that passes, then fails as it drives away. For this reason the logic of a check as the safety net doesn't hold water.
smac,
Oct 16, 10:16am
The argument about parts prices etc also doesn't stack up. A reduction in inspection frequency should not impact the amount servicing on vehicles that occurs. If it does, that simply shows that people are servicing for the inspection, not because they should. That's a reason TO reduce the frequency, not increase it or leave it the same, because it shows that people are driving around for 5 months unsafe, then fixing just in time. That clearly shows change is needed, the safety check isn't achieving what it was supposed to (i.e. keeping vehicles safe).
and wouldn't checks be more stringent at yearly intervals!
I mean, you often get a pass but a warning that a tyre (for example) won't see out the next warrant. If the next warrant was a year away, that would mean a fail, wouldn't it.!
Fail to see how there would be less parts bought etc.
smac,
Oct 16, 1:56pm
Interesting. The stuff I've read from Monash puts it at about 6%.maybe they've done multiple studies.
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.