My personal opinion is that theproposed WOF regulations are not to do with safety or statistics, but to do with central Govt. The plan is purely to get older cars off the road. (Correct me if I make no sense). Put it this way, a crapper worth say $800-00, rough, but generally ok cond. may take $400-00 every wof to get compliance due to WOF fails, JUST SAY, minor rust, a tyre, lights, whatever on a six month cycle. Give the same car a 12 month cycle and the repair may well be 3 tyres, a fair amount of rust, lights and a leaking shock or two, and a $900-00 repair or more, so the car will be scrapped (or just driven without a WOF). Just my thoughts, I think I'm on the money, Whaddya reckon! Panel Vanner.
panelvanner,
Oct 13, 10:28pm
What I meant to add, was, so most people will likely scrap an ok-ish car, because they will not be able to afford repair bills on a larger scale. Then get more debt, buy another cheap crapper, and be in the same cycle in a year or three.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 13, 10:35pm
While I would rule nothing out I think the greater concern/conspiracy here is still the MTA's lobbying.
It would also be nice to think that the Government is preparing us to weather the worsening global financial crises by reducing unnecessary costs and over regulation. However really, the impression I get of Simon Bridges is that he is more about looking good and PR than alterior motives and hidden agenda's. I could be wrong though.
gammelvind,
Oct 14, 6:17am
Your thinking panelvanner is more likely to be a consequence of a change, intended or otherwise and frankly in many cases it wouldn't be a bad thing. Jazz is more likely to be on the money where the govt is try to look good by saving us money, a consequence that I don't have a problem with.
saxman99,
Oct 14, 6:38am
"Let's see, I have a $900 car which has just failed its WoF. It needs $600 spent on repairs to bring it up to standard.Hmm, what's the fine in the unlikely event I get caught using the car without a WoF! $200!Screw it, I won't bother. "
racetoy,
Oct 14, 6:49am
What you think they will leave the fine at $200 for no wof.more likely go up to $800 or more
franc123,
Oct 14, 6:54am
Thats where tougher roadside enforcement has to kick in, but the policymakers already know that. With public submissions still open for another fortnight its going to be interesting to see which way the MTA's propaganda campaign turns next, they're going to have to come up with something a hell of a lot better than they have so far. Their argument that we need vehicle inspections twice as often as any other nation on earth isn't deep enough to fit a tyre tread depth gauge into. FAIL lol. Oh and good to see a certain aquatic creature frequenting these parts again!
martin11,
Oct 14, 6:54am
And if you have an accident that is your fault possibly be in debtfor the a long time and probably jail if you kill or injure some one
smac,
Oct 14, 7:40am
I think you're off a bit.
If the move was about getting older cars off the road the 6 month check would be left alone and the test would become tougher, or they would start to backdate some of the safety regs. None of that is happening, it's about saving money. We currently carry a financial and process burden that nobody else does, and there is no credible reason for it to continue (sorry MTA, but facts are facts).
I think there's some pretty serious questions to be asked about the decision making process and how they're going about it, but for once I agree with their motivations.
mrfxit,
Oct 14, 7:43am
Best of intentions (good) driven by government (fail)
mrfxit,
Oct 14, 7:51am
If any vehicles that I have had around that value, NEEDED that much work EACH wof . Well DUH . not worth it, aye.
My 88 Surf hasn't had any wof work spent on in in the nearly 4 years I have had it.
dent,
Oct 14, 7:56am
I cant see how its a money saving thing. In the real world how much money are you going to save by say having to get a yearly wof instead of a 6 monthly wof. I think the repairs are guna outweigh any savings anyway.
intrade,
Oct 14, 7:56am
if they wanted 80% cars off the road all they needed to do is have emission testing. all the diesel with cambelts not done would blow up with stuffed belts right then and there at the test ,rest would almost all fail including some of my euro-diesel not to mention the petrol cars that wont meet hc with a dirty aircleaner or co levels with leaking exhaust . that would be how to get rid of old cars in a flash. So i think the conspirecy theory is crushed . Personally i dont want people driving there cars when they never service it these are the ones bitching when they bring you the car and get bills of 500$ for wof repairs, these people should all walk anyhow.
So there may be some $500 shi11ers that may be unecomonic to repair up to a SAFETY standard, whats bad about that! That happens now, doesn't it!
smac,
Oct 14, 9:52am
Something like half the fleet are on 6 monthly WoF's. 4 or 5 million WOF's a year, so you've just stopped about 1.5million WOF's a year . SO perhaps up to $75million per annum!
llortmt,
Oct 14, 10:19am
I think everyone needs to open their eyes and look at the bigger picture its NOT about the COST of inspection, its about the revenue stream it produces. Sure that's great for garages, but its great for everyone, it stimulates the economy and creates employment. A change to annual WOF inspection will mean job losses in the motor trade and allied industries less work means less jobs and this will have a knock on effect everyone will feel in one way or another. It will NOT be of benefit to road safety and will ultimately cost the public more money, be that through extra repairs, higher ACC levies or even higher crime rate (yes really!). In the event of a change to an annual inspection garages will be forced to significantly raise the price of said inspection in order to remain viable. It??
smac,
Oct 14, 10:33am
When changes like this are evaluated, there are indepth investigations into the social cost (direct and indirect) as well as the 'benefits'. Its certainly not just a one sided calculation. I gave the number because somebody asked, but it's not the whole picture. Yes the money spent on WOFs would no longer be going to those inspection sites, but it WILL be going somewhere else. It's not like the money simply evaporates. Keeping a regulated cost in place solely to artificially prop up jobs just doesn't make sense under ANY economic model.
llortmt,
Oct 14, 11:17am
I'm not suggesting for one second that we should keep it JUST to prop up jobs.I am however pointing out (which no one else on this board has as yet) that there is more to any change than 'saving' the public $50 a year. You're right the money does have to go somewhere, however in a small country like NZ its VERY important that it continues to circulates in the local economy. Think of the economy like a small business, cash flow is almost everything! Generally the people who think they can fix a thing that's not broken don't understand fully how it works.
llortmt,
Oct 14, 11:35am
In order to demonstrate the importance of that cash flow I shall copy & paste an old tale. In a small town on the South Coast of France, with the holiday season supposed to be in full swing, but unfortunately it is raining so there is not too much business going on. Everyone is heavily in debt. Luckily, a rich Russian tourist arrives in the foyer of the small local hotel. He asks for a room and puts a Euro100 note on the reception counter, takes a key and goes to inspect the room located up the stairs on the third floor. The hotel owner takes the banknote in a hurry and rushes to his meat supplier to whom he owes ?
smac,
Oct 14, 11:50am
umm.wow. I thought this was gonna get interesting, but if that's where you're understanding of economics is at then there's not much point continuing.
llortmt,
Oct 14, 12:40pm
I think its your level of understanding that seems somewhat limited mate!
martincj,
Oct 14, 12:58pm
I still don't see where you arn't suggesting that the motor industry be subsidised by vehicle owners, simply put, why should MTA or garage owners get to tell us where to spend that $30-$50!
Maybe those in the industry will use the changes to better advertise the benefits of servicing and other added services!
llortmt,
Oct 14, 1:25pm
I'm not, I'm suggesting that the picture it MUCH bigger than many seem to think or can even start to comprehend.
twink19,
Oct 14, 1:34pm
what ever they do it will not save us one dollar, its all political bull shyte, if they were serious about saving the motorist moey they could reduce the ACC content on desiel cars from $330 to the same as petrol cars
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.