+1, bring it on. If its enforced correctly and we convert enough of them into instant pedestrians people will soon change their ways. It will be a far more effective tool than regular inspections that a section of society don't bother with anyway and some that do instantly refit or remodify non compliant parts to their car after the check. Bust em in the act and make them walk.
phalanax,
Jan 19, 4:20pm
.lol.Might last 1 tripto Piha.common sense says if the pad does not look like it has enough lining to carry it thru to the next wof reject it.also a warning does not mean a fail.it means get it done before the next wof.brakes are a pretty mandatory basic fundamental necessity on a vehicle.not like have a worn wiper blade or a number plate light out.lol.
aragorn2003,
Jan 19, 4:23pm
That you Murph!
phalanax,
Jan 19, 4:31pm
Yes .I agree.too many muppets think owners will keep their vehicles well maintained.when truth is alot of folk think taking their car to a car wash is maintenance.might have to fit bull bars to compensate.lol
phalanax,
Jan 19, 4:40pm
Their are no savings too be made having wofs annually.even new cars should have them every 6 months (recalls and designfaults) .what will happen is folk will need more work done when it could have been spread over the period.or especially with brakes.folk will ingloriouslyexpire before their wofs due date. due to failure.hmm wonder how many idiots have pulled the abs warning bulb already thinking they are saving a few bucks on getting it fixed.Unmaintained ,incorrectly altered Cars KILL.
franc123,
Jan 19, 4:48pm
I'll say again, its a pass if its at or above the minimum limits on the day of inspection, what happens between now and the next WOF inspection is irrelevant. If a pad is clearly getting close to worn out then obviously the operator should be advised and perhaps given an estimate of when they should be changed, it is still their responsibility to carry out the repair at the end of the day, and their responsibility to maintain their gear to a standard where it would pass WOF if it was subject to a random check.
phalanax,
Jan 19, 4:53pm
Wrong its a fail.F A I L.because it wouldnt last a week into the 6month period.If you were an inspector id fire you and recall all your inspections If someone ploughed thru a stop sign due to your incompetency you would be facing manslaughter charges.the vehicle must be fit not just for that day .but more than probably for the next six months
franc123,
Jan 19, 5:00pm
Wrong, WOF's are not and never have been a guarantee of future compliance, read the fine print on the back of your checksheet.Besides NZTA are the only people who can revoke WOF authority and you cannot do that if VIRM requirements were clearly not breached. Nobody can guarantee how long a vehicle will stay roadworthy for! That is patently ridiculous. You highlight one of the biggest attitude problems facing this country, everything is always someone elses fault and that somehow a vehicle YOU bought, YOU own, YOU use and YOU crash is someone elses responsibility to maintain and monitor its condition!Get real.
phalanax,
Jan 19, 5:06pm
Your a cheapskate that would willing look away and put safety on the shelf to save a few bucks.if you think 1- 1.5mm brake pad thickness is ok and a pass and if such was the law we would have chaos.on the roads.lets double that period to the new suggested yearly and its twice as bad.how about a broken tie rod end .all right to drive on that for possibly 11.5 months.lol
phalanax,
Jan 19, 5:08pm
Wonder if a well worn cv joint will go 11 months without flying off and knocking Bob off his harley.its crazy to go for 1 year especially with very used cars.
jmma,
Jan 19, 5:10pm
Dam, both my headlight bulbs blew one day after getting a warrant and I smacked into a tree. Better go back and see the place I got the WOF (o:
cjdnzl,
Jan 19, 5:12pm
How then do you account for all the countries that don't have warrant checks 6-monthly or at all, while their accident rates are lower than ours!2 + 2 not making 4 here.
phalanax,
Jan 19, 5:13pm
Youre a funny man.trying to compare an apple with a cannon ball.lol
phalanax,
Jan 19, 5:18pm
Mandatory vehicle insurance.mandatory 6 month checks.making the payments on a car should come second to ensuring everyone else is safe from you and that your car is fit to be on the road. .my thoughts anyway.have fun promoting dangerous vehicles and immoral practices.ciao
jmma,
Jan 19, 5:19pm
Hows that, knew you would say something along those lines. A WOF is a snapshot of the vehicle presented on the day, no one can see into the future or know what is going to be changed or altered once it has a WOF. Show me where it says it has to last 6 months!
johnf_456,
Jan 19, 5:22pm
Sorry to burst your bubble but that is not the case, a wof is simply a snapshot of the condition of the vehicle present on the day. In no way is it a guarantee, some kiwi's think its that way because they can't take responsibility for their own actions.
franc123,
Jan 19, 5:22pm
Quite correct, and thats an argument that the MTA cannot back up, and had to resort to saying that our vehicle fleet is much older than other nations that we try to compare ourselves with, which is only partially true.For those of you that don't know a recent report from Monash Uni in Victoria, an outfit that knows more about how and why cars crash than anyone else in this part of the world has raised that very subject and has more or less concluded that a six month check regime isn't justifiable. Naturally this has not been discussed publically by the MTA either, they have been too busy directly lobbying and grovelling to cabinet ministers to retain the status quo.
franc123,
Jan 19, 5:27pm
I am having fun promoting actual NZTA policy. I win lol.
cjdnzl,
Jan 19, 5:28pm
There are over four million vehicles registered in New Zealand, all requiring warrants twice a year at about $45 a time, so that's 45 x 2 x 4,000,000 dollars spent in warrants. That's 360,000,000 dollars, or in English, three hundred and sixty million dollars. The government and the warrant industry is not going to give that up.6-monthly warrants are here to stay - despite the fact that today's cars are unimaginably better than cars of 60, 40, or even 30 years ago, that still had 6-monthly warrants.No cars of those eras would pass a warrant inspection today.
franc123,
Jan 19, 5:46pm
MTA certainly don't, VTNZ is a great cash cow for them and will continue to be as more smaller garages disappear and thus their membership base erodes due to changing technology. Its a tragedy that they have chosen to appeal to the publics sense of fear to push their commercially driven agenda though.
directorylist,
Jan 19, 5:51pm
My fourty two year old car passes warrants every time.
chebry,
Jan 19, 5:57pm
I have a 53yr old car that passed its last warrant with ease and should sail thru the next one you are wr wr wr wro wrong
franc123,
Jan 19, 6:55pm
And they go through checks with ease because of timely maintenance and repair don't they, dealing with issues as they come up! Funny that.
scuba,
Jan 19, 7:14pm
or maybe because they only done 500 ks since last check
mechnificent,
Jan 19, 7:22pm
Just to clarify some confusion, and perhaps where Phalanax was coming from. years ago a warrant was meant to try and ensure a safe vehicle for the next six months. It was the intention of the law and it was written up that way. things have changed though Phalanax.
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.