What do others think of this particular situation? Sitting Restricted License - failed due to bulb blown in rear window upper brake light. At $130 for this test etc., no refund, nothing, just resit at another $88.30. The vehicle had a WOF issued on Monday 2nd March 2015, test Wednesday 4th March 2015. Had an AA lesson previously and told driving fine all OK to go for test. This light, in my view, is a minor light as the two main and much larger brake lights are working perfectly, the test could be taken with the proviso that the bulb is replaced within 24 hours. To not even allow the learner to do an actual driving test is disgraceful to say the least. Surely whoever the testing officers are, they have some discretion in these matters and use some common sense. Also, the model of car owned by the learners family does not have a warning light on the dashboard when this light fails; so how are you to know that between your residence and the testing office, that it has blown? Do the testing officers check their private vehicles EVERY TIME they use them - I very much doubt it if they are honest! I wholeheartedly agree that a vehicle must be roadworthy and adhere to stringent standards. If it was a major light, i.e. main brake, indicators or headlights, structurally unsound etc., it would be understandable, no Warrant, Registration etc., but this particular brake light is not even on a large number of vehicles so is somewhat extraneous. This lass cannot get another test until the beginning of May when the VTNZ take over from AA. The above seems to me to be a great cash cow for the AA and there were quite a number of youngsters coming back into the office within a few minutes, also failed due to vehicle queries. Don't know what the actual failures were in these cases so cannot comment, but at $130 a pop the AA is raking in the money ! Very interested to have others opinions. Thank you for your time.
daryl14,
Mar 6, 10:00am
One bulb of several or the whole thing has only one bulb?
bjmh,
Mar 6, 10:06am
its not just AA. all driving inspectors will do this. i tell all my customers . who have children going for a driving test. do a walk around your vehicle and check the basics, before the test.Its the drivers responsibility to make sure the car is roadworthy, a wof is just a piece of paper on the screen. HI level stoplight is probably quite useful for other drivers benefit, more so than a number plate light for example.
tamarillo,
Mar 6, 10:08am
Oh dear, it seems unreasonable on face of it, and I'm not surprised in this age of health and safety. There is probably something about it in their rule books, and end of day, car is not legally roadworthy. If accident whilst testing and found stop light out all shit would be let loose, insurance issues, legal issues. I don't agrre it is a minor light, if it's meant to go it's meant to go. I also doubt if AA are alone in this, I suggest any instructor would have to do same however anal it seems. I also suggest they're still entitled to their fee as they have booked in time, though a softer policy would go along way, 50% maybe. Thing is tester isn't allowed to decide if it's okay or not, that would open up all sorts of issues and arguments about what's okay. Sad, annoying, but kinda inevitable.
martin11,
Mar 6, 10:12am
The AA do not make the $130 for a retest as you have stated it only costs $88.30 and some of that money goes to NZDL the present company doing the testing and NZTA . Also the information provide to the candidate for the test says to check all lights are working , this includes the high brake light . If the supervisor and the candidate had bothered to check perhaps 30 min before the test they would have had time to have a new bulb fitted . Many people turned up early for a test and have found a bulb out and managed to get it fixed close to the testing site . It is not a cash cow its creating a delay for other people to do the test by taking up a booking because they failed to check their car was legal for the test .
snoopy221,
Mar 6, 10:19am
The moot point herin is everything has a used by date. And with modern motor vehicles and modern traffic situations the use by date of a heated bulb filament in a plastic housing in an automatic sat on the brake between various red lights and in stop go motorway traffic . Ain't what it used to be in an older solider era car . And it IS actually written as a part of the pre test recommendations and process for the owner/presenter of the test vehicle to check the lights etc PRIOR to the test.
saxman99,
Mar 6, 10:26am
Interesting that in Law there is a defense in this particular case due to the age of the WoF ( 2 Days), being that the vehicle owner has no reason to believe that the car would be anything other than compliant. You can successfully defend a ticket given under these circumstances because the legislation provides for it. It seems that testing officers don't apply the same discretion that the law provides. Would probably make an interesting DT argument. 8.9 (2) b
Light bulbs do not often go faulty these day not like they did in the 1970's I would suspect that the high level brake light was not operation at the time of the warrent check . This happened in Papanui a year or so ago where the chap got a warrent and drove to his test approx 5 km and had no brake lights operating all 3 bulbs were dead , but as he turned up early he had time to get them fixed before the test . No other faults were in the car to cause the bulbs to fail .
purple666,
Mar 6, 11:04am
It has always been this way, I would have thought everyone would be aware of it by now. I can remember my Dad checking all that sort of thing on the family car before I sat test more than 50yrs ago.
saxman99,
Mar 6, 11:05am
I've got a modern car here (2002) that pretty much needs a bulb replaced about as often as it needs petrol. There is no fault with the car as far as anyone can tell. As a result I am constantly checking and replacing bulbs as needed but I'm sure that one day I'll get nailed by plod for a blown bulb that was working 10 minutes beforehand. My chances of getting a compliance ION? Close to nil.
martin11,
Mar 6, 11:13am
Must be something wrong my last car a nissan had for 8 years only replaced one bulb , current car Audi 2 1/2 years yet to replace a bulb , wifes Suzuki 3 years never replaced a bulb .and another car I share with a son 6 years never replaced a bulb .
saxman99,
Mar 6, 11:22am
Tell me about it. I've got/had several other cars and all fine. Im sure my 21 year old bimmer still has some factory bulbs in it.
snoopy221,
Mar 6, 11:24am
L O L So one poster in Auckland traffic the other one South island. **Stands by earlier post re bulbs -adds - hondas are the worst**
stickman100,
Mar 6, 12:17pm
WoF is a regular check that your vehicle meets required safety standards, at the time of inspection. It??
pauldw,
Mar 6, 12:38pm
The age of the warrant wouldn't be relevant for sudden death items like bulbs. Unless there was a monitor or the bulb was a headlight or indicator how would a driver know whether a bulb that was running at the start of a journey was still going? If you are running a headlight bulb that is a "+" version or have festoon double ended bulbs I'd certainly carry spares.
elect70,
Mar 6, 1:30pm
picky pricks 1 out of 3 little hi stop bulbs blown so reject you for a licence .
martin11,
Mar 6, 2:12pm
Sorry it a warrent requirement for certain years and if fitted must work . Not a testers problem . They failed to check their lights before the test .
heuristic,
Mar 6, 2:23pm
I stated retest was $88.30 NOT $130 [maybe I should have used the word "at" $88.30. Also all lights were checked 20 minutes before test time and all were working then ! Thank you all for your comments, appreciated.
tgray,
Mar 6, 2:35pm
So they make you pay again and can't reschedule till next month. PC gone mad. Doesn't seem fair, does it.
pauldw,
Mar 6, 2:56pm
If there's an array of lights at least 75% must go. So 1 dead bulb of 4 would be ok but not 1 of 3.
clark20,
Mar 6, 4:42pm
Have you thought about what brand of bulbs you are fitting, or trying a long life version?
gunhand,
Mar 6, 4:47pm
Hmmmm tester are we? or related to one?
gammelvind,
Mar 6, 5:01pm
It does seem silly and you really have to feel for the student. The only comment I can make in addition to the reasonable comments above is related to the tester. You have to wonder just how many times they get a vehicle turn up that isn't roadworthy and listen to excuse after excuse as to why they/mechanic/Dad/uncle twice removed, couldn't, didn't or will soon fix the car. It would have to grind you down so you go one rule, is it legal? Test on, not legal? Go home.
tintop,
Mar 6, 6:38pm
Mmmm - A bit of woolly thinking there. The testing officer actually was aware of the failed lamp, therefore the defence issue does not arise - He/she would have no defence if a ticket was issued.
tintop,
Mar 6, 6:41pm
Absolutely. The tester does not have any other option.
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.