Change to Vehicle WOF's

Forums › Off topic › Change to Vehicle WOF's

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#689788 22-Sep-2012 08:58

Maybe they should consider adding a mileage limit to the WOF expiry. E.g. the car with 75,000km on the odo gets checked today (assuming it passes) the new WOF will expire 22/09/13 or when the car has done, say, 90,000km, whichever comes first.
(Obviously requires a lot more thinking and systems changes in how you would enforce and police it, but just thought I'd throw it out there.)

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#689791 22-Sep-2012 09:07

Mileage is a much better way to do it I think.

p.s your sig pic cracks me up!

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#689795 22-Sep-2012 10:04

D1023319: Theres been mention in the paper that mechanics fear New Zealand roads could be flooded with unfit cars if the Government extends warrant-of-fitness inspections to one year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7701971/One-year-WOF-raises-spectre-of-unsafe-cars

I think the mechanics are only worried about loss of business.
The problem is not the frequency that vehicles get warrants - rather it is the number of vehicles that do not have uptodate WOF's or insurance.

I frequently see vehicles with tickets and even unsafe stickers on the side of the road and it doesnt stop the owners driving them.

To improve the safety of vehicles, I think the government should:
- make third party insurance compulsory
- turn expired WOFs / unsafe designations into a towable offence.

Agree / disagree?

I'd rather leave it as it is. I see enough unfit cars on the road as it is....wihtout giving them another 6 months.

As for compulsory 3rd-party insurance, I'd rather see a single government-run, non-profit universal car insurer. These are the cheapest anywhere and everywhere they are able to be implemented. Private insurers can't be trusted...as people in Christchurch have learned the very hard way. But we knew that 70 years ago when State Insurance was set up. We just forgot.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#689805 22-Sep-2012 10:36

IMO there should be more policing of cars on the road that are obviously unsafe.

Have seen cops many times do nothing even when following a car with 2 brake lights out. IMO one should be a warning and 2 should be a green sticker.

Richard rich.ms

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#689880 22-Sep-2012 14:39

TheUngeek: More has to be checked keeping in mind it won't be inspected for another 12 months.
So things with 8 months life will get you a fail. There's more costs right there.

More what? Surely if you check a car every six months or every twelve months - you're still checking the same components... The implication that there is more to check if it changes to twelve months means that we're not checking cars properly now.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#689881 22-Sep-2012 14:42

Maybe I should have said more in-depth. The test will take longer.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#689883 22-Sep-2012 14:54

Regardless of the other merits of the proposal - the check cost will increase significantly if the check was set at 12 months for all cars regardless of age.

For many check items it is very quick to pass an item.

In a 12 month cycle there will be a larger number of item failures leading to increased cost. Reasons:

It takes a lot longer to fail an item
If the item is borderline it is often inspected more closely to be sure of the fault and cause
A failed item is often tested more than once on the same visit or requires opinion from other team members
Often times each failure needs to be explained in detail to customers
There will be a higher proportion of vehicles requiring a fix/recheck than in a six month cycle

D1023319

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#689889 22-Sep-2012 15:19

TheUngeek: More has to be checked keeping in mind it won't be inspected for another 12 months.
So things with 8 months life will get you a fail. There's more costs right there.

Having worked in the industry for quite some time, the thought of NZ cars switching to 12 month test scares the crap out of me.

It is not uncommon for a car to come into a work shop with a "funny noise" and apon inspection this is found: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/bentoy/Brake/severely_worn_brake_rotor.jpg

The above should look more like: http://www.trustmymechanic.com/pics/rotor.jpg

What % of cars that would fail a WOF for anything dangerous?
I would have thought the % to be small and mostly on vehicles that were old and risk anyway.

FYI this is why I agree with longer WOF gaps.

The average new vehicle can cover 110,000km before it starts to require regular maintenance.
Which at average distance travelled per year of 12,000km, makes 10 years old the risk point for vehicles

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#689890 22-Sep-2012 15:19

a wof is an inspection at that given time, it is not meant to fail on things that might fail before the next one, those are warnings.

I only see that the prices will go up as a majority of their customers will now be coming half as often. Remember that only a minority of vehicles get 12 month WOFs now - have the be NZ new and not very old.

Richard rich.ms

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#689892 22-Sep-2012 15:26

richms: a wof is an inspection at that given time, it is not meant to fail on things that might fail before the next one, those are warnings.

I only see that the prices will go up as a majority of their customers will now be coming half as often. Remember that only a minority of vehicles get 12 month WOFs now - have the be NZ new and not very old.

You first paragraph is exactly right.

Your second is partly wrong - any vehicle, NZ new or imported under 6 years old gets a 12 month WOF - if it passes the inspection of course.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#689893 22-Sep-2012 15:28

clevedon:
Your second is partly wrong - any vehicle, NZ new or imported under 6 years old gets a 12 month WOF - if it passes the inspection of course.

Hmm, that must have changed since I had a young japp import, it was on 6 months from the get go.

Not really an issue now as I dont really want to own a newish vehicle now.

Richard rich.ms

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#689896 22-Sep-2012 15:36

D1023319:
The average new vehicle can cover 110,000km before it starts to require regular maintenance.
Which at average distance travelled per year of 12,000km, makes 10 years old the risk point for vehicles

What is the source of those figures? Even in the best case brakes will be replaced at least once during that period. Tyres multiple times.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#689898 22-Sep-2012 15:40

Brakes and tires will be gotten at service time, which will happen many times during that timeframe.

Just because they are not inspected as often doesnt excuse not maintaining them.

Richard rich.ms

D1023319

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#689947 22-Sep-2012 17:45

gzt:
D1023319:
The average new vehicle can cover 110,000km before it starts to require regular maintenance.
Which at average distance travelled per year of 12,000km, makes 10 years old the risk point for vehicles

What is the source of those figures? Even in the best case brakes will be replaced at least once during that period. Tyres multiple times.

Source of these figures are"

Re 12,000 distance heres a MOT link
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Driver%20travel%20-%20March%202012.pdf

Re 110,000k - experience from vehicle procurement in govt agencies and discussions with GSB pers over the years.

FYI - wasnt saying wait 10y until for first WOF on a vehicle - rather I was stating why yearly WOF's would be ok for first 10y of vehicles life.

spacedog

496 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 62

#690087 23-Sep-2012 09:33

I think the WOF every six months for cars more than six years old is really ridiculous. My feeling is that the quality of cars and the safety of cars has dramatically improved since the 1990s. My 2002 Honda CRV runs like a champ only has 78k on it and yet I have to get a WOF every 6 months and it passes every single time.

I'd be OK with modifying the 6 month WOF condition from 6 years to saying that cars made after 2000 only require an annual WOF and cars pre-2000 require it every 6 months.

However, that being said, my backup 1996 honda crv has to get WOF'ed every six months and it passes just fine. I only put about 1500k on it a year and yet I have to get it WOFd every 6 months. It is the most expensive maintenance condition on that car......

Perhaps WOFs should be based on mileage rather than time....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7