New WOF rules

Forums › Off topic › New WOF rules

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

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#753001 30-Jan-2013 02:13

qwerty7: Ok so year 2000 is a line in the sand and eventually everything will have yearly wofs.
Does that not contradict itself? Cars 12 years old or less are considered safe although when they are 17 years old they will be checked once a year, which is fine in the eyes of the ltnz because of airbags and other safety features on cars registered after 2000?

I worry about annual wofs considering some people cannot be trusted to even keep their tyres inflated properly and I know for a fact if tyres pass on minimum tread, they are staying on for a year.

And why.. For the rest of eternity do cars registered before 2000 have to have 6 month wofs? Simply because they are seen as old and unsafe? The people in the lawmakers office certainly seem to hate older cars don't they.

I think in this case the reason for choosing 2000 for the year would have been a choice made between keeping it simple for people and a year at which they have decided that the manufacturing standards had reached a point close enough to where they are now to be considered acceptable as a starting point.

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#753095 30-Jan-2013 09:55

lucky015:
qwerty7: Ok so year 2000 is a line in the sand and eventually everything will have yearly wofs.
Does that not contradict itself? Cars 12 years old or less are considered safe although when they are 17 years old they will be checked once a year, which is fine in the eyes of the ltnz because of airbags and other safety features on cars registered after 2000?

I worry about annual wofs considering some people cannot be trusted to even keep their tyres inflated properly and I know for a fact if tyres pass on minimum tread, they are staying on for a year.

And why.. For the rest of eternity do cars registered before 2000 have to have 6 month wofs? Simply because they are seen as old and unsafe? The people in the lawmakers office certainly seem to hate older cars don't they.

I think in this case the reason for choosing 2000 for the year would have been a choice made between keeping it simple for people and a year at which they have decided that the manufacturing standards had reached a point close enough to where they are now to be considered acceptable as a starting point.

I just don't buy the argument that cars built after 2000 are considered safe regardless of how badly they are maintained. A 2004 model xxxx with 5 star euro ncap safety rating IS NOT SAFE if it has tyres down to the wire, brake pads worn down to the metal, a fault with the airbag system setting the airbag light off, loud rumbling wheel bearings and a fuel hose showing signs of severe cracking. But apparently when that 2004 model xxxx with 5 star euro ncap safety rating is 18 years old, worth less than $2000 and owned by some idiot who has no problems driving a dangerous car, it still only needs a yearly wof?????????????

My other argument is I would assume most drivers on the road would not know what cv joints and ball joints are and would also never even lift the bonnet. Some people are clueless and would drive their car with unbelievable faults before deciding to get it looked at

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#753108 30-Jan-2013 10:22

I agree with the new legislation not that I will get a benefit until I upgrade my ute.

The thing that seems to be absent from this discussion is how many accidents were caused by defects in vehicles that had a WOF noting you have to exclude vehicles that didnt have a current WOF as they arnt impacted by the new legislation.

I dont ever remember this cause been stated for any road deaths on TV and it seems hard to get this info.

Personally, this link of WOF to safety is a red herring by vehicle service industry to keep their money stream going. There are much bigger safety issues that are not currently being tackled.

For example, when I walk around wellington, many vehicle have a long out of date WOF or no registration but doesnt seem to be effective policing of this. The boy racers near my parents throw their fines on the road knowing they are made made to pay and or can them them wipe off with community service.
Personally all vehicles caught by police with no WOF should be towed away to lookup until the faults are remedied and the fines paid.

Also why dont we introduce complusory third party insurance like most overseas countries linked to current WOF. That would get unsafe riff raff off the road if their cars were impounded also.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#753110 30-Jan-2013 10:27

And thats the frustrating part about the law change.

The responsibility is now on you to ensure our car is up to standard. I'm no mechanic but am capable of maintaining a car - however I know that my wife is incapable of even checking the water in her car much less diagnose actual problems with the vehicle. A month later she may tell me 'it sounds funny'
By then its usually too late :-/

Its a fairly safe generalization that most people aren't capable of any more than the basics, and thats a scary thought......

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#753121 30-Jan-2013 10:38

SpookyAwol: And thats the frustrating part about the law change.

The responsibility is now on you to ensure our car is up to standard. I'm no mechanic but am capable of maintaining a car - however I know that my wife is incapable of even checking the water in her car much less diagnose actual problems with the vehicle. A month later she may tell me 'it sounds funny'
By then its usually too late :-/

Its a fairly safe generalization that most people aren't capable of any more than the basics, and thats a scary thought......

The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

If one can't/don't do regular checks n maintenance on his/her car, at least he/she should have the car regularly serviced.

Anyone who relies on WOF checks to find any problem with the car, and then only fix whatever fails the WOF, is a potential danger on the road.

The bottom line is, the new policy is good common sense but won't change much. Those who drive cars that are dangerous and not roadworthy will continue to risk it. Average Joe won't necessarily save any money as WOF checks are likely to be more comprehensive and more expensive.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#753175 30-Jan-2013 11:36

If I had a car that was 'NZ Assembled' I would WOF it monthly to be honest!!

'She'll be right' is not an ethos I want anywhere near my car...!!!

I think the new rules are profoundly sensible. I do think that vastly more onerous punishments for not having a WOF or driving an unroadworthy vehicle are needed. I would suggest a minimum $1000 fine with a mandatory 6 month ban for each offence.

Cars to be crushed if fines not paid within 28 days.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#753189 30-Jan-2013 11:50

hangon:
The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Im speaking from the perspective of a driver who is not a mechanic - previously, you had to get a WOF check every 6 months. At least that would flag issues early.

Yes it is your responsibility - but how many ACTUALLY check and maintain their car within 6 months? within 12 months?

For the majority of people, that would be how often their cars would have a decent check - at a WOF station.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#753192 30-Jan-2013 11:54

SpookyAwol:
hangon:
The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Im speaking from the perspective of a driver who is not a mechanic - previously, you had to get a WOF check every 6 months. At least that would flag issues early.

Yes it is your responsibility - but how many ACTUALLY check and maintain their car within 6 months? within 12 months?

For the majority of people, that would be how often their cars would have a decent check - at a WOF station.

Hence the need to concentrate their minds with meaningful penalties....!

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#753198 30-Jan-2013 12:05

Only impounding offending vehicles will work. its expensive for the owner and effective to remove unsafe vehicles from street

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#753225 30-Jan-2013 13:01

Impounding is unlikely to be economic for the state.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#753235 30-Jan-2013 13:11

SpookyAwol:
hangon:
The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Im speaking from the perspective of a driver who is not a mechanic - previously, you had to get a WOF check every 6 months. At least that would flag issues early.

Yes it is your responsibility - but how many ACTUALLY check and maintain their car within 6 months? within 12 months?

For the majority of people, that would be how often their cars would have a decent check - at a WOF station.

I would say most people don't check. But perhaps there is a business opportunity here somewhere.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#753236 30-Jan-2013 13:11

SpookyAwol:
hangon:
The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Im speaking from the perspective of a driver who is not a mechanic - previously, you had to get a WOF check every 6 months. At least that would flag issues early.

Yes it is your responsibility - but how many ACTUALLY check and maintain their car within 6 months? within 12 months?

For the majority of people, that would be how often their cars would have a decent check - at a WOF station.

I would say most people don't check. But perhaps there is a business opportunity here somewhere.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#753239 30-Jan-2013 13:14

SpookyAwol:
hangon:
The responsibility has always been on "you" - read NZTA.

Driver education is the key to success for the new policy.

Im speaking from the perspective of a driver who is not a mechanic - previously, you had to get a WOF check every 6 months. At least that would flag issues early.

Yes it is your responsibility - but how many ACTUALLY check and maintain their car within 6 months? within 12 months?

For the majority of people, that would be how often their cars would have a decent check - at a WOF station.

You don't have to be a mechanic. I am sure anyone is capable of identifying if a tyre looks bald or not, or if a bulb is blown, its common sense, and doesn't need 4 years of industry training to do. The truth is people can't be bothered to check on a semi-daily basis (i.e. lazy!) or just don't really care beyond the engine starting. That's the attitude that will need to change.

I am sure there will be a raft of new services offered such as "in service" checks or similar to those that take the opportunity, whereas most cars require annual servicing anyway. There are and will be lots of avenues for those that want to keep their car maintained and safe (and can't do it themselves). It always was and will remain the DRIVERS responsibility...how you go about it is up to the individual.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#753319 30-Jan-2013 15:21

gzt: Impounding is unlikely to be economic for the state.

State will get some money from the scrap value of car.
There are lots of adverts to collect vehicle for free and pay $$$

The state will save money in cost of processing multiple fines for the same vehicle over and over = $$$

The People will save $$$$ in WOF fees and $$$$ from repairing our vehicles after uninsured drivers crash and guarantee long term unWOFed vehicles are off the road.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#753323 30-Jan-2013 15:30

I fully agree. Attitudes will have to change.
How do you make that change? Currently there is no real downside to not maintaining your car that has a current wof. Sure,a ticket for not up to wof standard, but its accepted that it won't or can't be policed any more than it currently is.
Crash? Apparently figures are in our favour as it not being a high risk factor.

Id like to think that people can and will maintain their cars, but I'm a realist. If it saves a dollar, most will take the risk (assuming they even realise the risk....)

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