Change to Vehicle WOF's

Forums › Off topic › Change to Vehicle WOF's

D1023319

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#109528 21-Sep-2012 12:18

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?

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

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#689353 21-Sep-2012 12:31

From what I have heard we are the only country in the world which has it every 6 months, most other countries have it every twelve months if not at all. I think it comes down to how often the car is used, I would support a 12 month warrant any day. Having multiple cars makes warrants an expensive exercise.

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#689357 21-Sep-2012 12:39

30% of vehicles fail at WOF time currently, what will the failure percentage be at yearly checks? Will it make vehicles safer? I don't know.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#689360 21-Sep-2012 12:45

clevedon: 30% of vehicles fail at WOF time currently, what will the failure percentage be at yearly checks? Will it make vehicles safer? I don't know.

Most likely the same . The only reason the motor vehicle industry is against this is because the current system is a cash cow to them. No doubt they will find a way of doubling the cost with the excuse that it's more rigorous that it was before..

Regards,

Old3eyes

gzt

18678 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#689363 21-Sep-2012 12:47

I really dislike the idea of compulsory insurance. I am fairly sure it will put up prices and costs for everyone without much overall benefit to anyone at all.

ajw

1968 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

#689370 21-Sep-2012 12:52

I average around 7000K a year with my vehicle so cannot see why we can't have yearly warrants. As previous posters have said the motor industry users wof's as cash cows.

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#689378 21-Sep-2012 13:06

I agree with the above, 12 months seems like a sensible amount - possibly longer for newer cars.
I don't agree with compulsory 3rd party insurance, it puts prices up across the board, especially for young people by crazy amounts.

Most of the time the people who drive without 3rd party now would do if it was compulsory and just take a fine if they got caught.

I know in England if you buy/your parents buy you a car and your under 21 it is 2-3 more for insurance for a year than the cost of the car!

Geekzone

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

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#689390 21-Sep-2012 13:16

Cash cow maybe for testing stations, not us. WOF's only account for around 4% of our turnover, so not really fussed either way if they go to yearly inspections. The audits, costs and compliance drama with NZTA we have to go through is more of a hassle.

ajw

1968 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

#689392 21-Sep-2012 13:20

clevedon: Cash cow maybe for testing stations, not us. WOF's only account for around 4% of our turnover, so not really fussed either way if they go to yearly inspections. The audits, costs and compliance drama with NZTA we have to go through is more of a hassle.

But you do get to fix the faults you have found on a vehicle/s that is not up to a WOF standard.

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#689394 21-Sep-2012 13:21

Up until 4 or so months ago our family cars we respectively 15 and 20 years old. I was about to write that I thought it was a bad idea to extend WOFs to 1 year, finding some re-assurance (but no guatrantee) that the cars we were driving had a level of safety check every 6 months. Re-thinking that though, the only fails they suffered in their lifetimes, were fairly minor, things like some moisture in the indicator lens ? hardly lifethreatening. I?ve always been pretty good at making sure tyres brakes, etc. were safe, so pushing this out to year would have been convenient and saved me money.
On the other hand though, will it result in people driving with bald tyres and worn brake-pads, etc. for longer than they should?

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

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 205

#689399 21-Sep-2012 13:32

ajw:
clevedon: Cash cow maybe for testing stations, not us. WOF's only account for around 4% of our turnover, so not really fussed either way if they go to yearly inspections. The audits, costs and compliance drama with NZTA we have to go through is more of a hassle.

But you do get to fix the faults you have found on a vehicle/s that is not up to a WOF standard.

Most of the vehicles we check are late model, so mostly lights and tyres are the common things we see them fail on - we sell bulbs but not tyres. Tyres are fairly low margin profit earners and you have to be selling plenty of them for the capital outlay tied up in stock to be worth it. Plus trye, wheel balancing and alignment machines aren't cheap at all to purchase.

D1023319

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#689400 21-Sep-2012 13:33

jbard: I agree with the above, 12 months seems like a sensible amount - possibly longer for newer cars.
I don't agree with compulsory 3rd party insurance, it puts prices up across the board, especially for young people by crazy amounts.

Most of the time the people who drive without 3rd party now would do if it was compulsory and just take a fine if they got caught.

I know in England if you buy/your parents buy you a car and your under 21 it is 2-3 more for insurance for a year than the cost of the car!

If a person has not got the money to pay for third party insurance - how can they afford to pay to repair my vehicle when they cause a accident. And I need my vehicle to get to work.

I know fines are meaningless - hence my thought it should be a towable offence where you dont get the vehicle back until it is insured.

FYI - I saw a Uk program where the police over their used digial cameras to indentify uninsured vehicles on the fly for immediate action.

As I think the is a postive statistical link between being uninsured vehicles and also having no WOF's - this would only add to safer roads.

HP

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

Gilco2

1556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 134

#689402 21-Sep-2012 13:35

floydbloke:
On the other hand though, will it result in people driving with bald tyres and worn brake-pads, etc. for longer than they should?

I cant see that will change really. The ones that will likely are the ones already doing it with the 6 month checks. And the cops could do spot checks like they did in the 70's. Like when they have alcohol check points they could also do a spot check say every 10th vehicle for example. Just a matter quick look at tyre tread etc.

HTPC Intel Pentium G3258 cpu, Gigabyte H97n-wifi motherboard, , 8GB DDR3 ram, onboard graphics. Hauppuage HVR 5500 tuner, Silverstone LC16M case, Windows 10 pro 64 bit using Nextpvr and Kodi

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#689403 21-Sep-2012 13:35

gzt: I really dislike the idea of compulsory insurance. I am fairly sure it will put up prices and costs for everyone without much overall benefit to anyone at all.

If you get hit by an uninsured vehicle, I am sure you will feel differently as it can sometimes leave you out of pocket for at least the excess. If the cost does go up, then it is just sharing the cost of that across all drivers, and reflects the true cost of having younger inexperienced drivers on our road, that can cause more accidents.
Perhaps they need to move the driving age up to 17-18, so there are less younger drivers on the road. I have heard that the licensing now is harder, but the number of school kids driving who don't indicate and don't know the road rules is quite high I have found.
I do think that changing the WOF rules is a bad idea, because it will mean more unsafe cars on the road. FOr example many people don't check their tyres, and will only get them changed after they fail a WOF. NZ car stock tends to be poorly maintained and are relatively old, so people have got used to the WOF check as a way of finding the problems.
The solution to reducing costs if just to halve the costs of getting a WOF.
One area that I think they could lengthen the WOF period is new cars over 5 years old, and have done less than 80,000km. These should be still in good condition after 5 years. So that could possibly be extended to 8 or 10 years, before they need a 6 monthly inspection.But I think a brand new car shouldn't need yearly checks for at least 3 years.

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#689407 21-Sep-2012 13:41

^ I get what you're saying, but I don't want to be paying in the thousands for insurance. The offset of having to pay your own excess still would work out cheaper than compulsory insurance.

I think it should stay the status quo, the NZ car fleet is pretty old compared to lots of other places. That was a major thing I noticed in the UK, hardly saw any 80's or 90's cars.

jbard

1377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#689411 21-Sep-2012 13:43

D1023319:
jbard: I agree with the above, 12 months seems like a sensible amount - possibly longer for newer cars.
I don't agree with compulsory 3rd party insurance, it puts prices up across the board, especially for young people by crazy amounts.

Most of the time the people who drive without 3rd party now would do if it was compulsory and just take a fine if they got caught.

I know in England if you buy/your parents buy you a car and your under 21 it is 2-3 more for insurance for a year than the cost of the car!

If a person has not got the money to pay for third party insurance - how can they afford to pay to repair my vehicle when they cause a accident. And I need my vehicle to get to work.

I know fines are meaningless - hence my thought it should be a towable offence where you dont get the vehicle back until it is insured.

FYI - I saw a Uk program where the police over their used digial cameras to indentify uninsured vehicles on the fly for immediate action.

As I think the is a postive statistical link between being uninsured vehicles and also having no WOF's - this would only add to safer roads.

I agree if they can't pay for insurance they will struggle to pay for your damaged car. My point was though making 3rd party compulsory will not stop most of them driving, I mean they drive without WOFs/Rego now.

Yes in the UK every cop car has an electronic scanner that can detect cars without insurance, their are also cameras everywhere (and I mean everywhere). But I am not sure about this happening in NZ? I am not sure about elsewhere but here in Dunedin we still don't even have digital speed cameras?

It is clearly expensive to setup this kind of system and I doubt our population can justify, maybe in Auckland and Wellington at the most.

It also causes all sorts of other problems, for example when you buy a car you can't leave without getting insurance. Going for test drives/borrowing someones car can be a real hassle if you are under 25. Not to mention the increased cost for everyone. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

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