WOF Laws

[deeveus 81]

I've looked and surprised that no one has posted about this...

The Govt want to save money and save people money by scrapping the 6 month WOF for cars 5 calendar years older & perhaps make a WOF required when the car sells, like Victoria, AU (RWC)

Post here your opinions. My opinion is the fact that yes, I might be a little in the know of what is dangerous and what isn't on a car and would be dangerous and have it fixed ASAP... I'm more concerned about other people out there who A.) would notice something and not bother to do something and B.) Have no idea and a major problem goes UN-resolved.

In Victoria, you get your ass handed to you on a plate if you're caught driving with a defect and from memory it's points on your licence and a hefty fine, but I'm not sure this would act as a deterrent here. Also, I actually think it would put more strain on the Police force as more regular checkpoints would be required, thus taking them away from more important issues like rapists and Falcon owners.

[westy 614]

I thought they were proposing to scrap them for the first 5 yrs then yearly from there?

[deeveus 81]

I thought they were proposing to scrap them for the first 5 yrs then yearly from there?

Yup, that's another of their options, there's a few that they've been throwing out there, ultimately it will scrap the 6 monthly for cars older than 5 years.

[NZ BMW 368]

There are a number of different proposals (5 I think).

I would just keep as is personally. According to the MTA propaganda site "hands off the WOF" 1/3 of cars fair a WOF when inspected. IMO that means you can't trust people to know when they need to fix things. And if you consider that the most common defects are tyres and lights (the two things that are so obvious to check)...

Twice a year is not really a hassle for me, I do it when I service the car so it takes no extra time out of my life.

[Top Secret 2]

Cost of car ownership is so low here in NZ compared to many places overseas. If you can't afford to keep a car on the road now, then you shouldn't be driving IMO.

Us enthusiasts will be aware of anything our car needs doing, but Joe Bloggs or half of the females I know wouldn't have a clue. I'm already scared by the standard of some cars on the road, and this would just make it worse.

I also foresee problems with modified cars and the police over this.

Keep it as is.

[CamB 48]

From a personal perspective, I would prefer annual (mostly because my non-daily cars its a PITA + wallet to get WOFs, given low low km driven), but "option 1" wouldn't save me as the cars are old.

I'm not keen to see enforcement shifted onto police though. Plus people need a 6 monthly reminder to buy new tyres.

I found this interesting (from MOT website):

Where did the 2.5 percent figure for crashes with WoF-inspected faults as a contributing factor come from?

This figure refers to the proportion of crashed-vehicles with WoF-inspected safety defects cited as crash contributors. It is a sub-set of the 3.5 percent of fatal and injury crashes that were recorded as having vehicle faults as a contributing cause. The data comes from traffic crash reports available from the NZ Transport Agency’s crash data analysis system. The crash data is generated from crash scene reports.

First thought - insurance companies not paying out if WOF not current = potentially not statistically supportable...

[hybrid 1043]

I would be happy if people just kept up with replacing tyres not soley based on tread wear. There should be a tyre age cut off.

[Apex 693]

I vote keep it how it is.

Even as a car enthusiast who keeps a relativity close eye on my cars I like to have them checked for safety, I am not a mechanic.

Plus the Police already have enough work cut out for them sitting at the bottom of hills in safe passing zones with speed detectors etc and chasing fake euro plates, why burden them with job of having to police people for minor faults on cars? Seems silly when they already have such a hard job.

[bellicose 9]

It's interesting to see the word "safety" thrown about, especially by that half-wit Murphy.

I'm going to pull out all my old WOF sheets and see how many 'noted' items are "safety" related, in fact i'll spend a couple of hours in the next day or twoo and go through the VIRM and see what percentage of it petains to "safety".

[nath 134]

I second that Graham. I'm a weekend car enthusiast and even then, my car just had its WOF check and had a balooning brake hose, most of the stop light LED's dead, tie rod end bad. I wouldnt have seen the brake hose until it ejected all the fluid out and I crashed.

Keep WOF's as is.

[westy 614]

I'm not keen to see enforcement shifted onto police though.

Thats what would give me the shits the most I guess.

Otherwise I think it's a non issue.

[bellicose 9]

7305 WoF inspectors in NZ

3800 WoF inspection sites in NZ

In the 12 months from July 2011 to June 2012:

7,613,009 WoF Inspections carried out

2,183,688 WoF Inspections FAILED

5,429,321 WoF Inspections PASSED

Of the FAILS:

1,024,232 failed for LIGHTS

661,282 failed for TYRES

570,999 failed for STEERING/SUSPENSION

447,078 failed for BRAKES

379,266 failed for GLAZING

[MLM 57]

The conflict seems to be wanting to save money from regular warrents and knowing the cars arround me are safe. For me saftey wins out.

If we had a yearly warrent process either the acceptable limits would need to be raised so that what is ok now still will be in a years time before the next warrant, somewhat subjective, OR police are now burdened with checking a cars condition and determinig saftey on the road side. More subjective

I think I would promote a KM based warrent possibly tied into the registration.

It would mean KM usage to dollar spent would align therefore the weekend cruiser used every other weekend wouldnt have an unproportional cost associated with it. While high usage (high wear and tear) would be check more often.

It would also remove the potentially subjective policing of a cars condition when you get pulled over. A KM reading and sticker check is all that would be required and maybe cursary tire check to cover those that like turing tire into smoke.

This would require a study into the number of KM to wear so that the time period is accurate and if it tied in to rego you woulndt end up paying $$$ for a low usage car. As a high user you would pay a higher ammount of warrent and reg but to me seems fair.

[slowe30 0]

The conflict seems to be wanting to save money from regular warrents and knowing the cars arround me are safe. For me saftey wins out.

If we had a yearly warrent process either the acceptable limits would need to be raised so that what is ok now still will be in a years time before the next warrant, somewhat subjective, OR police are now burdened with checking a cars condition and determinig saftey on the road side. More subjective

I think I would promote a KM based warrent possibly tied into the registration.

It would mean KM usage to dollar spent would align therefore the weekend cruiser used every other weekend wouldnt have an unproportional cost associated with it. While high usage (high wear and tear) would be check more often.

It would also remove the potentially subjective policing of a cars condition when you get pulled over. A KM reading and sticker check is all that would be required and maybe cursary tire check to cover those that like turing tire into smoke.

This would require a study into the number of KM to wear so that the time period is accurate and if it tied in to rego you woulndt end up paying $$$ for a low usage car. As a high user you would pay a higher ammount of warrent and reg but to me seems fair.

all i can think about is the switches like people use on there deisels so they dont have to pay ruc's, so dodgy cars would just have to turn off the oddometre and they would be away sailing. unless the linked it into both, say a year or xxxx Ks

[nipe 1]

I ve seen a lot of wof inspectors that miss faults and I've seen a lot of them that are too "strict", so I think if the wofs would be more consistent and mechanics actually chcked cars properly then 1 year would be fine. My friends e36 passed wof with non-existent brake pads on one side, HOW CAN YOU MISS THAT??? It had a bad sound too!

[Greg111 13]

I resisted posting the first time but now I can't resist, i'm a wof officer and the amount of cars I personally have failed due to tyres alone is remarkable and then the customers are shocked as to how f**ked the tyres are, metal cords hanging out etc, if we take wofs away or whatever they are planning then insurance companies are going to be rubbing their hands together when they get paid for the policies and get to reject claims due to Joe Bloggs having an accidant because no rubber left on tyres.

I think it's sh*t, they should leave it how it is. Why fix when it aint broke.

[deeveus 81]

I resisted posting the first time but now I can't resist, i'm a wof officer and the amount of cars I personally have failed due to tyres alone is remarkable and then the customers are shocked as to how f**ked the tyres are, metal cords hanging out etc, if we take wofs away or whatever they are planning then insurance companies are going to be rubbing their hands together when they get paid for the policies and get to reject claims due to Joe Bloggs having an accidant because no rubber left on tyres.

I think it's sh*t, they should leave it how it is. Why fix when it aint broke.

There has to be a financial gain in it somewhere for the govt. There's nothing else that seems to motivate them these days.

[hotwire 352]

I resisted posting the first time but now I can't resist, i'm a wof officer and the amount of cars I personally have failed due to tyres alone is remarkable and then the customers are shocked as to how f**ked the tyres are, metal cords hanging out etc, if we take wofs away or whatever they are planning then insurance companies are going to be rubbing their hands together when they get paid for the policies and get to reject claims due to Joe Bloggs having an accidant because no rubber left on tyres.

I think it's sh*t, they should leave it how it is. Why fix when it aint broke.

Agree completely Greg.

As has also already been mentioned, I would challenge that "most" kiwi drivers are oblivious as to the road worthyness of their vehicle from one WOF to the next - even though by law it is the responsibilty of the driver to keep their car to WOF standard at all times. They rely on the 6 monthly check to highlight issues needing attention & act then - & then often only because they have to.

I can see the WOF inspectors raising the bar for strictness, (have talked to many & work with one) to cover their arse for the doubling of time before next inspection - all subjective points - how much wear is to much - suspension, brakes, rust - how bad is to bad:-

And as Greg says - tyres. Modern, bigger/wider wheels /tyres are good at concealing inside shoulder wear - particually the rear, where unless they are conciously inspected - it is not noticed, hell even I got caught out recently on the E39 the same way - removed the wheels to get the rims straightened &... chords showing on the rears inside edge, tread looked good, albeit realitively low, from behind

The idea of saving punters money is a joke - the above paragragh will negate any saving.

And the hoods that get the WOF then revert to the cut springs, dangerously modded cars, will have another 12 months to drive a dangerous car, unless of course the policeman with nothing better to do, catches him & orders the car off the road...

All this said though - would be great for my E12 that does about 1500 kms a year max, & since we have had -has never failed a WOF... oops - except the last one where back tyres were just below minimum.

As Greg say - if it aint broke...

[nath 134]

I agree with an earlier post mentioning the difference between strictness of WOF inspectors; this does make it difficult for us sometimes.

My dad has a few cars, 2 of them an imported 1999ish Wizard which he uses 90% of the time with about 150km, and the other a 2010ish E250 merc now with about 15km on the clock.

The Wizard's shocks are STUFFED. Seriously non functional bouncy ride at the smallest rise in road surface. It passes every warrant. The Merc lives in a barn most of the time not driven, and failed it's last WOF on brakes.

Now there's a difference. Maybe improve inspector education and continued development to keep them all as level as possible.

[antil33t 90]

I think WOF inspectors are too different.

flatmates car is REALLY unsafe, but yet passes fine. I know it has rust in the firewall, which is filled with expanding foam to prevent leaks... suspension is stuffed.

his other car has brake bias issues, but where he goes for a warrant has no brake dyno so was never picked up on. it also had visibly scored rotors, but they never said anything. I've told him he needs to check the pads, because I can't see any when I look through the wheel, but because it just got a WOF this = safe!!!!!

But when I took the E34 to a respected WOF station here in Dunedin they've marked me down as marginal for the brakes, because one is starting to groove.

Maybe WOF's should only be allowed to be done at testing stations with the correct equipment, ie brake dyno. not just at a dodgy gas station.

also agree with tyre age. x100

I actually LIKE to be told if there are problems with my car, really pisses me off when people complain that the WOF INSPECTOR FAILED ME ON THIS Q.Q gtfo my road with your unsafe shitpiles.

[deeveus 81]

I ve seen a lot of wof inspectors that miss faults and I've seen a lot of them that are too "strict", so I think if the wofs would be more consistent and mechanics actually chcked cars properly then 1 year would be fine. My friends e36 passed wof with non-existent brake pads on one side, HOW CAN YOU MISS THAT??? It had a bad sound too!

I think some people have to remember that WOF's are a visual inspection and if the pads in this case aren't visible, the inspector isn't required to remove the wheel for a closer inspection. If the inspector missed that whilst it was visible then he/she needs their authority removed or reprimanded.

[Greg111 13]

Exactly, visable check only, hidden stuff that can't be seen has to be assumed it's ok.

A wof is only a spot check in time, if a tyre has only 1.5mm o tread on it then it passes but 2km down the road it becomes illeagal but will more than likely stay on the car till the next wof gets failed for it. As previously mentioned it is up to the customer to keep their car up to wof standards between the inspections but does that happen, nope.

[Dave@nz 11]

Hi,

The responsibility is on the vehicle owners to maintain there vehicles within the WOF regulations, i.e. if they get a fine for bald tires or have an accident because of them and then have trouble with the insurance claim then it can be no surprise.

The job of the WOF inspector is to check the vehicle meets a standard set out in the LTSA manual. One problem as I see it is with vehicle servicing or lack of it leading to poorly maintained vehicles on the road and it will be hard to change peoples mind set on this and I am not sure what the answer is.

Modified suspension is one area where the low "volume certifiers" need to be reeled in with what they allow back on to the road.

WOF is a good money spinner for garages if you are charging $40.00+ and doing three or more per hour it works out a good hourly rate, no surprise they don't want to change.

As mentioned there is various standards of inspections most doing a good job and using common sense ie not trying to make a morris minor hand brakes pass on the testing station rollers, and then there are the odd one or two doing dodgy WOF these guys need to be reported in and have there authority pulled there practice is more unsafe than the vehicles they pass.

I voted for yearly WOF inspections, this is with the hind sight of 18 years experience as an Automotive engineer.

Dave.

Edited October 12, 2012 by 87M3@NZ

[deeveus 81]

I don't want to sound sick at all, but I actually take pride and enjoy spending money on my cars especially when it comes to maintenance, I think it gives me piece of mind that it leaves less chance to having something go wrong unexpectedly.

WOF is a good money spinner for garages if you are charging $40.00+ and doing three or more per hour it works out a good hourly rate, no surprise they don't want to change.

Jeeze mate, if they were doing more than three an hour (per inspector) they'd have to be missing things, especially if they don't have a rolling road and require a road test. It will normally take half an hour minimum, with some dodgy cars taking as much as an hour.

I voted for yearly WOF inspections, this is with the hind sight of 18 years experience as an Automotive engineer.

Dave.

I see where you're coming from there Dave and respect the fact you have 18 years experience, however my point would be that I'm more concerned about other motorists on the road who either simply have no idea on their cars current safety status or those who simply don't care. For both of those categories, the current WOF system picks these up at sooner intervals thus reducing the chance of prolonged wear & tear and decrease in the chance of an accident.

Edited October 12, 2012 by The Diesel Guy

[cliffdunedin 8]

From a personal perspective, I would prefer annual (mostly because my non-daily cars its a PITA + wallet to get WOFs, given low low km driven), but "option 1" wouldn't save me as the cars are old.

I'm with you on this! The amount of time i need to take our cars into get WOF's yearly is crazy, plus the cost which off the top of my head is $50-60 per car.

I'm happy for the police to do a little more work, an extra couple of minutes having a walk around isn't going to kill em and i think as long as the test levels are made a little tougher and price isn't increased a great deal... i'm happy with the new law!