New WOF rules

[iOnic]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8228975 ... -announced

Sounds interesting Thoughts?

[snwtoy]

Bullsh1t if you ask me.

"70% of AA motorists supported it" yeah, because saving $50 and the hassle wouldn't change the minds of 99% of all motorists. /sarcasm

This encourages motorists to take even less notice of the issues with their cars.

Plenty of post 2001 cars haven't been serviced since they drove off the yard, and plenty have done upwards of 200,000kms. If they'd said "cars older than x years" (say 10) then it would have made more sense.

[rollaholic]

country must be in great shape if this is the best thing they can find to spend time on.

[Al]

country must be in great shape if this is the best thing they can find to spend time on.

It pretty much is.

Seen how the rest of the world is fairing?

I have no problem with relaxing of the WOF rules. Just hope that the judge takes into account how lackadaisical the driver/owner of car was towards upkeep of their car if they cause an incident.

[Jdawg]

- Extra police enforcement activities.

so that is what it is all about = revenue

[Grrrrrrr!]

They did a half arsed job of it. They didn't put a km limit on the new car 3 year thing. So we are pretty much relying on the dealer servicing to keep high km sales reps car in good condition for the first 100,000+kms of their life. This scares me. I've worked for a couple of companies where the reps cars didn't get taken for service until there was smoke/blinking lights/ running on 3 cylinders.

[blindnz]

I hope they get more strict if they extend time frames.

Whats the deal with registered post 2000? does means mid 90's cars, that were first registered post 2000 only need yearly checks?

Also is this year going to stay in place so in say 2016 its still post 2000? meaning those mid 90's cars are 20 years old?

[Grrrrrrr!]

It doesn't say first registered in NZ, so I would guess they mean date of first registration anywhere in the world.

[rolla_fxgt]

About bloody time. Vehicle defects are only to blame in 0.4% of crashes on the road. Which was pretty much the only area of complaint against the proposals when they were first mooted.

Only issue is what will happen to all the washed up mechanics that work at VTNZ when they're laid off?

[rollaholic]

country must be in great shape if this is the best thing they can find to spend time on.

It pretty much is.

Seen how the rest of the world is fairing?

I have no problem with relaxing of the WOF rules. Just hope that the judge takes into account how lackadaisical the driver/owner of car was towards upkeep of their car if they cause an incident.

yeah, its pretty good. i just dont see this as a clever or efficient use of resources - seems to me its more like bureaucrats finding things to 'improve' to keep their jobs essentially. i bet the country could save a bunch of money by trimming government spending too.

i too have no major issue with the wof rules being changed, i just dont see it being a massive benefit either. so whats the point?

[rollaholic]

About bloody time. Vehicle defects are only to blame in 0.4% of crashes on the road. Which was pretty much the only area of complaint against the proposals when they were first mooted.

Only issue is what will happen to all the washed up mechanics that work at VTNZ when they're laid off?

they'll get on the benefit obviously, so we can pay their wages through taxes instead of WOF fees.

brilliant money saving scheme! i wonder how much the whole thing cost to dream up.

[iOnic]

I think this is a step in the right direction but it could do with cleaning up. It all seems rushed/not well thought out. That or Stuff is only giving half the story as usual - this one's more likely.

There are just too many details missing and loose ends that need clarifying at the moment.

[Dell'Orto]

It really needs to be a rolling limit to be effective. I can see this whole process being rehashed in ten years time when there are 20 year old cars on the road that get yearly checks.

[Grrrrrrr!]

Less commented on but potentially more worrying thing is the flexibility they are talking about for CoFs. The idea of a long haul truck going a year without inspections just becuase they haven't had any incidents in the past isn't fantastic. New manager cuts back on maintainence to improve margins to impress his boss.....

Ditto with taxis and rental cars.

[snwtoy]

Vehicle defects are only to blame in 0.4% of crashes on the road.

To me this says that the current 6 monthly WOF schedule is working perfectly, and now they're going to mess with it. I wonder what the figures will be after the changes have been in place for a couple of years.

[S T E A L T H]

Less commented on but potentially more worrying thing is the flexibility they are talking about for CoFs. The idea of a long haul truck going a year without inspections just becuase they haven't had any incidents in the past isn't fantastic. New manager cuts back on maintainence to improve margins to impress his boss.....

Ditto with taxis and rental cars.

The God squad will still be out there with bells on. They will have a field day.

[Grrrrrrr!]

Yeah, I'm glad they are.

[CAMB01]

I'm not a fan of the changes. So my 20 year old EVO will be subjected to annual checks when the new rules come into effect.
Did they really think about the huge amount of import vehicles on our roads currently that were registered after January 2000?

[Al]

I bet it was registered in Japan well before 2000.

[CAMB01]

Of course it would have, but the new rules state first registered in NZ. It was first registered in 2001.