Are the proposed WOF changes worth it?

Email
Print

Are the proposed WOF changes worth it?

3News NZ

If you're old enough to drive a car, you'll know it's not just a matter of climbing in behind the wheel.

There's the drivers licence, registration, and a warrant of fitness - which many of us have to keep updated every six months.

That takes time, and costs money.

Now the Ministry of Transport is suggesting changes to make it cheaper, and easier to keep your car on the road.

But are the savings worth it, or will it make our roads more dangerous?

Anna Burns-Francis took a trip to the testing station to find out.

Watch the video.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

29/10/2012 2:54:26 p.m.

Mr Me wrote:

Lots of interesting comments. One who has been it the trade for 29 years and has been issuing WOF's for 24 of them would say that you are all right in one form or another. I have failed cars after one year of use for faulty steering components that if they had failed in service would have killed. I see customers that maintain their vehicles to the highest standards, also have been called out to vehicles that have not had a WOF inspection for three years to have the suspension components break and the front suspension systems smash in to the ground (luckily not hurting anyone). The boy racer factor here is huge that cannot be control in a safe manor now let alone changing it so they have a year to modify their vehicles without any form of intervention. The cost for a WOF is not a grave train as the cost to inspect is less than a standard hourly charge, so why would we what to do something that cost money? Safety, it has always been about safety, not your $50! What's your family worth? It must be about $50 because that is what you are crying about is it not? If we found something wrong that could save your life, would be happy would you not? What about the vehicle coming the other way? Is that safe? It kind of is at the moment (and that is another story). Think that over for a few days then ask yourself again what you family is worth. (Mine is worth more that $50)

23/10/2012 10:49:12 p.m.

Weazel wrote:

i think there is a little confusion here just to clear up if the rulzes change it doesnt stop people from getting a wof done earlier and wof doesnt change safty at all ive been in cars that shouldnt get a wof and have 1 and ive tryed to get a wof or wof like test on a deregisterd car and been refused it should be resbonsabilty of the owner and there would be no job or revenue lost if the sheds pick up there game and give more service ive only once had a wofed regoed car and that only lasted for 2 weeks all mi cars ive driven have been out 23 with serious problems but im very confident in mechanics and driving and drive them to the conditions and don't have accidents or course problems

10/10/2012 3:10:27 p.m.

EH wrote:

The more WOF checks the less we use our brain because we 'ALL' rely on a bit of paper that means nothing. It's just officialism! The more responsibilities we have the more we will expand our brains and the better persons we will be. Simple!

9/10/2012 12:29:48 p.m.

dave wrote:

The resistance by the auto industry to support the MOT change is driven by loss of revenue/income not safety. Most car accidents happen due to; speed, alcohol and not wearing seat belts. The stats support my statement.

9/10/2012 1:44:55 a.m.

jason wrote:

Wof could be based on usage ,meaning km done, as opposed to an arbitrary time period.

8/10/2012 7:24:30 p.m.

Steve wrote:

Just copy ozzy and have no wof - might mean that a few more people will stay here.

8/10/2012 3:28:32 p.m.

Marilyn Crowley wrote:

Was it an undertaker, motor trader & panelbeater brainless-storm that came up with the ridiculous WOF changes proposal......For those of us who are mechanically ignorant find security in getting a WOF inspection to eliminate safety issues...It is also a safeguard surely when purchasing a second-hand car...why should we get penalized 'again' for the 'clowns' that dont give a toss........... I agree also with the suggestion of cheaper Regos.....And I also think there should be a time limit on Restricted Licences or do away with the restrictions as it becomes a joke how many people dont bother to get a 'full' .................

8/10/2012 11:45:11 a.m.

Philip wrote:

Why don't they just keep the WOF and Rego the same but make them more affordable?

8/10/2012 9:29:19 a.m.

Ian Stronach wrote:

With an old fleet, windy and undualting roads, and a big number of drivers that rely on a WoF to prompt them to get things repaired or serviced, surely fewer inspections will only lead to more deaths and injuries on the roads. Gov'ts own figures say that's what could happen, but that they'll have extra enforcement, more roadside checks and they'll turn around New Zealanders attitudes to servicing and maintenance to ensure that doesn't happen. Is it really realistic to think that will happen?

8/10/2012 7:52:10 a.m.

Phil wrote:

I read some time ago that the percentage off accidents caused by faulty cars is very low compared to faulty driving.
Extend the wof period for all vehicles EXCEPT the ones that fail for serious reasons. In this case the period would be severly reduced, till the owner got the message. If no improvement, use confiscation.
The wof record could then be sighted by new owners as a guide to how the car has been looked after. But maintain the present requirement of a new wof at change of ownership.
This system could easily be done, it would reward careful ownwers and punish the idiots.
AND If we really want to improve things, why aren't drivers tested when their licence is renewed?
The faultiest part of the vehicle is never checked.