My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was scary.
VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
Front sway bar link broken.
Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using lots
of fuel.
Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".
Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and drivers who
have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong were normal
service items.
Is it a case for annual RWC in Vic?
Possibly but I still don't like the idea because as per my recent
experience they seem to be more focused on trivial BS (painted brake
calipers) instead of just safety related items, not one of the 4 items
that they failed on my Boxster had any immediate safety implications.
Despite the above they would have to change the RWC system very
significantly before they would get my vote for introducing annual checks.

--
Daryl

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote in
news:johrakF9en1U2@mid.individual.net:

> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
> scary. VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
> Front sway bar link broken.
> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using
> lots of fuel.
> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around
> locally". Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and
> drivers who have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong
> were normal service items.
> Is it a case for annual RWC in Vic?

Pretty obviously it's an unarguable case for some degree of change.
Ditto for Dic mechanics...
Howabout a new Dic numberplate motto? 'Vic - The Cowboy State'

alvey

On 16/09/2022 9:37 am, Daryl wrote:
> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
> scary.
> VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
> Front sway bar link broken.
> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using lots
> of fuel.

Typical Commodore.

> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".

Typical Commodore owner :)

> Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and drivers who
> have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong were normal
> service items.

It is scary, but thankfully cars like that are in the minority.

> Is it a case for annual RWC in Vic?

No. In my view there will *never* be a case for annual roadworthy
inspections in Victoria, as the statistical data between Victoria and
NSW has shown that there is no appreciable difference in any respect
between the fleets in the two states, and all such schemes ever do is
inconvenience the majority for the chance of possibly catching a handful
who are *always* going to flout the law anyway.

> Possibly but I still don't like the idea because as per my recent
> experience they seem to be more focused on trivial BS (painted brake
> calipers) instead of just safety related items, not one of the 4 items
> that they failed on my Boxster had any immediate safety implications.

I sold my Navara last week (it's being collected tonight as it happens),
and I took it to get a roadworthy last Tuesday. It went through with no
issues as the car is in mint condition, but while I was there I asked
the bloke about the painted calliper thing and he laughed his head off
claiming that he'd never heard anything as utterly ridiculous and he has
certainly never seen anything from Vicroads stating that as being the
case. He even said that he failed to see how cars with painted callipers
from the factory would be "legal" if that was the case :)

I agreed, and while I didn't mention who made that call, I told him that
it certainly wasn't someone I'd be going back to.

> Despite the above they would have to change the RWC system very
> significantly before they would get my vote for introducing annual checks.

I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The do
nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do nothing at
all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is already
ridiculously expensive.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/9/2022 12:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 9:37 am, Daryl wrote:
>> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
>> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
>> scary.
>> VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
>> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
>> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
>> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
>> Front sway bar link broken.
>> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using
>> lots of fuel.
>
> Typical Commodore.
>
>> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".
>
> Typical Commodore owner :)
>
>> Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and drivers who
>> have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong were normal
>> service items.
>
> It is scary, but thankfully cars like that are in the minority.
>
>> Is it a case for annual RWC in Vic?
>
> No. In my view there will *never* be a case for annual roadworthy
> inspections in Victoria, as the statistical data between Victoria and
> NSW has shown that there is no appreciable difference in any respect
> between the fleets in the two states, and all such schemes ever do is
> inconvenience the majority for the chance of possibly catching a handful
> who are *always* going to flout the law anyway.
>
>> Possibly but I still don't like the idea because as per my recent
>> experience they seem to be more focused on trivial BS (painted brake
>> calipers) instead of just safety related items, not one of the 4 items
>> that they failed on my Boxster had any immediate safety implications.
>
> I sold my Navara last week (it's being collected tonight as it happens),
> and I took it to get a roadworthy last Tuesday. It went through with no
> issues as the car is in mint condition, but while I was there I asked
> the bloke about the painted calliper thing and he laughed his head off
> claiming that he'd never heard anything as utterly ridiculous and he has
> certainly never seen anything from Vicroads stating that as being the
> case. He even said that he failed to see how cars with painted callipers
> from the factory would be "legal" if that was the case :)

Sure was weird, no one that I've mentioned it to including several
workshop owners and mechanics have also never heard of it.
>
> I agreed, and while I didn't mention who made that call, I told him that
> it certainly wasn't someone I'd be going back to.
>
>> Despite the above they would have to change the RWC system very
>> significantly before they would get my vote for introducing annual
>> checks.
>
> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The do
> nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do nothing at
> all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is already
> ridiculously expensive.
>

Agree, I wouldn't mind if the check was 100% safety related but as it is
now that isn't the case, its also open to corruption.

--
Daryl

On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 9:37 am, Daryl wrote:
>> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
>> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
>> scary.
>> VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
>> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
>> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
>> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
>> Front sway bar link broken.
>> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using
>> lots of fuel.
>
> Typical Commodore.
>
>> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".
>
> Typical Commodore owner :)
>
>> Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and drivers who
>> have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong were normal
>> service items.
>
> It is scary, but thankfully cars like that are in the minority.
>
>> Is it a case for annual RWC in Vic?
>
> No. In my view there will *never* be a case for annual roadworthy
> inspections in Victoria, as the statistical data between Victoria and
> NSW has shown that there is no appreciable difference in any respect
> between the fleets in the two states, and all such schemes ever do is
> inconvenience the majority for the chance of possibly catching a handful
> who are *always* going to flout the law anyway.
>
>> Possibly but I still don't like the idea because as per my recent
>> experience they seem to be more focused on trivial BS (painted brake
>> calipers) instead of just safety related items, not one of the 4 items
>> that they failed on my Boxster had any immediate safety implications.
>
> I sold my Navara last week (it's being collected tonight as it happens),
> and I took it to get a roadworthy last Tuesday. It went through with no
> issues as the car is in mint condition, but while I was there I asked
> the bloke about the painted calliper thing and he laughed his head off
> claiming that he'd never heard anything as utterly ridiculous and he has
> certainly never seen anything from Vicroads stating that as being the
> case. He even said that he failed to see how cars with painted callipers
> from the factory would be "legal" if that was the case :)
>
> I agreed, and while I didn't mention who made that call, I told him that
> it certainly wasn't someone I'd be going back to.
>
>> Despite the above they would have to change the RWC system very
>> significantly before they would get my vote for introducing annual
>> checks.
>
> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The do
> nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do nothing at
> all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is already
> ridiculously expensive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t know
a clutch from a croissant....
For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>
>

On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The do
>> nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do nothing at
>> all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is already
>> ridiculously expensive.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t know
> a clutch from a croissant....
>    For the first five years there is *no* inspection.

It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
*nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
vehicles.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/9/2022 2:36 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The
>>> do nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do
>>> nothing at all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is
>>> already ridiculously expensive.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t
>> know a clutch from a croissant....
>>     For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>
> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
> vehicles.
>
>
A *roadworthy certificate* is not intended to make the vehicle fleet
*reliable*, it is intended to make it *safe*. Big difference - huge!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 16/09/2022 10:03 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 9:37 am, Daryl wrote:
>> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
>> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
>> scary.
>> VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
>> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
>> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
>> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
>> Front sway bar link broken.
>> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using
>> lots of fuel.
>
> Typical Commodore.
>
>> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".
>
> Typical Commodore owner :)
>

Rich coming from the Ford fanboi who doesn't care about the safety of
his young bloke enough to put a seat belt on him as he is required to by
law.

Some sons do have 'em...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 16/09/2022 7:37 am, Daryl wrote:
> My youngest son had a mate help him out with some work in his backyard
> so he then helped his mate fix his girlfriends car, what he found was
> scary.
> VY Commodore which has done around 300,000km.
> Every brake pad on each corner was down to the metal.
> All 4 tyres were unroadworthy.
> Front left wheel bearing had approx 20mm play.
> Front sway bar link broken.
> Last serviced 75,000km ago, it was difficult to start and was using lots
> of fuel.
> Apparently none of it mattered because "she just putts around locally".
> Scary to think that there are cars out there like it and drivers who
> have no clue, even worse was that most of what was wrong were normal
> service items.

Built tough to still be going at all without having a service in
75,000km. Those Ecotec's sure are reliable.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 9/16/2022 2:36 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The
>>> do nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do
>>> nothing at all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is
>>> already ridiculously expensive.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t
>> know a clutch from a croissant....
>>     For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>
> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
> vehicles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree.
>
>

On 16/9/2022 10:17 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 2:36 PM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The
>>>> do nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do
>>>> nothing at all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is
>>>> already ridiculously expensive.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t
>>> know a clutch from a croissant....
>>>     For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
>> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
>> vehicles.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  I disagree.

Where is it $35.00 a year, NSW?
Recent RWC in Vic cost me $300.00.
If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have about
10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be pretty basic?
Is there a specified list of what they have to check?

--
Daryl

On 16/09/2022 10:17 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 2:36 PM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The
>>>> do nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do
>>>> nothing at all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is
>>>> already ridiculously expensive.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t
>>> know a clutch from a croissant....
>>>     For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
>> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
>> vehicles.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  I disagree.

If you can present any data that shows that NSW has on average a lower
rate of vehicle condition related accident statistics as a direct result
of annual safety inspections compared to Victoria I'll happily stand
corrected.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/09/2022 11:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 16/9/2022 10:17 pm, jonz wrote:

>>> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
>>> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
>>> vehicles.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   I disagree.
>
> Where is it $35.00 a year, NSW?
> Recent RWC in Vic cost me $300.00.

Yep. $320 bucks for me the other day.

> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have about
> 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be pretty basic?
> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?

There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck inspection
isn't anything other than a formality :)

The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in fact
this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government has used
on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such requirements
here in Victoria.

The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby groups
like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there was talk of
roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5 years old and
under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they are sold argued
*passionately* against the idea with a massive media campaign and
Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that roadworthy inspections
were necessary to maintain the level of condition of Victoria's vehicle
fleet despite them not being able to offer up *any* credible evidence to
suggest that obtaining a roadworthy certificate when selling a car made
a pooftheenth's difference to anything *other* than VACC member's bottom
line :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 11:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 16/9/2022 10:17 pm, jonz wrote:
>
>>>> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
>>>> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
>>>> vehicles.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   I disagree.
>>
>> Where is it $35.00 a year, NSW?
>> Recent RWC in Vic cost me $300.00.
>
> Yep. $320 bucks for me the other day.
>
>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
>> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have
>> about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be
>> pretty basic?
>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>
> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck inspection
> isn't anything other than a formality :)

I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty cheap
compared to what we pay.
Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
full RWC in Vic.
>
> The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
> was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
> difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
> the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
> inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in fact
> this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government has used
> on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such requirements
> here in Victoria.

Annual inspections like NSW does may prevent the odd extreme case like
the Commodore I mentioned but overall I agree it won't do much for safety.
Despite its condition the Commodore had never had a accident.
>
> The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
> inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby groups
> like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there was talk of
> roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5 years old and
> under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they are sold argued
> *passionately* against the idea with a massive media campaign and
> Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that roadworthy inspections
> were necessary to maintain the level of condition of Victoria's vehicle
> fleet despite them not being able to offer up *any* credible evidence to
> suggest that obtaining a roadworthy certificate when selling a car made
> a pooftheenth's difference to anything *other* than VACC member's bottom
> line :)
>

Sure seems that way.
As far as I can tell the part of the NSW system that I like is that you
don't need a RWC to buy or sell a car as long as it has a current "pink
slip", it would make buying a selling a lot easier.

--
Daryl

On 17/09/2022 9:45 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
>>> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have
>>> about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be
>>> pretty basic?
>>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>>
>> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck
>> inspection isn't anything other than a formality :)
>
> I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty cheap
> compared to what we pay.
> Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
> full RWC in Vic.

Yep. It'd be the kind of "inspection" you can carry out by looking out
your office window at a car parked in a carpark.

>> The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
>> was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
>> difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
>> the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
>> inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in
>> fact this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government
>> has used on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such
>> requirements here in Victoria.
>
> Annual inspections like NSW does may prevent the odd extreme case like
> the Commodore I mentioned but overall I agree it won't do much for safety.

It doesn't do anything to improve the accident statistics one iota. The
argument that regular inspections ensures a safer fleet of vehicles
which ultimately reduces the number of accidents where vehicle condition
played a significant role is not supported by any credible data.

> Despite its condition the Commodore had never had a accident.

Which is likely to be due to luck as much as anything else.

>> The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
>> inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby
>> groups like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there
>> was talk of roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5
>> years old and under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they
>> are sold argued *passionately* against the idea with a massive media
>> campaign and Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that roadworthy
>> inspections were necessary to maintain the level of condition of
>> Victoria's vehicle fleet despite them not being able to offer up *any*
>> credible evidence to suggest that obtaining a roadworthy certificate
>> when selling a car made a pooftheenth's difference to anything *other*
>> than VACC member's bottom line :)
>>
>
> Sure seems that way.
> As far as I can tell the part of the NSW system that I like is that you
> don't need a RWC to buy or sell a car as long as it has a current "pink
> slip", it would make buying a selling a lot easier.

I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance" when
buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea is that
it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for road use,
but if you have an accident where the cause is directly attributable to
some component that is covered by a roadworthy certificate failing
neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves will have any degree
of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet the requirements at the
time of testing and what happens after that is not their concern.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/9/2022 11:53 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 9:45 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
>>>> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have
>>>> about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be
>>>> pretty basic?
>>>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>>>
>>> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck
>>> inspection isn't anything other than a formality :)
>>
>> I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty
>> cheap compared to what we pay.
>> Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
>> full RWC in Vic.
>
> Yep. It'd be the kind of "inspection" you can carry out by looking out
> your office window at a car parked in a carpark.
>
>>> The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
>>> was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
>>> difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
>>> the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
>>> inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in
>>> fact this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government
>>> has used on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such
>>> requirements here in Victoria.
>>
>> Annual inspections like NSW does may prevent the odd extreme case like
>> the Commodore I mentioned but overall I agree it won't do much for
>> safety.
>
> It doesn't do anything to improve the accident statistics one iota. The
> argument that regular inspections ensures a safer fleet of vehicles
> which ultimately reduces the number of accidents where vehicle condition
> played a significant role is not supported by any credible data.
>
>> Despite its condition the Commodore had never had a accident.
>
> Which is likely to be due to luck as much as anything else.
>
>
>>> The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
>>> inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby
>>> groups like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there
>>> was talk of roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5
>>> years old and under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they
>>> are sold argued *passionately* against the idea with a massive media
>>> campaign and Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that
>>> roadworthy inspections were necessary to maintain the level of
>>> condition of Victoria's vehicle fleet despite them not being able to
>>> offer up *any* credible evidence to suggest that obtaining a
>>> roadworthy certificate when selling a car made a pooftheenth's
>>> difference to anything *other* than VACC member's bottom line :)
>>>
>>
>> Sure seems that way.
>> As far as I can tell the part of the NSW system that I like is that
>> you don't need a RWC to buy or sell a car as long as it has a current
>> "pink slip", it would make buying a selling a lot easier.
>
> I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance" when
> buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea is that
> it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for road use,
> but if you have an accident where the cause is directly attributable to
> some component that is covered by a roadworthy certificate failing
> neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves will have any degree
> of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet the requirements at the
> time of testing and what happens after that is not their concern.
>
>

Agree that since the tester or Vic Roads take no responsibility for a
cars safety with a current RWC then it all seems pretty pointless.
I even found a couple of things on the Boxster that I would of failed
that the tester missed such as the 4 nuts missing from the rear
suspension cross braces, wiper blades were pretty average and the
headlamps weren't aimed correctly.

--
Daryl

On 17/9/2022 11:53 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 9:45 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
>>>> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have
>>>> about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be
>>>> pretty basic?
>>>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>>>
>>> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck
>>> inspection isn't anything other than a formality :)
>>
>> I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty
>> cheap compared to what we pay.
>> Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
>> full RWC in Vic.
>
> Yep. It'd be the kind of "inspection" you can carry out by looking out
> your office window at a car parked in a carpark.

Ah, nope! You're showing your total lack of *experience* here.
>
>>> The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
>>> was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
>>> difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
>>> the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
>>> inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in
>>> fact this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government
>>> has used on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such
>>> requirements here in Victoria.
>>
>> Annual inspections like NSW does may prevent the odd extreme case like
>> the Commodore I mentioned but overall I agree it won't do much for
>> safety.
>
> It doesn't do anything to improve the accident statistics one iota. The
> argument that regular inspections ensures a safer fleet of vehicles
> which ultimately reduces the number of accidents where vehicle condition
> played a significant role is not supported by any credible data.
>
>> Despite its condition the Commodore had never had a accident.
>
> Which is likely to be due to luck as much as anything else.
>
>
>>> The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
>>> inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby
>>> groups like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there
>>> was talk of roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5
>>> years old and under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they
>>> are sold argued *passionately* against the idea with a massive media
>>> campaign and Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that
>>> roadworthy inspections were necessary to maintain the level of
>>> condition of Victoria's vehicle fleet despite them not being able to
>>> offer up *any* credible evidence to suggest that obtaining a
>>> roadworthy certificate when selling a car made a pooftheenth's
>>> difference to anything *other* than VACC member's bottom line :)
>>>
>>
>> Sure seems that way.
>> As far as I can tell the part of the NSW system that I like is that
>> you don't need a RWC to buy or sell a car as long as it has a current
>> "pink slip", it would make buying a selling a lot easier.
>
> I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance" when
> buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea is that
> it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for road use,
> but if you have an accident where the cause is directly attributable to
> some component that is covered by a roadworthy certificate failing
> neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves will have any degree
> of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet the requirements at the
> time of testing and what happens after that is not their concern.

Wrong again, and in your home state too. More *experience* lacking.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/17/2022 11:53 AM, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 9:45 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time to
>>>> inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only have
>>>> about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must be
>>>> pretty basic?
>>>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>>>
>>> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck
>>> inspection isn't anything other than a formality :)
>>
>> I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty
>> cheap compared to what we pay.
>> Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
>> full RWC in Vic.
>
> Yep. It'd be the kind of "inspection" you can carry out by looking out
> your office window at a car parked in a carpark.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. Brakes, (Efficiency machine test) *All* the underbody mechanical
components, (Wheel bearings, swing arm bushes, steering etc.) *NO* oil
leaks, Structural rust (and cosmetic rust if someone could be injured by
contact with it.) seatbelts, seats, *Any* CEL`s,. Tho most don`t check
for headlight aim. :( Just a few of the requirements. A lot of ppl can
and will drive about with six inches of play at the steering wheel and
not GAF, or barely working brakes, all good until used in anger then
BANG!!! ditto!. If a yearly check saves even *one* life by getting these
defects seen too, is worth it!.
Just a pity they can`t get rid of the *defective drivers* that can`t
or won`t identify defects!. :(
NZ has/had a warrant of fitness check every six months.. (I think
this may have increased a bit, depending on vehicle age)
>
>>> The last time I checked, and it's going back some time ago now, there
>>> was no reliable data to suggest that there was any appreciable
>>> difference to vehicle accident statistics where vehicle condition was
>>> the significant contributing factor between NSW, where annual
>>> inspections are carried out, and Victoria where they are not and in
>>> fact this is the exact argument that the Victorian State Government
>>> has used on numerous occasions in arguing against introducing such
>>> requirements here in Victoria.
>>
>> Annual inspections like NSW does may prevent the odd extreme case like
>> the Commodore I mentioned but overall I agree it won't do much for
>> safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UH-HUH.
>
> It doesn't do anything to improve the accident statistics one iota. The
> argument that regular inspections ensures a safer fleet of vehicles
> which ultimately reduces the number of accidents where vehicle condition
> played a significant role is not supported by any credible data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>> Despite its condition the Commodore had never had a accident.
>
> Which is likely to be due to luck as much as anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agree with that!.
>
>
>>> The *only* people in Victoria who want to see annual roadworthiness
>>> inspections introduced in Victoria are automotive industry lobby
>>> groups like the VACC, who you may recall a few years ago when there
>>> was talk of roadworthy regluations being changed to allow vehicles 5
>>> years old and under to not require a roadworthy inspection when they
>>> are sold argued *passionately* against the idea with a massive media
>>> campaign and Submission to Vicroads where they claimed that
>>> roadworthy inspections were necessary to maintain the level of
>>> condition of Victoria's vehicle fleet despite them not being able to
>>> offer up *any* credible evidence to suggest that obtaining a
>>> roadworthy certificate when selling a car made a pooftheenth's
>>> difference to anything *other* than VACC member's bottom line :)
>>>
>>
>> Sure seems that way.
>> As far as I can tell the part of the NSW system that I like is that
>> you don't need a RWC to buy or sell a car as long as it has a current
>> "pink slip", it would make buying a selling a lot easier.
>
> I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance" when
> buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea is that
> it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for road use,
> but if you have an accident where the cause is directly attributable to
> some component that is covered by a roadworthy certificate failing
> neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves will have any degree
> of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet the requirements at the
> time of testing and what happens after that is not their concern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UH-HUH.........
>
>
>
>
>

On 9/17/2022 12:10 AM, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 10:17 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 9/16/2022 2:36 PM, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2022 2:08 pm, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2022 12:03 PM, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't favour annual checks for the reasons I mentioned above. The
>>>>> do nothing to create a fleet of safer vehicles, and in fact do
>>>>> nothing at all but add to the cost of vehicle ownership which is
>>>>> already ridiculously expensive.
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>   It`s a whole $35 a year......Cheap insurance for those that don`t
>>>> know a clutch from a croissant....
>>>>     For the first five years there is *no* inspection.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter how much it is. The point is that it achieves
>>> *nothing* in terms of making for a more reliable fleet of passenger
>>> vehicles.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   I disagree.
>
> If you can present any data that shows that NSW has on average a lower
> rate of vehicle condition related accident statistics as a direct result
> of annual safety inspections compared to Victoria I'll happily stand
> corrected.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
See my poast elsewhere in this thread.
>
>
>
>
>

On 17/09/2022 4:27 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/17/2022 11:53 AM, Noddy wrote:

>> I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance" when
>> buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea is
>> that it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for road
>> use, but if you have an accident where the cause is directly
>> attributable to some component that is covered by a roadworthy
>> certificate failing neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves
>> will have any degree of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet
>> the requirements at the time of testing and what happens after that is
>> not their concern.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> UH-HUH.........

As I said, if you can cite any credible evidence that shows that annual
vehicle inspections make any appreciable difference to accident
statistics I'll happily stand corrected.

I also won't hold my breath....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/09/2022 4:31 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/17/2022 12:10 AM, Noddy wrote:

>> If you can present any data that shows that NSW has on average a lower
>> rate of vehicle condition related accident statistics as a direct
>> result of annual safety inspections compared to Victoria I'll happily
>> stand corrected.

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>   See my poast elsewhere in this thread.

I didn't see you post anything relating to accident statistics, and the
effects (if any) that annual safety inspections has on them.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/17/2022 4:57 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 4:27 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 9/17/2022 11:53 AM, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I think the notion that you need *any* kind of "safety assurance"
>>> when buying or selling a car is utterly ridiculous. I mean, the idea
>>> is that it's supposed to ensure you're buying a car that is fit for
>>> road use, but if you have an accident where the cause is directly
>>> attributable to some component that is covered by a roadworthy
>>> certificate failing neither the vehicle tester or Vicroads themselves
>>> will have any degree of culpability as the vehicle only has to meet
>>> the requirements at the time of testing and what happens after that
>>> is not their concern.
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> UH-HUH.........
>
> As I said, if you can cite any credible evidence that shows that annual
> vehicle inspections make any appreciable difference to accident
> statistics I'll happily stand corrected.
>
> I also won't hold my breath....
~~~~~~~~~~~
<SHRUG>
>
>
>

On 9/17/2022 4:59 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/09/2022 4:31 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 9/17/2022 12:10 AM, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> If you can present any data that shows that NSW has on average a
>>> lower rate of vehicle condition related accident statistics as a
>>> direct result of annual safety inspections compared to Victoria I'll
>>> happily stand corrected.
>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>>    See my poast elsewhere in this thread.
>
> I didn't see you post anything relating to accident statistics, and the
> effects (if any) that annual safety inspections has on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<SHRUG> #2..
>
>
>

On 17/09/2022 5:11 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/17/2022 4:57 PM, Noddy wrote:

>> As I said, if you can cite any credible evidence that shows that
>> annual vehicle inspections make any appreciable difference to accident
>> statistics I'll happily stand corrected.
>>
>> I also won't hold my breath....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>  <SHRUG>

There's nothing to shrug about. Either you have credible data or you
don't. If you do then I'm happy to accept it on face value. However if
you don't, then it's not exactly clear how you reach your conclusions.

As I said I won't hold my breath, and I say that for no reason other
than the fact that this argument has come up here on many occasions over
the years, and on not one single occasion has anyone ever been able to
present evidence that even *remotely* suggested that annual inspections
did a single thing when it came to ensuring that the vehicle fleet was
keep in a better, "roadworthy" condition.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/9/2022 4:27 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 9/17/2022 11:53 AM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/09/2022 9:45 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 17/9/2022 12:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> If an annual inspection only costs $35.00 they wouldn't have time
>>>>> to inspect all that much, at current labor rates they would only
>>>>> have about 10mins for everything including the paperwork so it must
>>>>> be pretty basic?
>>>>> Is there a specified list of what they have to check?
>>>>
>>>> There would be, but you can bet your left one that a 35 buck
>>>> inspection isn't anything other than a formality :)
>>>
>>> I looked it up and I think its gone up to $43 but its still pretty
>>> cheap compared to what we pay.
>>> Obviously a very different "inspection" to what we are used to for a
>>> full RWC in Vic.
>>
>> Yep. It'd be the kind of "inspection" you can carry out by looking out
>> your office window at a car parked in a carpark.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  Nope. Brakes, (Efficiency machine test) *All* the underbody mechanical
> components, (Wheel bearings, swing arm bushes, steering etc.) *NO* oil
> leaks, Structural rust (and cosmetic rust if someone could be injured by
> contact with it.) seatbelts, seats, *Any* CEL`s,. Tho most don`t check
> for headlight aim. :( Just a few of the requirements. A lot of ppl can
> and will drive about with six inches of play at the steering wheel and
> not GAF, or barely working brakes, all good until used in anger then
> BANG!!! ditto!. If a yearly check saves even *one* life by getting these
> defects seen too, is worth it!.

Are the inspections done by Govt employees or independent mechanics?
I ask because $43 at most independent workshops would be lucky to buy
you 15mins of time, if done by Govt employees then its a different story.
Can you hang around while they do they inspection or do you have to
leave it with them all day?
If its half an hour of your time and $43 once a year its not a big
inconvenience unlike Vic where you generally have to leave the car most
of the day and pay about $300.00

>    Just a pity they can`t get rid of the *defective drivers* that can`t
> or won`t identify defects!. :(

Like the one who owned the Commodore I posted about, he didn't seem at
all concerned even when the serious defects were pointed out to him,
he's a professional musician who has played in some very well known
bands but he knows sfa about cars or even driving by the sound of it.

>      NZ has/had a warrant of fitness check every six months.. (I think
> this may have increased a bit, depending on vehicle age)

Inspections every 6mths sounds a bit extreme.
Shame there doesn't seem to be any reliable data that proves whether or
not the annual inspections do much for road safety.
In Vic in the last couple of years a male driver over 70 living in a
rural area is statistically the most likely to die in a car crash, apart
from statistics relating to speed and seat belts there doesn't seem to
be much data about the cause of crashes and nothing about faulty
vehicles which isn't surprising with the authorities so obsessed with
speed.

--
Daryl