Are some Kiwis the East Germans of the Pacific?

Posted on May 26, 2012 by KG

Cars in New Zealand have to have six-monthly roadworthiness checks, an expensive and often frustrating and time-wasting business for the owners. There’s a move afoot to change this to a yearly check. Very sensible, no?
“..Opponents say changes would put people out of work, affecting Vehicle Inspection NZ, Vehicle Testing NZ stations and small garages.”
“Put people out of work”…..people who are employed (using that term loosely) to inconvenience and harass people unnecessarily must be kept in a job! Jeez..even the East Germans woke up to what a dead-end that kind of thinking is.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Are some Kiwis the East Germans of the Pacific?

  1. oswald bastable says:
    May 26, 2012 at 15:34

    Out of work?

    So why have I had to wait two weeks to get a spot for a WOF?…

    • Anonymous says:
      May 26, 2012 at 18:52

      …….and of course it’ll make no difference to the pond slime who have never warranted or licensed their unroadworthy vehicles. :roll
      mawm

      • Ronbo says:
        May 26, 2012 at 19:39

        Now there is an idea that should be adopted by all car owners in NZ – screw license, tags and inspection!

        FUCK THE STATE!

        What could the NZ socialist government (which is an illegal regime anyway) do about it? Arrest tens of thousands drivers? Impound thousands of vehicles? Throw tend of thousands in jail? Let me tell you truth: These filthy pinko traitors are SACRED to death of patriots standing up for law and order!

        My home state of Florida used to have a yearly vehicle inspection, which was done away with because drivers were sick of the chicken shit where well maintained autos were “failed” for a having a small rust problem. The drivers returned fire by ignoring the “mandatory” Florida state inspection and the police quickly discovered that it was impossible to ticket upwards of a million cars. When faced with reality, the grand and glorious state of Florida “discovered” that vehicle inspection were a waste of time and money, and ended them.

        THE MORAL TO THE STORY:

        Resistance to the State works every time tried if done in mass…the problem is getting that first oppressed person to stand up for liberty.

        What are the NZ patriots afraid of? Jail? A fine? Let me tell you as one who was thrown into prison as a political prisoner – it ain’t so bad once you get the hang of it. Three hots and a cot! Free medical care! Free dental care! Free college classes! A taxpayer vacation!

        Plus once inside you can raise all kinds of hell with the jailers and the courts. People outside broadcast your case world wide on the Internet. You become a martyr for liberty! When released you write a Kindle book entitled, “TYRANNY IN NEW ZEALAND!”

  2. KG says:
    May 26, 2012 at 15:36

    Because like every other bloody government-protected species, they’re inefficient, lazy buggers, Os?

  3. KG says:
    May 26, 2012 at 15:38

    But the tractor production statistics are looking good, Comrade….

  4. Flashman says:
    May 26, 2012 at 16:01

    Yet the owner of the garage I use is constantly bitching about how automotive outfits make very little profit contribution from wofs and since he’s a Big Nob on the regional mta committee, I have to assume he knows what he’s talking about. The conclusion has to be that the good old boys at the mta know full well that 6 monthly wofs are actually a nice little earner and that a change to an extended would hit them in the bottom line. The mta will lobby hard against this one.

    Of course, politics is the art of compromise so……….

    Methinks the shiny arsed apparatchiks at The Ministry will support a 12 monthly wof that is deliberately made far tougher to pass [thus ensuring the mta boyos get their nabbers on lucrative and often spurious “repair” work], cost far more [because the “inspection” is more “thorough”] and thus be an even bigger pain in the arse and wallet than the current absurd 1950’s set up.

    All in the name of the Great God Safety – of course.

  5. K2 says:
    May 26, 2012 at 16:03

    Listen, it’s been a long time since government departments did what they claim to do. They may claim to educate students, or provide a social safety net, or make sure the roads don’t have potholes, but what their true purpose is for the last 40 years is to employ as many people as possible who understand that they’re livelihood explicitly depends on big well funded government in general and certain pols in particular.

    The fact that this factual situation is not well understood is a function of the miracle of modern media and the low state of political morality. When your sustenance depends on a particular government program, you tend to swallow the rationale for same hook line and sinker.

    • Cadwallader says:
      May 26, 2012 at 17:39

      ..and the low state of journalism!

      “There’s no government like no government…unless it is very very small!”

  6. Adolf Fiinkensein says:
    May 26, 2012 at 16:19

    The ‘motorists’ on Great Barrier Island will be shaking in their shoes.

  7. Pete says:
    May 26, 2012 at 18:20

    Not only cars – trailers, caravans, boats -it needs to change. Let the driver be responsible!

  8. Mark says:
    May 26, 2012 at 20:32

    That good for a decent goverment, you buy a brand new car of the lot and under a left wing goverment it is defective after 6 months. No, it’s not, it just the chance for some wanker to drive your car around like it’s a rental and screw it over, then charge you for it.

    Its the biggest rip off ever. The bitchs complaining about it are the biggest fags ever.

  9. Flashman says:
    May 27, 2012 at 05:44

    The whole wof concept needs to go into the dustbin. It was some politician’s brain fart back in the 1950’s when NZ roads were filled with clapped out pre-war dungers [thanks to this country’s import restrictions] and marginally built british junk that needed constant spanner work to keep them mobile, steering and stopping.

    Modern vehicles by contrast can go vast distances on simple servicing only. All that is needed is a policy shift to making the vehicle’s owner responsible for its safety critical integrity.

  10. Tom says:
    May 27, 2012 at 05:56

    About time we moved to a year (at least) I run a car and a 4wd.In any 6 month period one of these runs up maybe 2000kms.Also what of those who have a vintage or classic which may not even be used between wof,s.Incidently the 4wd does not get a lot of use these days,but does piss off the greenie neighbours who drive a toy.

  11. Darin says:
    May 27, 2012 at 06:37

    The whole concept of vehicle inspection is BS.In the states the first state to inact it was New York.It was done by using false data from the state DMV stating that poorly maintained or older vehicles were responsible for a higher number of accidents.The truth was the opposite.The bill passed anyway and gave them the excuse they needed for a new tax which is all the inspection racket is.
    In my state it’s once a year,the only thing they look at are the lights,windshield and brake lights.There could be no brakes on the car and the engine about to drop onto the road ,but so long as the lights work and the windshield isn’t cracked in the middle everything is fine,$5 please cha-ching!$2.50 goes to the state and $2.50 to the service station that did the inspection.Most shops lose money doing them.Statistically it would make zero difference if there were inspections or not.

    The most damming thing about inspections not being needed,is drive through town with a taillight out or roll through a stop and see just how fast a cop is there to write out a ticket.But there in lies the other reason the state likes them-it’s an excuse to pull drivers over when the sticker is expired-then the fun starts :rant

    • Tom says:
      May 27, 2012 at 06:57

      $5? Here in NZ the price is $50.Registration for a car is $300 a diesel is $417

      • Darin says:
        May 27, 2012 at 10:01

        Oh we have graduated license tags here.New car can run you $750-800 first year,then a little less each year until 20 years has passed,then you can get an antique tag for $50 and that’s it.It’s called “Road use privilege tax” :roll:

  12. The Gantt Guy says:
    May 27, 2012 at 09:52

    To swim against the flow here, I am actually in favour of an annual road worthiness check up. I see it as part of the cost of driving, much like a drivers licence.

    The problem, as with every other aspect of life in the Cuba of the South Pacific, is “creep”. What started out as a check to make sure (for example) brakes were working OK has turned into a ridiculous charade where any small amount of panel rust will see a vehicle failed. Like all those whose jobs involve clipboards and hi-viz vests, these officious jobs worths won’t stop until they push 9 of every 10 cars off the road. The trick is to find a way to control them.

    But just imagine the chaos that would result if the road worthiness check was abandoned. Every single insurance claim would be rejected until the vehicle owner could prove (to the satisfaction of the insurer) that the vehicle was roadworthy at the time of te collision.

    • Cadwallader says:
      May 27, 2012 at 10:24

      GG: In the first three years (sometimes five years) in the life of a new car, the much lauded Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act protect the rights of purchasers in that there are warranties attaching to the quality of the new vehicle. Some marques provide even longer terms under warranty. Why double-up?

      • The Gantt Guy says:
        May 27, 2012 at 10:30

        In these days of cheap second-hand Japanese imports, who apart from fleet buyers has a vehicle <5 years old?

        I agree the Consumer Guarantees Act and warranties provide probably better protection for those vehicles they cover. But what about those they don't?

        • Cadwallader says:
          May 27, 2012 at 11:32

          Private enterprise rather than the state can sort out that problem…unavailability of insurance cover.

          • The Gantt Guy says:
            May 27, 2012 at 11:34

            ?? Unavailability of insurance cover for vehicles >5 years old? Or unavailability of insurance cover for vehicles that don’t pass a roadworthiness standard?

            • Cadwallader says:
              May 27, 2012 at 17:08

              That is up to the insurers to determine…likely based on fitness for purpose rather than age.

  13. Bill The Bunyip says:
    May 27, 2012 at 09:55

    I used to own and operate a workshop that did WOF’s, when I was still living in the SSA (socialist state of Aotearoa). Over the twentyfive years I saw WOF’s go from a joke to a reasonably well structured and monitored system.
    WOF’s were available at the local pub, club etc. in days gone by and to a very minor extent probably still are. The entire inspection process is controlled by a system called VIRM, click it and the online manual will appear. Reasons for rejection are clearly stated.
    The wish to extend the timefarme to annual checks has been around for a while and will include a far mor extensive check including removal of brake drums etc. The number of vehicles that were presented by careful owners that had moderate to serious faults was not huge but there were enough to be a worry.
    Mark, for the first five years of a new vehicle’s life it requires an annual WOF.
    Some faults that should in my opinion have been a reason for rejection e.g. ripped cv boots were not in the VIRM.
    As stated I no longer live in SSA and here in WA I am comfortable with being responsible for my vehicles roadworthiness. Sadly there are many that are not capable of that responsibility and any smash that causes large financial costs becomes the playground for insurance companies and lawyers. My preference is to deny these parasites that opportunity where ever possible.
    The WOF system is flawed and can be a pain in the arse, however it is a huge improvement on what it was and still has some merit.
    Yes there will always be those who ignore it, but they ignore everything else as well so this is not anything unusual.
    Sunny weather here Mr. Wabbit, but the cold desert nights are a tad chilly for these weary old bones.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      May 27, 2012 at 10:00

      :mrgreen:

      I remember years ago (in the ’80’s) I had a 1968 mini that had very little chance of ever getting a warrant, so I bought 1 or 2 from my local (the Glenfield Tavern).

  14. KG says:
    May 27, 2012 at 10:38

    “Sunny weather here Mr. Wabbit, but the cold desert nights are a tad chilly for these weary old bones.”
    Same here, Bill. Western Queensland gets pretty cool this time of year.

    I’d like to see the (reputable, not spin) figures for the number of accidents caused by cars being unroadworthy. I seem to remember the AA–before it became the poodle mouthpiece of government–some years ago saying the figure was less than 10%.
    A “safety at any (taxpayer’s) cost” approach is nothing more than an excuse for the statists to tighten the screws. Some things carry an inherent risk and part of being a fucking adult is learning to accept that. I abhor and detest the trend towards enslavement in the name of “safety”.
    Fuck safety–give me liberty.

  15. mara says:
    May 27, 2012 at 11:58

    Darin, I have found the most dangerous part of the car is the microwaved pie that spurts its lava into your crotch at the point where you are approaching a high speed intersection. In the rain. At night. Btw, in all my driving lifetime, I only once got a clean warrant first time. I was so shocked the nice man offered me a glass of water and a sit down. Which gives you an idea of the sort of crap I’m used to driving. And why I crack up laughing when you boys wet your knickers over pics of gigantic, new, bad ass, grunting , voom voom ve HIC les. ;-)

  16. KG says:
    May 27, 2012 at 13:09

    Something else which gets my goat (yeah, I know, it’s a long list) is blaming accidents on the state of the roads.
    Bullshit–a competent driver travels at a speed and in a manner consistent with the conditions. Somebody who blames their “accident” on the road isn’t competent to tie his own shoelaces. :evil:

    • Darin says:
      May 27, 2012 at 13:25

      Oh we have plenty of those over here.They are easy to spot,usually they speed up when it starts pouring rain and visibility drops to 20′ :evil:

      I did save a mans life on the highway once.On my way to work,this guy was driving in the slow lane with an antique writing desk carefully tied down in the bed of his truck.Unknown to him,he hadn’t secured the drawers and all six of them were working their way out and just about to lose them.So I sped up and got along side and as I passed I honked the horn and pointed to the desk.He saw it and stopped straight away.If he hadn’t his wife would have surely killed him :mrgreen:

  17. mara says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:12

    Mawm, I would have been bawling at them to stop snivelling and put their own seatbelts on if they are so worried about being killed by my driving which is ,by the way, bloody good and if they paid more attention they would appreciate the intricacies of skillful multi-tasking which, as we all know, is an integral part of good driving. Bloody kids eh. Know nothing.

  18. KG says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:20

    “…skillful multi-tasking which, as we all know, is an integral part of good driving..”
    Quite so. Anybody living in the Northern Territory knows that it’s possible to drive at 120 kmh on a corrugated dirt road, open a carton of beer and light a cigarette all at the same time. Without killing anybody.

  19. KG says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:21

    “…skillful multi-tasking which, as we all know, is an integral part of good driving..”
    Quite so. Anybody living in the Northern Territory knows that it’s possible to drive at 120 kmh on a corrugated dirt road, open a carton of beer and light a cigarette all at the same time. All without killing anybody.

    • mawm says:
      May 27, 2012 at 14:53

      Heh! That’s only because there is nobody there to kill.

      Mara, nothing is more distracting than a child having a wobbly in the back. Even a good yell and the threat of stopping the car (they know you don’t want to) doesn’t seem to work. A good smack does. :mrgreen:

      • KG says:
        May 27, 2012 at 15:02

        Well, I dunno, Mawm. There’s wild donkeys, wallabies, buffalo, emus, camels……
        Mostly we dodge those pretty well. ;-)
        As for kids in the car…where possible, bribe somebody to take them in their car instead. I’ve often looked at the pig-dog cages on the back of Landcruiser utes around here and thought…..hmmmmmmmmmmm….

  20. mara says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:24

    Great minds think alike KG. :mrgreen:

  21. KG says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:28

    :cheers

  22. Darin says:
    May 27, 2012 at 14:44

    My theory is the faster you go the less time the suspension has to drop the tires in the bottom of the wash board.In theory at least a speed of 110mph or so should yield a smooth ride and allow hands free driving while tuning of the radio between swigs :cheers

    • KG says:
      May 27, 2012 at 15:00

      Quite true, Darin. Yessir. And beer helps smooth out the ride, too, by some mysterious process.

  23. mara says:
    May 27, 2012 at 17:00

    Yeah Mawm .. been there, done that. The problem was driving with the right hand and swinging the left hand over the back seat in the hope of connecting somewhere. It skews your sense of balance and can take the mind off the road. The little bastards usually saw it coming and ducked. Thankfully the child grew up. I now have grey(ish) hair and I ” blame” her. She will, of course, do the same thing with her own children. And life rolls on.