A trip to the test centre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spudfan

[..snip...] Go figure,,,

---

Land Rover...[biggrin]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradC

And at least one other has no testing unless you're caught doing a burnout in front of a plod and cop a canary. My 33 year old Volvo hasn't seen the pits _ever_. Just paid the rego yearly and don't get caught doing dumb stuff.

Some of the ****boxes we have tootling around WA are total and utter deathtraps.

---

Doesn't WA require a RWC at change of ownership or introduction to the state?
How many "utter death traps" have been involved in incidents with mechanical faults being a significant contribution to said incident? The type of people prepared to drive vehicles in that condition, are the type of people who habitually disregard other laws such as speeding, drink/drug driving, seat belts, red lights, et al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Doesn't WA require a RWC at change of ownership or introduction to the state?

---

I *think* it's required for new second-hand registrations, so that'd cover bringing in a vehicle from the East. It's not required for a change of ownership within WA. I'm the third owner of said Volvo and it has never been inspected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

How many "utter death traps" have been involved in incidents with mechanical faults being a significant contribution to said incident? The type of people prepared to drive vehicles in that condition, are the type of people who habitually disregard other laws such as speeding, drink/drug driving, seat belts, red lights, et al.

---

Yeah... can't really speculate. I can say that whenever we see a fatal on the news the instigator generally appears to be a newer high powered vehicle driven by someone who's numerical age exceeds their IQ. "Death traps" don't actually seem to be over-represented, but then I don't have actual statistics to back that up.

It's not just death traps though. I sat behind a relatively new Subaru/Toyota "sports" thingo at the lights a couple of weeks ago and the only functioning brake light was a single remaining LED in the high-mount. I pointed it out to the driver at the next set of lights with the response of "yeah, I know".

I think John (JD NSW) has posted the actual stats before, mechanical failure was insignificant in the causes of incidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Here we have an annual blitz on roadside mechanical inspections for heavy vehicles, despite them being inspected yearly, in every state.
Defects are classified and published. Some trucks/trailers have eight or more stop lights (minimum two required), depending on the level of bling the owner desires. Should just one of the multiple brake lights fail at inspection, it is classified as a serious brake defect.
Fear mongering to garner public support for government employees overtime bonanza.

---

And I used to think that trailers had duplicate brake and indicator lights each side so that the odds would have one of each working on each side at any one time to be legal........and considerate of other road users.

Is this just a Qld thing?

JT................what is the go in Vic?

DL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

I think John (JD NSW) has posted the actual stats before, mechanical failure was insignificant in the causes of incidents.

---

Has been well known in Vic.

Been awhile since the 'peak motor industry body' here pushed for annual inspections AFAIK.

On the other hand you need an annual scuba tank test here to get a fill and guess which body came up with that.........

DL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 350RRC

And I used to think that trailers had duplicate brake and indicator lights each side so that the odds would have one of each working on each side at any one time to be legal........and considerate of other road users.

Is this just a Qld thing?

JT................what is the go in Vic?

DL

---

Any lights fitted, including auxiliary driving lights and extra clearance lights have to be operable.
The flash bangers you see, with the entire outline depicted with LED clearance lights, can be defected for having a single light out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

The flash bangers you see, with the entire outline depicted with LED clearance lights, can be defected for having a single light out.

---

Should be defected for bad taste.

There was a study done a few years ago about the efficiency of an MOT type test regarding the mechanical condition of vehicles. From memory they compared 6 places of which 2 were Australian states as their sample. This was so not an Australian study just happens they were chosen. One state had an MOT process the other did not. Sample was split 50 / 50 with and without

Result was that an MOT had an initial impact as a small number of older cars that were deemed to be beyond economic repair were removed. There was no other significant difference in the vehicle fleets

It was found that where the MOT was in use owners tended to only do maintenance when the MOT required it rather than as needed. They were reluctant to do work not required by the MOT as this was seen as the mechanic trying to game them into doing unnecessary work on the vehicle. This resulted in more vehicles that were below requirements as the owners tended to believe the list of items on the MOT was all that was required

Have known people here who I have pointed out they have a bald tyre or non working tail light or extreme example loud clunk banging noise from rear wheel who are surprised as the car has a current MOT so it should be good and blame the tester who last saw the car 6 months ago

The skill with which inspection station employees wave the brake tester around in mid air whilst generating a test print out at the front counter never fails to impress me..........


Regards,
Tote