WARRANTS OF FITNESS

Do we really need them?

Acouple of years back, the UK’S Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) decided that vehicles made before 1 January 1978 were to be exempt from needing an MOT, with effect from 1 April 2018; thus, vehicles that were 40 years or older would no longer be subject to the dreaded MOT check — like our warrant of fitness (WOF), but more severe/intrusive. There had been some research that suggested that mechanical faults in these 40-yearold-plus vehicles were few and far between, and unlikely to contribute to crashes. There was some debate here in New Zealand as to whether we should follow the UK’S lead, but, unfortunately, the status quo remained in force, with the exception that newer vehicles would require only annual checks, and some brand-new vehicles — such as my new trailer and Royal Enfield motorcycle — would require a WOF only after three years.

In February 2019, it was reported that a Dargaville garage had issued a WOF to a vehicle that was later involved in a fatal crash. Seemingly, the tester did not check the seat belts. As a consequence, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) began clamping down on vehicle testing, although it was reported that this ‘clamping down’ had commenced prior to the story about the Dargaville case breaking — yeah, right!

I was under the impression that the NZTA’S review was originally instigated by some dodgy truck/trailer certifications, and that the NZTA had failed to monitor the industry properly. As I recall, some years back, the powers that be decided that the industry could be selfregulating in that it could ‘certify’ its own work. This would work satisfactorily provided that the NZTA had an appropriate auditing regime in place, which it apparently didn’t — hence the problem.

The NZTA has now recalled some 28,000 vehicles suspected of having had inferior/ inadequate WOF checks. Retesting is free, but not compulsory!

Let’s look at how much the WOF industry is worth in dollar terms. The total New Zealand vehicle fleet for 2017, as provided by the Motor Vehicle Register database, numbered 3,370,573. My calculator doesn’t have enough zeros to do the calculation, but at $71 a pop times 3,370,573, there are mega millions to be made from the current testing regime, which might explain why there is a bit of resistance to any changes.

Now, factor in the actual statistics of crashes in which a vehicle fault is the principal cause, and it begs the question, why do we need such an extensive testing regime? Anecdotally, the figure is somewhere around three per cent. According to the October 2017 accident statistics, “vehicle factors” — whatever that means — contributed to around four per cent of open road crashes, and just two per cent of urban crashes. For December 2018, the figures were almost exactly the same. The vehicle fleet has increased by 88 per cent since 1990, but the police reports that the number of injuries has dropped by 15 per cent and the number of road deaths has dropped by 50 per cent.

So, at a glance, what are the main contributors to crashes, and are newer vehicles actually safer? According to the USA’S National Highway Traffic Safety Authority, (ANSI), 98 per cent of crashes are caused by — wait for it! — people! Here in New Zealand, just under half of those injured in October 2017 were aged between 15 and 34! The figures were almost the same for December 2018. Clearly, this age group is the problem (LOL).

How do you factor in the effects of all the gizmos in modern vehicles? Some of the newer cars start to brake when you get too close to the car in front, and some pack a sad if a vehicle behind gets too close — these are features that a recent letter writer to the local paper claimed relieved him of having to pay attention while driving. He also bemoaned the rain-sensitive windscreen that started the wipers as soon as a few spots of rain fell on it. I would argue that anyone who isn’t able to figure out that it is raining enough to warrant turning on the wipers ought not to be driving. However, I guess if you have your eyes aimed downwards to your mobile phone, then having the wipers start automatically is a bonus.

Some Australian states do not have a WOF regime, save for requiring an inspection at point of sale. Their accident statistics are similar to New Zealand’s in that only a few per cent of crashes are caused by mechanical defects. So, if a NO-WOF regime works for the Aussies, and the UK exempts vehicles over 40 years old, why don’t we do the same?

Various international studies have shown that regular vehicle inspections are not effective in reducing crash rates. Maybe it’s about money? Remember when the regime was changed for newer vehicles? Of course, the government is not going to want to kiss goodbye to some $23.5M in GST — assuming that the average price for a WOF is around $50!

The Motor Trade Association (MTA) claims that WOF prices could rise when smaller garages find that they cannot afford the time, equipment, or training required to meet any higher standards. Maybe it’s time for the NZTA to set some basic standards, particularly for motorcycles, as to what proportion of the current WOF inspection sheets applies to motorcycles, and, most important, to older vehicles that do not have airbags, high-mounted stop lights, seat belts, ABS brakes, front and rear fog lamps, towing connections, to name but a few. Also, we don’t want to see mandatory brake-testing gadgets such as the big testing stations have — on which I’ve seen one clown try to test a woodenwheeled vintage car — become an integral part of the local garage scene.

Years ago, WOFS were issued by the Ministry of Transport’s own testing stations. In the absence of factual evidence that WOFS significantly reduce crashes, perhaps it is a timely opportunity to abolish them altogether? Besides which, a regular WOF check does not address the nut behind the wheel!

Don’t expect change anytime soon.