New WOF policy ‘needs a bit of tweaking’

IN 1992, The Day America Told the Truth was published, and it rather shook Americans’ views of each other, not least on the question of ‘‘What are you worth?’’

That’s a question frequently asked on Money pages, and the standard answer is assets minus liabilities, though of course those with insurance are worth more dead than alive.

What The Day America Told the Truth, based on the responses to an anonymous survey of moral questions, revealed was that 7 per cent of Americans would kill a stranger for US$10 million. In other words US$10m was the payment required to quiet the killer’s conscience and compensate for the risk of getting caught.

Clearly, the first answer to the question ‘‘What are you worth?’’ is ‘‘Who is asking?’’

I mention this because the Government has just put a number on your head in the cost/ benefit analysis that backed changing warrant of fitness (WOF) renewal from six-monthly to yearly for most cars.

Cutting red-tape and costcutting are mantras of the National Party. Businesses have generally been the beneficiaries, so the WOF changes are a genuine example of cutting red tape for ordinary folk.

I was always for making WOFs annual, struggling to understand how the checks really need to consume sizeable portions of two days each year for each car you own particularly for relatively trouble-free newer vehicles.

The move will ‘‘benefit’’ motorists and businesses by $159 million a year, the Government announced, though that includes ‘‘time spent by motorists’’ and a reduction in unscrupulous mechanics doing unnecessary work to pad their earnings.

Let’s assume the figure is robust.

There is a statistical number of deaths that will be associated with the change that’ll come in mid2014.

The policy and the analysis prepared by the Ministry of Transport do not match up. The planned WOF changes are something of a blend of option one of the cost-benefit analysis (annual inspections until a vehicle is 12 years old, which would produce an expected rise of 0.7 per cent in crash fatalities, thereafter six-monthly checks), and option two (annual inspections after vehicle turns three which would produce a 2.3 per cent expected rise).

Assuming the 308 road deaths reported in 2012 as the base, and assuming that the 0.7 per cent and 2.3 per cent expected rises are correct (some think it will be higher), there would be a rise in fatalities of 2.156 and 7.084 people a year, so assuming the $159m is right, the economic benefit to motorists and business the Government is trumpeting would be equal to $73.75m and $22.44m per death.

That’s much more than the roughly $3m ‘‘social cost’’ of dealing with a road fatality.

The $22.4m would certainly be enough to make Americans head for the gunshop, and casts a new light on a policy John Key says will ‘‘maintain safety standards’’ and is ‘‘just a sensible move forward’’.

Have these imprecise numbers changed my mind about the wisdom of annual WOFs versus the status quo?

No, and judging by the lack of outcry on social media, most readers share that, or have not really thought about it.

It’s not because I am especially callous and understand at a fundamental level that every social policy comes at a cost in lives.

Take healthcare rationing for example, or alcohol policy.

But the cost in lives in return for more infrequent WOFs is enough to make me want the Government to tweak its policy plan, and to revisit other aspects of road regulation.

First, I am a supporter of compulsory insurance for drivers.

All us insured folk are merely paying to part-insure the uninsured, and the current setting is supporting some pretty poor road behaviour, not to mention socially obnoxious car choices and sleep-disturbing modifications.

Further, the Government’s WOF change says that vehicles registered before 2000 will have to be inspected twice a year, but that means the car age at which twiceannual WOFs are needed will rise each year.

If the age of a vehicle is a key determinant of safety (12 years seems to be the point where there is a sudden spike) why does the Government not simply adopt an age-based rule?

It seems to have fudged this point.

Its plan is based on the belief that vehicle technology has been improving so the safety record of older cars will similarly continue to improve.

I say set the age limit at 12, return to this in four or five years’ time and run the numbers again to see if the safety of older cars is improving as predicted.

There’s got to be a couple of lives saved in those two measures – and reduced costs for the responsible – to help justify the WOF plan.