WOF changes will end in tears - expert
 
Changes to the vehicle WOF system will result in more road deaths, says the car review website www.dogandlemon.com.

Dogandlemon.com editor Clive Matthew-Wilson – who is an active road safety campaigner – says:
 
“Despite what people have been conned into believing, the current six-monthly WOF check is a major lifesaver. To dispense with this system will inevitably result in more deaths and injuries."
 
Matthew-Wilson dismisses government claims that few accidents are caused by vehicle defects and that the six-monthly WOF is therefore an unnecessary expense:
 
“When the police investigate accidents, then tend to blame driver behavior. Therefore, they often miss vital factors that might have prevented the accident occurring.”
 
“Take a typical situation where a child runs out in front of your car. Whether or not that child gets killed may well depend on the state of your vehicle’s brakes and shock absorbers.”
 
Tests by the German vehicle inspection agency TUV found that a vehicle with one worn shock absorber stops two metres slower than a car with all four shock absorbers working properly.
 
Brakes and shock absorbers are currently checked every six months on most vehicles. That time will double when the WOFs are moved to 12 months.
 
Australian vehicle accident expert Chris Coxon, who co-founded Australia’s ANCAP crash test program, says:
 
“The New Zealand government scientists appear to have deliberately excluded research that didn’t support the government position.”
 
Matthew-Wilson  adds that the government’s WOF changes have been very deceptively packaged.
 
“The government has done a brilliant job of presenting the changes to the vehicle licensing system as a measure to save ordinary motorists time and money. Actually, the average motorist will save very little and may lose a lot.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>