Dodgy roadworthy

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Meh. If compulsory checking of safety devices in a car anually is wrong then I'm glad I don't drive in SA.

I'm glad I don't live in SA.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Rodp

I'm not talking about illegal modifications, I'm talking about checking devices such as brakes, tyre wear an indicators. So sub-standard brakes, faulty brake lights or bald tyres contribute a negligable accident risk?

Wah Wah Wah. Sky is Falling. Keep breathing.

Table 1.1: Percentage of Unroadworthy Vehicles Involved in Crashes

Vehicle Inspections 1999

No = 588

% of Total Vehicle Inspections

Roadworthy vehicles 299
Unroadworthy vehicles 262
Cause 7
Contribute 5
Possibly contribute 15

Roadworthy vehicles 50.85%
Unroadworthy vehicles 44.55%
Cause 1.19%
Contribute .85%
Possibly contribute 2.55%

This information covers only one year and in this period all cases were investigated.

Source: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc...0Ch%201-01.htm

Nice hard data for you to digest from the Vics.

4.5%(I included the possibles) of accidents. The percentage is even less in fatal crashes. Is this worth my 20 Pesos a year? No. Is this worth the millions I am sure is spent by a state government maintaining this system. No. You wanted stats, you have them.

Originally Posted by Russell

Word of advice. Do not get into an arguement/dispute/heated discussion with sourbastard. He will win and you will end up crying yourself to sleep in an institution.

See? This bloke knows.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Meh. If compulsory checking of safety devices in a car anually is wrong then I'm glad I don't drive in SA.

It's not in Victoria either. You only need a RW when transferring registration. Didn't know that one did you lol.

[XD 351 Ute]

Originally Posted by DodgeVenom

steering rack fouling on the cross member,

No really wanting to get into the pickyness debate, but you did say it was an XG ute didn't you?? If so, they don't have steering racks.
They saved them for the XH/EF hybrid ute......

The tie wire on the brake bolts is more of a throwback to the past, but I believe that it is enforced if there is provision for the wires.

It does seem odd though, given the advancements with thread locking materials that are available these days.

It's the same with castellated nuts and split pins being replaced by nyloc or other locking type nuts.

Like others have said though, he's doing his job properly.
It may be argued a bit either way on some things, but he's only covering his cakehole.

I reckon Sourbastard needs to write a book, some of his comebacks are absolute classic!!! Keep up the good work!

Ed

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Wah Wah Wah. Sky is Falling. Keep breathing.

4.5%(I included the possibles) of accidents. The percentage is even less in fatal crashes. Is this worth my 20 Pesos a year? No. Is this worth the millions I am sure is spent by a state government maintaining this system. No. You wanted stats, you have them.

Fine. It's good you can put a dollar figure on a system that may have either prevented or minimised those crashes and fatalities. It hasn't adversely affected you, so why should you care about it?

The whole wah wah wah, sky is falling is laughable. It's not my position at all. I live in a state that has compulsory roadworthy which, on the most part, requires regular maintenance of a car or a hefty bill come rego time. I believe it's preferrable to have vehicles checked annually than just letting anything drive on the road; that's what it boils down to.

My one and only 'at fault' accident was rear-ending a car that had no brake lights. Was I at fault? Ultimately yes. Checking over my blindspot to change lanes and probably took a little longer to realise the car infront was stopping even though no brake lights were showing. Would I have avoided it had the car had brake lights? Don't know.

[Barry_v]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the brakes are subject to more vibration as they are on the unsprung part of the car . all the road shock gous through this reigon on the car so there is a genuine need for a secondary securing method.

Still doesnt explain why wheel nuts have no secondary securing method.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I find you use of 'TARD to be deeply offensive and it has been reported to the admin team

a witty response might offend your delicate eyes.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by Barry_v

a witty response might offend your delicate eyes.

the use of retard or spastic is innapropriate at anytime unless used for the correct meaning people use these terms to describe bad behaviour which denigrates a group of people who deserve better. the fact that you use it in this manner shows your strength of moral fibre ( or the lack there of ). I in no means shows wit in fact it show you as being uneducated and uncivilised

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Fine. It's good you can put a dollar figure on a system that may have either prevented or minimised those crashes and fatalities. It hasn't adversely affected you, so why should you care about it?

Hang on let me get my tissues out while I cry me a river.

You dont get it do you. Any system that only occurs once a year, and done by private businesses, some of which will write a RWC on anything, no matter how many of the wheels are coming off, is a useless system, and a waste of money. Show me the statistics that prove your yearly RWC is lowering the accident rate on that 4.5% conclusively. I provided numbers to you that show its a waste of time(That you demanded), its your turn.

More People die every year from jamming sharp objects into power points. I dont propose a yearly check on fork stockpiles to make sure they are all accounted for.

The whole wah wah wah, sky is falling is laughable. It's not my position at all. I live in a state that has compulsory roadworthy which, on the most part, requires regular maintenance of a car or a hefty bill come rego time. I believe it's preferrable to have vehicles checked annually than just letting anything drive on the road; that's what it boils down to.

How is it not your position? You have been arguing this questionable line of hysterical sheep like "Gummint knows best" reasoning for 3 or more posts. The statistics dont support your argument.
Logic doesnt support your argument.
The only thing that remains is you pay this money because it makes you feel safer, regardless of wether it works or not.

Your shipment of PLACEBO has arrived Captain Panic.

My one and only 'at fault' accident was rear-ending a car that had no brake lights. Was I at fault? Ultimately yes. Checking over my blindspot to change lanes and probably took a little longer to realise the car infront was stopping even though no brake lights were showing. Would I have avoided it had the car had brake lights? Don't know.

NOW HANG ON!!! RIGHT HERE. You ran into a car that had no brake lights? Why didnt this perfect system save you from this life threatening accident?? Shouldnt this car have a RWC, and if the brake lights werent working surely the driver should have been fired into the sun along with his car well before your accident, in accordance with the prophecy of guaranteed safe driving?

A cars brake lights can fail 10 minutes after leaving a RWC inspection, and you would still plough up his faster than Elton John at a male stripper review.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Hang on let me get my tissues out while I cry me a river.

You dont get it do you. Any system that only occurs once a year, and done by private businesses, some of which will write a RWC on anything, no matter how many of the wheels are coming off, is a useless system, and a waste of money. Show me the statistics that prove your yearly RWC is lowering the accident rate on that 4.5% conclusively. I provided numbers to you that show its a waste of time(That you demanded), its your turn.

Are you capable of arguing a position without building a strawman or without trying to belittle who you're debating with?

I never claimed such a system was perfect, I suggested it was *preferrable* to one that does no checks whatsoever.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc164.pdf

6.4.1 The Effects of Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs (PMVI)

· The effect of PMVI on accident rates ranged from no effect to decreasing the accident rate by up to 16%, and by up to 21% if inspection is regular. Rompe and Seul (1995) in reviewing US studies suggest that periodic roadworthiness tests could reduce the number of accidents caused by vehicle defects by about 50%.

· PMVI reduces the incidence of defects in the vehicle fleet by up to 2.5% (one study only). In Sweden, it was found that 7-8% of vehicles with serious defects were replaced after the introduction of PMVI.

[b]· Vehicle inspection programs may influence and reduce accident rates by increasing the understanding of the driver for the need for regular maintenance, safety issues and the condition of their own car (Rompe and Seul (1985)).[\b]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

How is it not your position? You have been arguing this questionable line of hysterical sheep like "Gummint knows best" reasoning for 3 or more posts. The statistics dont support your argument.

Logic doesnt support your argument.

So it's logical that even a rudimentary system in place to check vehicle care and maintenance be no different whatsoever to a system that allows you to drive any old vehicle on the road in any condition?

Originally Posted by sourbastard

The only thing that remains is you pay this money because it makes you feel safer, regardless of wether it works or not.

Your shipment of PLACEBO has arrived Captain Panic..

I pay because it's compulsory.

Originally Posted by sourbastard

NOW HANG ON!!! RIGHT HERE. You ran into a car that had no brake lights? Why didnt this perfect system save you from this life threatening accident?? Shouldnt this car have a RWC, and if the brake lights werent working surely the driver should have been fired into the sun along with his car well before your accident, in accordance with the prophecy of guaranteed safe driving?

Again with the strawman. I was driving in Victoria and up until this morning, thought they did have an annual RWC. Apparently they don't.

Originally Posted by sourbastard

A cars brake lights can fail 10 minutes after leaving a RWC inspection, and you would still plough up his faster than Elton John at a male stripper review.

Perhaps so, or perhaps it hadn't been working for months and would have been picked up in an annual inspection. One method guarantees that it won't be picked up, the other has a method that it will ultimately be picked up and corrected. Perhaps too little too late, perhaps not. At ~4% of registering a vehicle, it's a small price to pay to find a problem that may contribute to an accident.

A vehicle that has bald tyres is not a greater risk of being involved in an accident than a vehicle that has excellent tread on their tyres?

[RG]

Why did you just quote stats from overseas that are more than 10 years old? Where's the point in that.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by Russell

Why did you just quote stats from overseas that are more than 10 years old? Where's the point in that.

i would say that the overseas stats would still be fairly close to the mark. sure you have variables like trafic density to alter the results but not by that much. BTW i hate the yearly inspections too but i see the point. most of us know someone who will pass a car with mods but is still safe but they will fail dangerous cars

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Are you capable of arguing a position without building a strawman or without trying to belittle who you're debating with?

No. This is far more entertaining.

I never claimed such a system was perfect, I suggested it was *preferrable* to one that does no checks whatsoever.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc164.pdf

6.4.1 The Effects of Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs (PMVI)

· The effect of PMVI on accident rates ranged from no effect to decreasing the accident rate by up to 16%, and by up to 21% if inspection is regular. Rompe and Seul (1995) in reviewing US studies suggest that periodic roadworthiness tests could reduce the number of accidents caused by vehicle defects by about 50%.

· PMVI reduces the incidence of defects in the vehicle fleet by up to 2.5% (one study only). In Sweden, it was found that 7-8% of vehicles with serious defects were replaced after the introduction of PMVI.

[b]· Vehicle inspection programs may influence and reduce accident rates by increasing the understanding of the driver for the need for regular maintenance, safety issues and the condition of their own car (Rompe and Seul (1985)).[\b]

so anywhere from 0% effectiveness to 50% of about 4.5% based in several studies, none of which seem to agree with each other, based on countries with vastly different average national fleet ages. And who says university is a waste of time, energy and skin.....

You want to educate drivers on vehicle maintainence? Spend the money on driver education then for joe average.

I would say that this study is likely attached to the one I posted, and it was so successful in convincing the victorian parliament that....... nothing was done. And 8 years later, still nothing done.

So it's logical that even a rudimentary system in place to check vehicle care and maintenance be no different whatsoever to a system that allows you to drive any old vehicle on the road in any condition?

Its a placebo based on wishful thinking and fairy dust. Any effect this system has is going to impact *possibly* a portion of 4.5% of accidents. This money would be better spent on driver education & training. 3 year olds would have worked this out by now.

I pay because it's compulsory.

And you agree with it. Otherwise you might have done something about it.

Again with the strawman. I was driving in Victoria and up until this morning, thought they did have an annual RWC. Apparently they don't.

What do you make your men out of? Any RWC could not guarantee you would not have the same accident tomorrow in NSW, or QLD, or Pakistan. Things Break and wear over 12 months, not just during a road worthiness check.

Perhaps so, or perhaps it hadn't been working for months and would have been picked up in an annual inspection.

My suggestion was possible. Yours is just fantastic. Disconnect your brake lights, tell me how long it takes for either another driver to let you know via horn, finger and thrown clublock, or alternatively, until you are pulled over by the police. It wont be months. It certainly wont be 12.

One method guarantees that it won't be picked up, the other has a method that it will ultimately be picked up and corrected.

Unless I pay Dodgey Jack & sons a bottle of johnny walker red label to shut their eyes and think of the queen. You seem to forget that the police do defect cars in this state quite actively. We dont just register tractors and snow mobiles and then take them down the highway.

Perhaps too little too late, perhaps not. At ~4% of registering a vehicle, it's a small price to pay to find a problem that may contribute to an accident.

Theres probably also a 4% risk of my car turning into a pumpkin and 6 white mice on the way home from the ball.

A vehicle that has bald tyres is not a greater risk of being involved in an accident than a vehicle that has excellent tread on their tyres?

A vehicle cant go through a RWC inspection with a set of another cars tyres?

Baaaaa.

Let me make this simple.

Department X has $10,000,000 tagged for road safety
They should:
A) Spend it on a system that will impact less than 5% of accidents
B) Spend it on existing systems that address 95% of accidents
C) Buy a snow mobile

[prydey]

SB - you are a very entertaining fellow and i agree 100% the fact that i am also south aussie doesn't enter into it.

i swear society gets dumber and the govt passes these silly laws to try to make up for it.

[dane]

i agree with sourbastard i live i Tasmania 'jokes aside' where there isn't a annual RWC policy.

Most accidents down here are not cause by dangerous cars, they are cause by excess speed & and not driving to the conditions also alcohol.

radom police and roadworthy checks are fare more effective in my opinion.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

You seem to forget that the police do defect cars in this state quite actively.

A classic example of this is we (the wife was driving) got pulled up at a RBT station. The wife blew in the bag and whilst waiting for the result, the friendly officer walked to the passenger side of the car, checked the rego sticker to make sure it was up to date, and then proceeded to eyeball the tyres and car on her walk back. This was in the Peugeot which is less than 2 years old.
So yes, the local plod do regularly inspect vehicles here in SA.

[Rodp]

Blah blah blah. Agree to disagree.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Russell

Word of advice. Do not get into an arguement/dispute/heated discussion with sourbastard. He will win and you will end up crying yourself to sleep in an institution.

and there you have it!