Cagiva Mito 500

I seem to recall reading that there was no crash rate difference in Oz
between states who did roadworthies and states who didn't (ie Qld and I
think WA & SA ?), NB NSW has removed the need for a road worthy in the
first 3 years of the vehicle's life as well

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:15:09 +1100

They have bleatings about it in SA now and then, but the industry
doesn't want it because it doesn't pay, and the cops say that crashes
caused by unroadworthy vehicles are few.

Sure it catches dud tail lights, and the odd failed brake, but on the
whole what causes crashes is the nut behind the wheel and that's only
tested once.

Zebee

 

Well given every crash is apparently caused by speeding I guess they
must be right !

I've no doubt that there will be crashes caused by baldy tyres on a wet
road which the cops would never look for as a cause (clearly he was
going to fast - which in some sense he was), having said that, I agree
it's probably trivial, the nutbehind the wheel is the main issue

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:39:58 +1100

That's NSW. THe SA coppers are, I think, slightly more able to see
wood for trees.

I think they can see bald tyres. This is SA, there are way way way
more old cars on the road there than in NSW so if there were going to
be dud brakes and bald tyres you'd see them there. And I think the
cops would too.

But given that the vast majority of crashes are multi vehicle at
intersections....

Zebee

 

They do. If you prang and you have bald tyres, you can expect to be done
for it.

 

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is little to
no difference is because the test isn't comprehensive enough in those
states like NSW to actually make a difference...

A decent 'Road Worthy test' (to the strict rule for the OLD test sheet
and guidlines in victoria)for a car can take anywhere up to 3 hours for
a mechanic to do.

A quick test will (as you imply) only pick up tyres and lights and
simple stuff, not the dangerous sort of not easily detected stuff.


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:40:28 +1100

But what crashes are caused by vehicle failure?

Enough to matter?

Given the expense and difficulty of doing a decent job, you are better
off spending money on better sightlines, road surfaces, driver
training, and removing dangerous road furniture.

I'm willing to bet that crashes caused by vehicle failure that would
have been caught by a once a year inspection are 1% or less of all
crashes, and well under 1% of fatals.

Zebee

 

Under 1% is the figure officially attributed to defective vehicles in
WA, where there has never been any testing. The only time vehicles are
tested if they are not currently licenced in WA or if they are vintage
vehicles. Most vehicle damage is caused at intersection and it is the
nut at the wheel that causes those. Most deaths happen on country
roads involving one vehicle.

Theo

 

I'm not claiming that it isn't a small percentage but the testing regime
costs the government nothing since the car owners pay for the testing,
so they get some benefit for zero outlay.

Secondly it would have the side effect of driving older cars off the
road which would have the tendency to reduce the average age of the
vehicle fleet over time which consequent reductions in emissions and
increases in safety (new vehicles on average having better impact
protection, brakes and airbags).

Thirdly it would help support car sales, car repairers and of course RWC
testing stations providing extra employment.

That looks like win win win to me.


G-S

 

Fourthly, it would cost vehicle owners a great deal of money. That looks
like win win win *LOSE* to me.

 

It would cost about 15% extra on the yearly registration/CTP charges in
Victoria and less than that percentage in NSW.

That is an extra cost but it's hardly 'a great deal of money', certainly
not enough to make much difference to the average wage earner.


G-S

 

OK. On the renewal in front of me (ACT), 15% is $99.00. That isn't a lot
to the average wage earner, but the average wage earner doesn't neglect
their vehicle either. It's the people right out on the fringe who drive
rust buckets with bald tyres and no brakes who neglect their vehicle,
and for them $99 *is* a lot of money. Anything that makes those people
more likely to skip registration altogether (and therefore be uninsured
in the process) is bad policy. You are far better off being hit by a
neglectful but insured driver than you are being hit by an uninsured one
in a well maintained vehicle.

 

That's an argument for better enforcement and getting unregistered
vehicles off the road not for throwing ones hands up in the air and
saying it's all too hard (which is basically what's happening at the
moment).

It's exactly those rust buckets with bald tyres and no brakes that
shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

If it forces them into not re-registering them then great I say.

If it forces them into driving them unregistered then confiscate the
vehicles until the fines are paid and the vehicles are made roadworthy.

Repeat offenders? Crush the cars like they do for repeat hoons.


G-S

 

There isn't any reason that testing stations can't do tests as an add on
to normal vehicle services so that you don't have to take time off 2 times.

That's just a matter of arranging to accredit various service centres.


G-S

 

In reality, given that drivers should keep their vehicles in roadworthy
condition, not just because they are told to, but because there are real
benefits to keeping the machine in good order, therefore it's not
costing owners any more money than they would (or should) be spending on
their vehicles, but it is merely bringing forward expenses to a point in
time determined by the RTA rather than the owner.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Mebbe in QLD

JL
In NSW they'll give you a speeding ticket and a neg driving regardless
of what speed you were doing and how you were driving. It's paint by
numbers law enforcement - saves them a fortune on training

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:05:28 +1100

People keep saying this. If it's automatic, how come I got neither
despite having had 2 injury crashes with police and ambulance involvement?

Zebee

 

<shrug> Lucky you - my last major crash I didn't either (although I
made very sure I carefully presented the facts so that I reduced the
odds) but I know plenty of people who have, hell, ask Guy - he knows
more of them than I do last time we talked

JL

 

I dare say it's because you're a (top) BLOKE and everyone knows (top)
blokes don't ride recklessly or negligently.. only fellas do..

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:54:50 +1100

That's possible of course. But then jl is guilty of thoughtless
sexism.... Can't be!

I think it's quite likely that if someone fits their profile of
reckless idiot - being youngish, male, and on a modern sportbike -
then they are likely to decide said person was being a reckless idiot.

However I'm not going to believe this "auto neg driving" thing until
we get plenty of stories of older riders on non-sportbikes getting
done.

Till then it is "if you look like someone who rides like a maniax,
they'll treat you as someone who rides like a maniac" which is, of
course, a bad thing, but I expect it is a more accurate description
of a bad thing the NSW cops do.

Zebee