The Motor Trades Association of Queensland is pushing for annual vehicle inspections

[cs123]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

RWC does not take emissions into consideration, from what I can see. DOT can test though.

I think most cars over 5 - 6 years with lots of km's will not pass emissions due to carbon build up. I think if this system was introduced it would focus on things like brakes, tyres, lighting, rust, handbrakes and suspension components.

Your'e being selective now, which is not cool. If you advocate annual RWC then you can't pick and choose which checks should be done.

RWC in QLD cover having all emissions controls in place and operating. They will pick you up on a old 70s Ford if your EGR is not plumbed in. Loud exhaust too.

It's not just bald tyres and busted suspension that you will be pinged for. Have a rear window winder inoperative will be a fail. Split seal on on boot lid, fail. Cracked parker lens. Fail.

There are a whole bunch of people that struggle week to week that might have their cars taken off the road for trivial issues that are not a significant safety item.

Besides, if this initiative will cost the government money to implement then it won't happen. The government is broke.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by cs123

Your'e being selective now, which is not cool. If you advocate annual RWC then you can't pick and choose which checks should be done.

RWC in QLD cover having all emissions controls in place and operating. They will pick you up on a old 70s Ford if your EGR is not plumbed in. Loud exhaust too.

It's not just bald tyres and busted suspension that you will be pinged for. Have a rear window winder inoperative will be a fail. Split seal on on boot lid, fail. Cracked parker lens. Fail.

There are a whole bunch of people that struggle week to week that might have their cars taken off the road for trivial issues that are not a significant safety item.

Besides, if this initiative will cost the government money to implement then it won't happen. The government is broke.

All very valid points.

IMHO a tune is a trivial issue. In no way does it prohibit the safe operation of my car.

My old TE50, took it in for a RWC to change states.

Failed due to rock stuck in seat track, therefore full motion of the seat couldnt be achieved.
Twin 2.5 inch exhaust, no worries?
It also passed an annual RWC in NSW with a leaking high pressure power steer hose (Common in AU V8's)

Now im not being argumentative just putting forward my experience, im sure this happens a lot.
And it will be touchy subject for people with modified cars unfortunately.

But your last comment will determine if it happens re cost.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by cs123

Your'e being selective now, which is not cool. If you advocate annual RWC then you can't pick and choose which checks should be done.

RWC in QLD cover having all emissions controls in place and operating. They will pick you up on a old 70s Ford if your EGR is not plumbed in. Loud exhaust too.

It's not just bald tyres and busted suspension that you will be pinged for. Have a rear window winder inoperative will be a fail. Split seal on on boot lid, fail. Cracked parker lens. Fail.

There are a whole bunch of people that struggle week to week that might have their cars taken off the road for trivial issues that are not a significant safety item.

Besides, if this initiative will cost the government money to implement then it won't happen. The government is broke.

Do they actually test emissions though? . I have had a heap of roadworthy's done at my office and I have never seen them test the emissions from the exhaust. Its on the list, but how is it tested.

[jpblue1000]

The UK has annual inspections known as the MOT. it tests

• Lighting and Signalling Equipment
• Steering (including suspension)
• Brakes
• Tyres and Road Wheels
• Seat Belts
• Body, Structure and General Items
• Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
• Drivers View of the Road

The process costs 35-40 pounds and takes about an hour. the approved tester (usually local mechanic) logs the car upon presentation and the Department of transport is updated live on the results (unless you ask for a pre-MOT test)
You don'y have to use the tester to do the repairs but are limited on how and where you can drive the car after it fails (if it fails its unroadworthy) you haev 7 days to represent.
Mine last got picked up on misaligned headlight and C02 emissions due to 02 sensor failure.
Rust on UK cars is also an issue often picked on but there are strict regulations as to where and how close to particular parts before it is notifiable.

I don't have an issue with this impost to try and maintain a minimum standard across the national fleet, As far as Im concerned if you cant afford to maintain your car to these minimum standards it shouldn't be on the road and you will save money using alternate means. If the tests, which I predict are on their way nation wide eventually, are similar to those in the UK, system, cost and availabilityI'm happy enough.
However in SA no transfer of ownership RWC inspections necessary which is quite nice!
JP

[flappist]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

Do they actually test emissions though? . I have had a heap of roadworthy's done at my office and I have never seen them test the emissions from the exhaust. Its on the list, but how is it tested.

So lets for the sake of argument say that there has to be an ADR emissions test.

I wonder how they are going to test at 50 degrees, -20 degrees, fully loaded at 130km/h, empty at idle, with various fuel types, with poluted city air and clean country air, when the engine is hot, when it is cold, when the air is dry or at 100% humidity and about another squillion variables.

There is a reason why it costs millions of dollars to comply a vehicle...........

[blackf6]

Fair is fair, it is about time Qld came into line with other states. I think if you can't afford a yearly inspection, you can't afford to maintain your car. These are the vehicles that will no longer be on the road. Great. I know people that can't even afford tires. wtf Their cars are a disgrace. If you can't afford a car you can't.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by teak81

Fair is fair, it is about time Qld came into line with other states. I think if you can't afford a yearly inspection, you can't afford to maintain your car. These are the vehicles that will no longer be on the road. Great. I know people that can't even afford tires. wtf Their cars are a disgrace. If you can't afford a car you can't.

OR the other States could fall into line with Queensland, just like the eternal stupidity of trying to force day light saving onto QLD..

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by flappist

So lets for the sake of argument say that there has to be an ADR emissions test.

I wonder how they are going to test at 50 degrees, -20 degrees, fully loaded at 130km/h, empty at idle, with various fuel types, with poluted city air and clean country air, when the engine is hot, when it is cold, when the air is dry or at 100% humidity and about another squillion variables.

There is a reason why it costs millions of dollars to comply a vehicle...........

There is ADR's for emissions testing ADR 70/00 for diesel vehicles ADR37 ADR79/01 etc. These rules are not written buy angry guys on the internet they are designed considered and enforced by engineers, policy makers and legal bodies. They will take into account everything necessary, if your car fails, against these tests it fails and needs to be rectified.
I believe a probe up its exhaust to read the C02 when at appropriate speed/ temperature is all it takes to know if its running correctly

[XR6TCraig]

QLD is in line with other states guys.

Its NSW that are out of step with the rest of the country.

Vic and Tassie does exactly the same as QLD. Pretty sure SA is the same unless it has changed recently.

Not sure about WA.

FWIW I am for yearly inspections providing they there is a focus on safety rather than ADR compliance and emmissions.

IE seat belts, lights, brake condition, steering and suspension, safety systems working, tyre condition etc, etc. These things being in good working condition can make a difference in accident avoidance as well as how you fare in an accident.

It should not test for exhaust emmissions, at least notto the strict letter of the law with some kind of gas analyzer though IMO. Sure if a car is smokey then that is something that could be checked but common sense should prevail.
As already mentioned, most cars over 3YO wouldn't pass that one anyway and I dont think in a country where public transport is so pathetic outside of the CBDs of our larger cities, that we should be taking some peoples only choice of transport away from them because of an exhaust gas analysis.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

If that's the case in Victoria then why is it mandatory to have vehicle stability control on all new cars...

Sounds like a crock of **** but last time I checked decent tyres and brakes were a safety feature of a car... were they not?

Sounds to me like some Governments don't want to lose votes, I can see mandatory inspections as being a future election loser.

Unroadworthy cars do contribute to the road toll... Not always directly but extra fatigue etc can all be considerations caused by a vehicle that's not roadworthy.

As a person who was very heavily involved in road safety training, I can tell the atcual facts are (in Victoria) that less than 1% of fatal or near fatal accidents have an 'unroadworthy' vehicle as a contributing factor. Don't you think that in this 'nanny State' that if the Government or the Police thought it was a contributing factor that we would have them by now, come on, think outside the square

Not a consideration for previous Government, not a consideration for this one.

Remember this Victorian Government (as well as W.A. who are anti anything East) have said NO to national OHS laws as it will mean a dumbing down of Victorian OHS law. They will buck the trend if they believe they have the correct information.

[burnz]

NSW only test.

headlights
blinkers
taillights
suspention rebound
brake test in Nm verses G force
engine number and vin
tires
tie rods
front bearings
odometer reading

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

As a person who was very heavily involved in road safety training, I can tell the atcual facts are (in Victoria) that less than 1% of fatal or near fatal accidents have an 'unroadworthy' vehicle as a contributing factor.

What is it they say about statistics?

This is from the same government that claims that speed is a contributing factor in the majority of accidents so that they can justify their huge speeding fine revenue, meanwhile in other parts of the world it is a contributing factor in as little as 2%.

Forgive me if I dont believe the statistics, but it all comes down to the way that the data is collected and interpreted, which in turn depends on someones opinion or how they want to skew results.

The Vic government wouldn't have this on their agenda simply because there is no money in it for them and it's a possible vote loser.
No other reason!

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by cs123

Your'e being selective now, which is not cool. If you advocate annual RWC then you can't pick and choose which checks should be done.

RWC in QLD cover having all emissions controls in place and operating. They will pick you up on a old 70s Ford if your EGR is not plumbed in. Loud exhaust too.

It's not just bald tyres and busted suspension that you will be pinged for. Have a rear window winder inoperative will be a fail. Split seal on on boot lid, fail. Cracked parker lens. Fail.

There are a whole bunch of people that struggle week to week that might have their cars taken off the road for trivial issues that are not a significant safety item.

Besides, if this initiative will cost the government money to implement then it won't happen. The government is broke.

Yes, I know...I was done at a big roadside flatbed testing unit (only ever seen one of them, this was about 1998 in Bundaberg) that tested brakes and emissions. The '78 Fairmont GXL we had (4.1 x-flow iron head) was failed for not having the EGR pipe up over the top of the engine. I said yes...my mechanic had removed it as the piece at the inlet manifold didn't work, and also the steel pipe had corroded and was leaking exhaust fumes. The response?
"Well you should have gone to Ford and bought new parts to fix it". On a twenty year old car...

I also had a Gemini failed for a roadworthy because there was a tiny tear in the drivers seat (about an inch long in the vinyl) under the seat cover...apparently they aren't allowed to remove seat covers to look for cracks now. They also noted that the carpet under the drivers heel was nearly worn through, another fail.


Yearly roadworthies sound like fun to some people...and I assume they have relatively new cars and don't worry about old cars and the things that naturally wear but have no impact on safety in any way at all.

[russellw]

While not generally a supporter of Government initiatives, the Vic government has been working at making the RWC a less unscientific thing by introducing more reliable measures to ensure that it is fair.

The current standard (VSI26 - there's a copy in the Tech portal) requires:

A roadworthy inspection mainly covers the major safety related items, including:

• Wheels and Tyres
  

• Steering, suspension and braking systems.

• seats and seat belts

• lamps and reflectors

• windscreen, and windows including front windscreen wipers and washers

• exhaust and emission systems

• other safety related items on the body, chassis or engine.

A lot of the tests are based on actual scientific testing and authorised RWC testers are frequently (and diligently) audited.


Unfortunately, people cannot be relied upon to do what is in their own best interests as witnessed by the number of people who still get caught for drink driving, failing to wear seat belts and some of the horror stories regularly seen when roadside road worthiness checks are done.


As we have to share the road with these people and their unsafe vehicles it's hard not to endorse the concept of regular checks. Even the Vic system (only on sale or after a defect notice) is hardly rigorous enough and the percentage failure rate for 5+ year old vehicles is plain scary.


The argument generally raised in this State whenever the concept of mandatory annual inspections is floated is that it adds to the cost burden of vehicle ownership - which it does (naturally) but only because maintaining a vehicle in a safe condition only comes by spending money on those items. Usually, the media play this up with some sad story about a single parent or OAP and the cost of running their sole means of mobility but that raises the very real question as to whether everyone else should be placed at some element of additional risk (no matter how small) because of people in those circumstances.


I don't profess to have the answer but the tests outlined in VSI26 are nothing more than what a reasonable minded person would (and should) expect from a vehicle inspection in order to satisfy themselves that the basic safety criteria are met and that should be the minimum standard that all vehicles meet.


Cheers
Russ

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Huh...been waiting for the start of it.

Been quite a few years since the last push to ban or severely restrict "unsafe old cars" off the road was spoken of...usually it's one of the big manufacturers who comes up with the idea to bring in a Japan-style increasingly expensive inspection regime or an outright ban on cars older than, say, five years...purely for road safety you understand...not to increase sales of new cars...heavens no...

This could be the start of such a push, this time by the MTAQ in the name of "safety"...this subject pops up every five to ten years or so...

There was a push for this awhile ago,and surprise,surprise there isnt enuf inspection stations to handle the massive influx
The dude i get mobile roadies from is now booked 3 weeks in advance, be in trouble if you didnt get the rwc done in time for a rerego,guess the rego late fee will be a bigger money spinner than it is now ....

[EA30TH]

Wow, imagine that. Inspecting cars for safety. What is this state coming to/

So, we have all the reasons why not. And people quoting statistics that less than 1% of fatal accidents have safety of the vehicle as a factor.

Every time a truck accident happens, and teh press and public go nana, the cops cry out and hit truckies relentlessly. It happens all the time at weighbridges. This is QLD Transport pinging truckies for cracked tail lights, a flat spot on one out of 34 tyres, a side marker light no working.

Then when the bikies go for a cruise the cops sit there with QLD Transport pulling them in and boasting about all the fines they make.

Going to and from Summernats the NSW and ACT cops setup on highways and drag perfectly safe, but technically non-compliant, cars in and defect them while mongs in Camrys drive past with canvas showing on their tyres.

Double standards everywhere.

I agree 100% with roadworthies for QLD and Russell's pointer to a common sense limited list should be a good starting point. Around BNE there are heaps of bombs driving around endangering everyone else's life, and causing accidents all teh time, recent wet weather highlighting the problem.

I recently bought a car in QLD and the safety sertificate was a fabrication. I put in a formal complaint and statement and the dodgy guy who signed it is having formal conversations with QLD Transport inspectors. If you suspect it, complain and make the roads safer.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by EA30TH

Around BNE there are heaps of bombs driving around endangering everyone else's life, and causing accidents all teh time, recent wet weather highlighting the problem.

I actually don't see heaps of unroadworthy cars in Brisbane. Maybe I am not looking hard enough.

I don't agree with compulsory roadworthy checks. You need to assume that the large majority of people will maintain their cars.

Why don't we introduce compulsory speed limiters to cars or alcohol interlocks. They have a bigger contribution to road deaths than unroadworthy vehicles.

[EA30TH]

Originally Posted by cs123

I actually don't see heaps of unroadworthy cars in Brisbane. Maybe I am not looking hard enough.

I don't agree with compulsory roadworthy checks. You need to assume that the large majority of people will maintain their cars.

Why don't we introduce compulsory speed limiters to cars or alcohol interlocks. They have a bigger contribution to road deaths than unroadworthy vehicles.

Yes, you aren't looking hard. Run around Sunnybank and Logan areas and look at the cars next to you to see the epidemic in bald tyres for a start. AT the bottom of my very steep street the other day witness the car that lost control and hit two parked cars and injured a motorbike rider - yes, bald tyres.

As for speed limiters, actually that is wrong. When the authorities tick the box saying speed was a causal factor in an accident it is very often the case the vehicle wasn't exceeding the speed limit.

Anyhow, my point was double standards. Why set so much resource on minority road users, yet say it isn't an issue? Which way is it? Why do truckies get such a massive focus? 80% of fatal accidents involving trucks are cars, yet trucks get all the checks?

In the end, if you own a car, maintain it and keep it basically safe and nothing to worry about. Why object to the $20-30 inspection if it means others who don't service their cars get made to fix basic safety issues?

[jpblue1000]

Yes, if subscribing to a yearly inspection means those who don't maintain their cars cant use their cars, resulting in not needing to drive a big car with plenty of 'metal' around me as i know they have a better chance of stopping or turning or seeing what Im doing or having to do, and the noxious fumes from their unserviced engines aren't killing my children, Im all for it

JP

[FGII-XR6]

serious oil leaks
structural rust
noisy exhaust
ball joints

Originally Posted by burnz

NSW only test.

headlights
blinkers
taillights
suspention rebound
brake test in Nm verses G force
engine number and vin
tires
tie rods
front bearings
odometer reading

[TheSneakiness]

I agree with it in theory, however if the govco were to introduce the system make it mandatory on all cars over 7 years old.

Generally the buying public (read non car forum users) will buy extended warranty on their cars so why bring it in at 5 years?

In my experience they would catch alot of drivers out in the "ethnically populated" areas in Brisbane where unroadworthy and unregistered cars live on the side of the road for extended periods of time.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by cs123

I don't agree with compulsory roadworthy checks. You need to assume that the large majority of people will maintain their cars.

I seem to remember a thread we had here, where lots of posters claimed their wife/girlfriend/sister never lifted the bonnet of their car and drove them without maintenance.

[flooded one]

I'm for it!! on 2 conditions. all cars regardless of age (yes even brand new cars) should be heavily checked for roadworthiness as well. (If anyone whinges then you clearly cant afford it) its not just people with cars over 5 years old that have un roadworthy cars and 2 rego must not get dearer for any car on the road (cheaper would work better so people wont have the I cant afford it excuse) it will never happen thou

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by wildrider

I'm for it!! on 2 conditions. all cars regardless of age (yes even brand new cars) should be heavily checked for roadworthiness as well. (If anyone whinges then you clearly cant afford it) its not just people with cars over 5 years old that have un roadworthy cars and 2 rego must not get dearer for any car on the road (cheaper would work better so people wont have the I cant afford it excuse) it will never happen thou

What is the point of checking brand new cars??

I don't see the point of that.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by cs123

I actually don't see heaps of unroadworthy cars in Brisbane. Maybe I am not looking hard enough.

I don't agree with compulsory roadworthy checks. You need to assume that the large majority of people will maintain their cars.

Why don't we introduce compulsory speed limiters to cars or alcohol interlocks. They have a bigger contribution to road deaths than unroadworthy vehicles.

you only need to look at some of the cars that fail to see why they are needed if your car is roadworthy you have nothing to fear.
I'm all for alcohol interlocks, there are far too many drunken morons still taking the risk and driving.
as for speed limiters that's more of a grey area, they won't stop you doing 110 in a school zone and the NT has a higher maximum speed making this a difficult proposition

[Trevor 57]

I will give you an example of how stupid the 'compulsory' road worthy checks are.

Now this was a few years ago, the company I worked for bought a brand new set of B-Double trailers, they had to go to a NSW roadworthy station/mechanic to get assessed before they got registered for NSW (they were to be based in NSW), they couldn't be registered with out the 'slip'. So I towed them to Moama (NSW) to get them checked. What a crock of ****, they were brand new from Freighter, did the mechanic find anything wrong - of course not - just a money generator, nothing more, nothing less.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by wildrider

I'm for it!! on 2 conditions. all cars regardless of age (yes even brand new cars) should be heavily checked for roadworthiness as well. (If anyone whinges then you clearly cant afford it) its not just people with cars over 5 years old that have un roadworthy cars and 2 rego must not get dearer for any car on the road (cheaper would work better so people wont have the I cant afford it excuse) it will never happen thou

ALL cars sold by a licensed dealer already must have a roadworthy certificate.
ALL cars that have their registration transferred (except in specific rare cases) must have a road worthy certificate.
This has be the law for decades.

What is your actual point here?

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by flappist

ALL cars sold by a licensed dealer already must have a roadworthy certificate.
ALL cars that have their registration transferred (except in specific rare cases) must have a road worthy certificate.
This has be the law for decades.

What is your actual point here?

New cars dont need a RWC.. Only used and demos.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

New cars dont need a RWC.. Only used and demos.

I was moved to QLD after I ordered my GT. Coffee Ford registered it, put it straight on a truck and delivered it to me in QLD. I had to get it roadworthied and then to Queensland Transport to transfer the rego, even thou it was delivered to the selling dealer 4 days before.

But if I had a Datsun 120Y with a 29 day old RWC - it is apparently much more roadworthy.

I know it is not the same, just me getting rid of 9 years of pent up frustration about stupid roads department red tape.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Now this was a few years ago, the company I worked for bought a brand new set of B-Double trailers, they had to go to a NSW roadworthy station/mechanic to get assessed before they got registered for NSW (they were to be based in NSW), they couldn't be registered with out the 'slip'. So I towed them to Moama (NSW) to get them checked. What a crock of ****, they were brand new from Freighter, did the mechanic find anything wrong - of course not - just a money generator, nothing more, nothing less.

Totally agree, some rules now are so far stretch from reality it is that,stoopid
Yearly rwc checks will just mean there will be more shonky operators turning a blind eye to whats safe,legal or roadworthy
Some operators now are so "Quick buck out the door",some cars dont even go on a hoist,its more a walk around
"Youll fix that up hey mate,","Yeah yeah of course mate "
It happens now ,it wont stop with yearly rwc,itll increase and the amount of POS on the road will be the same, just more pockets lined