When lady-luck smiles on you
Jason James
car, it's the prospect of doing a long trip which causes that little nagging
anxiety. Usually as the trip goes on, I relax a bit,..but in one instance,
it was when we were about 150 ks from home in the TN Magna I owned for 6
months (temporary madness on my part) that we heard a strange noise. We were
coasting into Dunedoo when a noise similar to something hitting a body-panel
occured. Had a quiz at the dash, and nothing was showing. Must have been a
small twig or similar hitting underneath. Popped the bonnet, everything
looked OK, except for some exhaust noise. One of the exhaust manifold studs
had sheered off,..thankyou Mitsubishi. Instead of being 13mm, they used a
10mm studs Sppfltt!
Continued on trip uneventfully.
Couple of weeks later, one of the belts started making a screeching sound.
On investigation I found what had happened back a couple of weeks before ie
the drive belt for the alternator had lost half its width. It was one of
those 15mm wide flat ribbed belts. The remaining half had got us home,
,..thankyou Mitsubishi :-)
Jason
Albm&ctd
says...
speeds blot out any other noises, passenger and radio included.
Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
Jason James
"Albm&ctd" <alb_mand...@connexus.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2650e7123...@news.eternal-september.org...
You mean a Lardaaah! Niva, dont you Al,...where have you been Al,..been
somewhere with Athol?
The 'normal' noises at freeway
> speeds blot out any other noises, passenger and radio included.
Yes indeedy,..that's what loud exhausts are for.
Jason
Albm&ctd
says...
Jason James
Well, watching the result of various engineering attempts, can be
pornographic ! I'm an expert at it. Have made grown mechanics cry!
"please,..take it awaaaay" :-)
Jason
Brad
"Athol" <athol_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:12734496...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
: Jason James <a...@ass.com> wrote:
: > "Albm&ctd" <alb_mand...@connexus.net.au> wrote
: >> a...@ass.com says...
: >>> "Albm&ctd" <alb_mand...@connexus.net.au> wrote
:
: >>> > You should have owned a carefree Lada Niva.
:
: >>> You mean a Lardaaah! Niva, dont you Al,...where have you been
Al,..been
: >>> somewhere with Athol?
:
: >> Watching his pornos.
:
: > Well, watching the result of various engineering attempts, can be
: > pornographic ! I'm an expert at it. Have made grown mechanics cry!
: Do cars that are well and truly fucked count as porno? :-p
:
: > "please,..take it awaaaay" :-)
:
: On average, I'd estimate that over 80% of the vehicles I inspect
: fail on the first inspection. The failure rate for vehicles from
: QLD would be around 99.8%.
:
: --
: Athol
: <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
: I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Luck actually struck me Fri night. Multi draw raffle for the Lioness club. 3
nights for 2 at Tufi Dive resort, $150 framing voucher, a tool kit and a toy
dog.
Could have been better, I missed out on the Ramu Rum set and the big toy dog
(Dulux type).
--
Brad Leyden
6� 43.5816' S 146� 59.3097' E WGS84
To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or
laugh at my mistakes)
>
>
Diesel Damo
> On average, I'd estimate that over 80% of the vehicles I inspect
> fail on the first inspection.
To be honest I thought it would be a lot worse than that. Over the
years, every single time one of my vehicles has required a blue slip
inspection it has failed on at least a few points. And those things
that were found must have been wrong for years in some cases. Like a
little rubber plug (1 of 4) that prevents dust from entering the boot
from underneath. 1 was missing :O
I was even told once that it "looks too sus" if a car passes first
go :/
> The failure rate for vehicles from QLD would be around 99.8%.
Not in the least bit surprising :)
John_H
>
>On average, I'd estimate that over 80% of the vehicles I inspect
>QLD would be around 99.8%.
Are you referring to vehicles modified in Queensland (where the
compliance process is somewhat different to other states) or cars that
haven't been subjected to an annual roadworthy inspection?
(Qld registered cars only require a roadworthy inspection when the
owner changes -- trucks undergo regular inspection.)
--
John H
jackbadger56
I recently drove a 1975 VW Kombi 1600 back from Melbourne. At 80kmh it
seemed to be revving it's tits off, but once you went over 90 the
engine went strangely quiet. If it just felt ok cruising a bit faster
i could have slipstreamed one of the many retirees towing caravans! ;-
p
I kept checking the oil at fuel stops, and when i got home, but it
didn't use a drop! Thank you Mr VW-engine-rebuilder!
Scotty
: Most of the vehicles that I see from QLD have QLD mod plates, and
: blatantly fail to comply with the ADRs or, in the case of modified
: trucks, VSB6. I'm not talking nit-picking fails, but major areas
: of failure such as a '60s Holden 186 in an '80s Hilux that was
: supposed to comply with ADR 27C, or a truck chassis where the
: extension joins didn't line up, so they welded a piece of steel
: square bar into the top flange to fill the gap - the bar was
: about double the thickness of the rail, the edges weren't aligned
: and there was no weld at all on the inside of the radius between
: the flange and web, where the square bar finished.
:
: I'm talking about national standards, including some written by
: Queenslanders. A big blue plate proclaims that the vehicle does
: comply with the rules, but it's obvious that it doesn't just by
: looking at it!
:
: Sometimes I also get the paperwork that goes with the blue plate,
: and it lists the ADRs that the vehicle is required to comply with,
: and is a declaration of compliance...
:
: --
: Athol
: <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
: I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
From what Ive been advised the Blue compliance plate is only for certain mods. You could have an
engine swap thats plated and then raise it 4inches swap seats, chop the roof and it would still be
plated, but only for the engine swap. Many vehicles sold have the mod plates but not for all the
mods. And some places even roadworthy them after viewing the plates as well.
Id like to see yearly testing for roadworthyness and a suitabel reduction in registration fees. Im
mean to say the $655 I pay now for a 4Cylnder is absolute bloody theft and thats without any
roadworthness factored in.
Jason James
> blatantly fail to comply with the ADRs or, in the case of modified
> trucks, VSB6. I'm not talking nit-picking fails, but major areas
> of failure such as a '60s Holden 186 in an '80s Hilux that was
> supposed to comply with ADR 27C,
Time warp back 20 yrs,..stick a 186 in 'er mate,..she'll go like a beaut.
Jason,..cant beat the 186 :-)
John McKenzie
surely no govco would even joke about entertaining consideration of the
second idea
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@aol.com vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov pres...@whitehouse.gov
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback ab...@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost I knew Sanchez before they were dirty ro...@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost ab...@msn.com
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au frau...@psinet.com ab...@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost ab...@sprint.com ab...@fbi.gov ab...@cia.gov
John_H
>"Athol" <athol_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
>news:12736439...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
>: Most of the vehicles that I see from QLD have QLD mod plates, and
>: blatantly fail to comply with the ADRs or, in the case of modified
>: trucks, VSB6. I'm not talking nit-picking fails, but major areas
>: of failure such as a '60s Holden 186 in an '80s Hilux that was
>: supposed to comply with ADR 27C, or a truck chassis where the
>: extension joins didn't line up, so they welded a piece of steel
>: square bar into the top flange to fill the gap - the bar was
>: about double the thickness of the rail, the edges weren't aligned
>: and there was no weld at all on the inside of the radius between
>: the flange and web, where the square bar finished.
>:
>: I'm talking about national standards, including some written by
>: Queenslanders. A big blue plate proclaims that the vehicle does
>: comply with the rules, but it's obvious that it doesn't just by
>: looking at it!
>:
>: Sometimes I also get the paperwork that goes with the blue plate,
>: and it lists the ADRs that the vehicle is required to comply with,
>: and is a declaration of compliance...
>
>engine swap thats plated and then raise it 4inches swap seats, chop the roof and it would still be
>plated, but only for the engine swap. Many vehicles sold have the mod plates but not for all the
>mods. And some places even roadworthy them after viewing the plates as well.
Which is no different to any other state. They all have similar rules
on modifications.
As I see it, the essential difference with the Queensland "approved
person" system is those who do the mods that require a blue plate are
frequently the same businesses as those that approve them. The end
result therefore depends to a large extent on the standards of those
who are engaged in the business of modifying vehicles.
>
>Id like to see yearly testing for roadworthyness and a suitabel reduction in registration fees. Im
>mean to say the $655 I pay now for a 4Cylnder is absolute bloody theft and thats without any
>roadworthness factored in.
There is absolutely no evidence I've ever seen that mandatory annual
inspections of private cars does anything for road safety. Mechanical
defects are a contributing factor in a very small proportion of
crashes resulting in death injury and the difference between those
states that have annual inspections and those that don't is SFA.
--
John H
Noddy
" Scotty" <sco...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bea49e1$0$12241$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Id like to see yearly testing for roadworthyness and a suitabel reduction
> in registration fees.
Don't hold your breath.
NSW has had annual roadworthy inspections for years while Victoria hasn't,
and you'd have to go a *very* long way indeed to find *any* data to indicate
that cars in NSW are generally kept in better overall condition, or the fact
that they're inspected annually makes a poofteenth's difference to the road
toll.
All annual inspections have done in NSW at least is add 100 bucks a year to
the overall running cost of a vehicle, and put licensed testers in a
position where they can guarantee their work.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Diesel Damo
> NSW has had annual roadworthy inspections for years while Victoria hasn't,
> and you'd have to go a *very* long way indeed to find *any* data to indicate
> that cars in NSW are generally kept in better overall condition, or the fact
> that they're inspected annually makes a poofteenth's difference to the road
> toll.
You'd probably be horrified to discover how bad a car's stopping
abilities can be while still being able to pass the yearly brake test.
Remember Patrick saying how bad his brakes had gotten? He still passed
his yearly inspection like that. Yet if you've got an *additional*
driving lamp fitted to your car that doesn't work, you'll fail. Horn
doesn't work? That's fine. Pass.
Brad
And created a market in which the dodgiest mechanics can survive on handing
out pinkslips at 60 bucks a pop.
--
Brad
Noddy
"Diesel Damo" <Diese...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5cedbcc-8371-470e...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
> You'd probably be horrified to discover how bad a car's stopping
> abilities can be while still being able to pass the yearly brake test.
Well, not really.
You can register a stock standard EH Holden for full road use tomorrow and
it's standard unassisted drum brakes are pretty appalling compared to
anything built in the last 20 years.
> Remember Patrick saying how bad his brakes had gotten? He still passed
> his yearly inspection like that. Yet if you've got an *additional*
> driving lamp fitted to your car that doesn't work, you'll fail. Horn
> doesn't work? That's fine. Pass.
Which just goes to show that annual inspections do sweet fuck all about
keeping "unsafe" cars off the road, while being subjected to ridiculous laws
and regulations.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
John Tserkezis
>> Remember Patrick saying how bad his brakes had gotten? He still passed
>> his yearly inspection like that. Yet if you've got an *additional*
>> driving lamp fitted to your car that doesn't work, you'll fail. Horn
>> doesn't work? That's fine. Pass.
> Which just goes to show that annual inspections do sweet fuck all about
> keeping "unsafe" cars off the road, while being subjected to ridiculous laws
> and regulations.
It's scary. Was talking about how bad brakes can get with a mechanic
some time back. He said it was all bullshit, and you could have metal
against metal and still pass.
Never mind about that godawful loud metallic grinding noise - as long
as the numbers are within spec, you're good.
jonz
you have a cite of course?..........
>
--
jonz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene
Spafford,1992
jonz
$100?.............my last pink slip (8 months ago) was $31.70...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
jonz
*NONE* of the inspection stations around here would pass a vehicle
with pads/linings which are (even to blind freddy) obviously metal to
metal, *REGARDLESS* of the test result............methinks your
"mechanic" comes from the same school of "incompetence are us" as a
couple of contributors?? around here....you know who you are.
Noddy
"John Tserkezis" <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4bead278$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> It's scary. Was talking about how bad brakes can get with a mechanic
> some time back. He said it was all bullshit, and you could have metal
> against metal and still pass.
>
> Never mind about that godawful loud metallic grinding noise - as long
> as the numbers are within spec, you're good.
The regulations are fucked, and have been for years.
I had a bloke knock me back for a rwc some years ago on an otherwise
immaculate LH Torana because it had a tear in the seat material. The tear
was about an inch long, and on the side squab seam at the piping. There was
no exposed springs or anything nasty, and it was just normal wear and tear
that didn't impact on the seat or it's safety in any way, yet it was an
automatic fail. A trip to the local K-mart to buy a 10 buck seat cover to
put over the seat to hide the tear saw it pass, yet the bloke never took a
wheel off to even look at a brake.
I just shook my head in amazement.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4beb...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> you have a cite of course?..........
No, I don't, and that's the point. Neither does the government, or any
authority who claims that annual inspections are a useful tool. If you have,
then please share it as I'd be delighted to see it.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> $100?.............my last pink slip (8 months ago) was $31.70...
We're talking about real cars here. Not anything made by Tonka.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4beb...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> *NONE* of the inspection stations around here would pass a vehicle with
> pads/linings which are (even to blind freddy) obviously metal to metal,
> *REGARDLESS* of the test result............methinks your "mechanic" comes
> from the same school of "incompetence are us" as a couple of
> contributors?? around here....you know who you are.
From the blimp who thinks anything more "modern" than an FJ40 is an over
complicated head-ache.
He's here all week folks :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
jonz
aaah, that was in reply to John H`s post......
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
jonz
waste of bandwidth noted...........
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
jonz
Lucky it (yer head) did not fall off...lot of lemons produced that
year........
jonz
Not Aus but relevant all the same:
AUTOFORE
Study
on
the
Future
Options
for
Roadworthiness
Enforcement
in
the
European
Union
AUTOFORE -Study on the Future Options for
Roadworthiness Enforcement in the European Union
-
Executive Summary
The purpose of the AUTOFORE project is to recommend improvements in
roadworthiness
enforcement in the European Union to ensure that the benefits accruing
from the original
design and manufacture of vehicles are retained, where justified,
throughout the life of
those vehicles.
All vehicles degrade in service. Regrettably, many vehicle owners do not
adequately maintain
their vehicles so significant numbers of defective vehicles are in use,
a matter of concern as
poor vehicle condition has an adverse affect on safety and the
environment. The level of
defects in vehicles in use in Europe remains high and shows no signs of
improving with the
introduction of new technologies and manufacturing systems.
The need for roadworthiness enforcement is greater than ever because
road safety and
environmental protection are now more reliant on the correct functioning
of technologies that
are increasingly taking over aspects of the driver�s tasks as a means of
eliminating or
mitigating the effects of human error. Failure of these technologies in
service results in the
loss of the benefits they provide. With this increased reliance on
advanced technology, the
role of vehicle roadworthiness is changing. While preventing the
catastrophic consequences of
failures of mechanical systems is still important, the role of vehicle
roadworthiness
enforcement needs to encompass the preservation of the benefits of the
new technologies and
systems.
Research undertaken by CITA and partly funded by the European Commission
(Rompe 2002)
has shown that electronically controlled systems on vehicles have
failure rates comparable to
mechanical systems that are considered important enough to be included
in periodic
inspections. The failure rates of electronic systems increase both with
vehicle age and
distance travelled.
The AUTOFORE study reviewed the purpose of roadworthiness enforcement
and the
potential for improvement of current roadworthiness enforcement
measures. A strategy for
change is proposed, which is to introduce, where justified:
1.
Higher roadworthiness standards.
2.
Broadening of the scope of the standards to include items that currently
are not included
and vehicle types currently not controlled.
3.
Improving the level of compliance.
CITA
aisbl
|
Rue
de
la
Technologie
21-25
|
B-1082
BRUSSELS
(Belgium)
TEL
+32
(0)2
469
0670
|
FAX
+
32
(0)2
469
0795
|
cita.vehicl...@skynet.be
www.cita-vehicleinspection.org
AUTOFORE
Study
on
the
Future
Options
for
Roadworthiness
Enforcement
in
the
European
Union
The most promising options for improving roadworthiness enforcement were
identified and
analysed. Four of them were subjected to a detailed economic analysis,
which was
undertaken by the Institute for Transport Economics at the University of
Cologne.
The options can be grouped under the following seven headings:
1 Improve roadworthiness Directives.
2 Improve type approval requirements and legislative process.
3 Develop the infrastructure required to inspect electronically
controlled systems.
4 Promote improved compliance.
5 Develop supporting roadworthiness inspection databases and related items.
6 Improve linkages between forms of roadworthiness enforcement.
7 Support research and development.
Implementation of some of the options can be started immediately, with a
view to
introduction by 2010 (the 2010 Package). Others require further work
before implementation
can be initiated. The objective would be to implement them by 2020 (the
2020 Package), at
the latest.
The study makes the following recommendations
2010 Package
Recommendation 1 -Amend Directive 96/96/EC to increase the frequency of
inspection for older vehicles of categories 5 and 6, as defined in the
Directive.
The economic benefit of increased frequency of inspection of older light
vehicles would
be over 2 billion euros if vehicles of 8 years and over are inspected
annually with a
benefit-to-cost ratio of over 2. This is the minimum change that should
be introduced.
Although the benefit-to-cost ratio would be slightly reduced,
introduction of annual
inspection for vehicles 7 year and over would give higher benefits. As
such, it should be
considered seriously.
Recommendation 2 �
Amend Directive 96/96/EC to include the examination of
safety relevant electronic systems that are already widely
fitted (airbags, ABS and ESC).
The benefit-to-cost ratio of inspecting ESC systems alone is 2.6.
Additional benefits will
arise from testing other systems, such as ABS and airbag systems.
Initially the inspection
should include, at a minimum, observational checks on the system�s
completeness and
functionality and for obvious signs of deterioration or deleterious
alteration. Additional
systems should be added when they become widely fitted. More
comprehensive checks
should be added when further work described in Recommendation 4 has been
completed.
Recommendation 3 -Amend the scope of Directive 96/96/EC to include two-
wheeled motor vehicles (international categories L1 and L3).
AUTOFORE
Study
on
the
Future
Options
for
Roadworthiness
Enforcement
in
the
European
Union
Although an economic analysis could not be undertaken to quantify the
magnitude of the
benefits, good accident evidence supports the extension of the Directive
to two-wheeled
motor vehicles. There may be, however, problems with the inclusion of
mopeds, but this
objective should be pursued.
Work should start in the near future on the preparation of a regulatory
impact statement on
these three recommendations.
2020 Package
Recommendation 4 -To be able to develop the options for introduction by
2020, the
following 3 projects should be initiated.
1
Undertake a new study (�AUTOFORE 2�) to research the magnitude of the
contribution of vehicle defects to accidents and to trial new inspection
systems
suitable for inspecting the functionality of electronically based
technologies.
2
Undertake further work to develop methods of improving compliance and the
effectiveness and efficiency of vehicle inspection.
3
Undertake further work to develop proposals for further harmonisation of
European roadworthiness standards.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4beb...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> waste of bandwidth noted...........
It's tragic, yet like one of those kids inflatable punching clowns you just
keep coming back for more. I guess some people wouldn't get the point if you
smacked it into their head 28 times with a four pound hammer.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Lucky it (yer head) did not fall off...lot of lemons produced that
> year........
And here you were talking about wastes of bandwidth in another post a few
minutes ago.....
What irony, huh? :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4beb...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Not Aus but relevant all the same:
Relevant in what way? Perhaps you could explain how it is?
<snip>
It would seem that your cutting and pasting skills are on a par with your
basic English ability, and as painful as it was to wade through that shit I
did manage to read it.
All I was able to gather from that is that there would be an increased
revenue base for whomever was adopting the proposal, but the study made no
mention of any impact annual inspections were likely to make on road safety
which is precisely the point.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
C'mon, with a Bighead like yours it surely must be 128 ....
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-P -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^
Feral
> All I was able to gather from that is that there would be an increased
> revenue base for whomever was adopting the proposal, but the study made no
> mention of any impact annual inspections were likely to make on road safety
> which is precisely the point.
Of course, finding faults and repairing them annually would
have no effect on road safety ... silly jonz.
F Murtz
knocked back because there was a hole in the rubber boot between the
forks and the fairing. Were they worried a bit of air would come through
and make me cold?
jonz
> "jonz"<fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4beb...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Not Aus but relevant all the same:
>
> Relevant in what way? Perhaps you could explain how it is?
Can`t you read cockbreath?
>
> <snip>
>
> It would seem that your cutting and pasting skills are on a par with your
> basic English ability, and as painful as it was to wade through that shit I
> did manage to read it.
>
> All I was able to gather from that is that there would be an increased
> revenue base for whomever was adopting the proposal, but the study made no
> mention of any impact annual inspections were likely to make on road safety
> which is precisely the point.
in trade........`im not surprised that was yer opinion? (was gonna add
more....but........pearls to swine eh...??
(
jonz
Noddy
"Feral" <plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
news:hsfsc0$7oj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> C'mon, with a Bighead like yours it surely must be 128 ....
Have another can of dog food Poppy.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Of course, finding faults and repairing them annually would have no effect
> on road safety ... silly jonz.
Very, unless you're able to show some correlation between annual inspections
in NSW having an impact on road safety compared to Victoria where there are
no such inspections.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4beb7bc6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I had one even weirder, on an r100 bike with a full fairing I got knocked
> back because there was a hole in the rubber boot between the forks and the
> fairing. Were they worried a bit of air would come through and make me
> cold?
Lol :)
Fucking bizarre, isn't it? :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Can`t you read cockbreath?
I can generally read pretty well, but I have *great* trouble with just about
anything you put up and I expect I'm not on my Pat Malone on that score.
Maybe you should go back and re-do third grade again?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~well ..."no brains, shit anywhere", being yer stock in
> trade........`im not surprised that was yer opinion? (was gonna add
> more....but........pearls to swine eh...??
Yeah, no worries :)
Just highlight the bit were studies *have shown* that annual inspections
have effected a noticeable change in road trauma. Forget all the other
irrelevant crap.
Take your time :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
Do you ever get it right?
Last night it was Barra (from the "Gulf"). :-P
Feral
Hey, you missed Qld in your argument, but you should see the
dangerous crap driven up there too, like Vic I'm sure.
At least in Qld they do spot, roadside examinations. Don't
know about Vic policy.
Maybe if you look at it this way it might help your feeble brain:
annual examination can *only* increase the probability of
better road safety. Yeah?
Feral
> Feral<plo...@home.ru> wrote:
>
>> annual examination can *only* increase the probability of
>> better road safety. Yeah?
>
> against their performance in the scheme can also increase the
> level of fraud in the community.
>
> Blue slip places (inspection of unregistered vehicles for
> establishing NSW rego) have to put up a bond, which was $3K when
> the scheme first started. If they do anything dodgy and get
> caught, they get fined. If they don't pay the fines, they lose
> their authorisation and their bond.
>
> Pink slip (annual inspection) places, OTOH, don't have to put up
> a bond. The RTA has much less leverage over their behaviour,
> and this is reflected in the quality of the inspections carried
> out by some places. I know of one place, for example, where it
> was perfectly possible to walk there with 2 sets of rego papers,
> with the odometer readings and compliance plate month/year on a
> piece of paper, and walk out with 2 LPG pink slips. I've seen a
> gas tank 18 months past its 10-year inspection passed because
> the guy didn't even bother to check the date on the tank...
>
You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there
fella/fem. :-P
Get back to "inspections *can't* make safety levels worse".
Noddy
> Do you ever get it right?
>
> Last night it was Barra (from the "Gulf"). :-P
Ooh, nice.
Is that from the "pedigree" range?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Hey, you missed Qld in your argument, but you should see the dangerous
> crap driven up there too, like Vic I'm sure.
And NSW :)
> At least in Qld they do spot, roadside examinations. Don't know about Vic
> policy.
They do them here as well, along with "regular" traffic cops carrying out
"random examinations" when they pull you over for anything else.
> Maybe if you look at it this way it might help your feeble brain:
Maybe....
> annual examination can *only* increase the probability of better road
> safety. Yeah?
Theoretically it has the potential, but the reality doesn't seem to support
the theory.
New Zealand has roadworthy inspections every six months (called "warrant of
fitness"checks over there) and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of
a reduction in crash statistics per capita because of it. In fact, the
average quality of car on the road seems to me at least to be worse than
what you'd find here in Victoria, where the only time you need to have a
roadworthy inspection is if you sell the car or get defected.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Athol" <athol_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:12737945...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
> Pink slip (annual inspection) places, OTOH, don't have to put up
> a bond. The RTA has much less leverage over their behaviour,
> and this is reflected in the quality of the inspections carried
> out by some places. I know of one place, for example, where it
> was perfectly possible to walk there with 2 sets of rego papers,
> with the odometer readings and compliance plate month/year on a
> piece of paper, and walk out with 2 LPG pink slips. I've seen a
> gas tank 18 months past its 10-year inspection passed because
> the guy didn't even bother to check the date on the tank...
Nasty.
Gotta love government regulations. What starts of as a fair idea soon
becomes a shitful mess.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
Noddy
> You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there fella/fem. :-P
I don't think he has Feral.
He's offering up practical examples of how the system *doesn't* work as
intended. You're offering up theories of how it *could* work if everyone was
fair and honest in Utopia.
> Get back to "inspections *can't* make safety levels worse".
No, inspections can't make safety levels worse, but there's no data to
suggest that they make a poofteenths worth of improvement either so what's
the bloody point?
I mean, apart from adding yet *another* unnecessary cost to the motorist and
creating a "gouging" environment where repairers have the opportunity to
exploit people?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
> news:hsi3ed$6d4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there fella/fem. :-P
>
> I don't think he has Feral.
I'll leave that for Athol to decide. He seems to be
(generally) more logical (being a injunear).
<snip>
> creating a "gouging" environment where repairers have the opportunity to
> exploit people?
You have proof that there are a *significant* number of them
that do this. Interesting.
Noddy
> I'll leave that for Athol to decide. He seems to be (generally) more
> logical (being a injunear).
Fair enough.
> You have proof that there are a *significant* number of them that do this.
> Interesting.
Do you *really* think it isn't going on?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
jonz
>
>> Not Aus but relevant all the same:
>
> Relevant in what way? Perhaps you could explain how it is?
>
> <snip>
>
> It would seem that your cutting and pasting skills are on a par with your
> basic English ability, and as painful as it was to wade through that shit I
> did manage to read it.
you never cease to amaze..............
>
> All I was able to gather from that is that there would be an increased
> revenue base for whomever was adopting the proposal, but the study made no
> mention of any impact annual inspections were likely to make on road safety
> which is precisely the point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
too many words of more than one(1) syllable......making it beyond your
comprehension ! there is help available for functional illiterates such
as your good self.......avail yourself of it.
Noddy
> too many words of more than one(1) syllable......making it beyond your
> comprehension ! there is help available for functional illiterates such as
> your good self.......avail yourself of it.
Nowhere in my day to day life do I see irony as fucking thick as it can be
around here, but anyway..... :)
Like I said (and you chose to ignore) post the bit that relates directly to
annual roadworthy inspections causing a reduction in accidents. I presume
there was a mention of such in that load of shit you offered up or what
bother, right?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
What? That there's a *significant* number of "cowboys" in the
trade to make annual inspections nonviable? LOL
Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey.
Next you'll want to know if I trust tow truck drivers. :-)
jonz
Translation?
Noddy
> What? That there's a *significant* number of "cowboys" in the trade to
> make annual inspections nonviable? LOL
Lol indeed.
You know as well as I do that such information is impossible to quantify
*unless* the culprits get caught and prosecuted, but then you *also* know
that just because records *don't* exist showing that prosecutions aren't
happening on a daily basis doesn't mean the industry isn't rife with the
problem.
We've had enough examples just in this group to show how annual inspections
make jack shit's worth of difference to the safety of a particular vehicle,
and despite all your posturing about the theory of it you *still* haven't
come back with any practical examples of where it makes a difference.
> Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey.
Uh-huh....
> Next you'll want to know if I trust tow truck drivers. :-)
I couldn't care less who you do & don't trust. You have a somewhat bizarre
"Tobyesque" view of the world.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4bec...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Translation?
You're shitting me, right? :)
*Jesus*....
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Feral
> "jonz"<fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4bec...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Translation?
>
> You're shitting me, right? :)
>
> *Jesus*....
>
out that it's sensible?
*Jesus*...
Feral
> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
> news:hsifp5$2o9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> What? That there's a *significant* number of "cowboys" in the trade to
>> make annual inspections nonviable? LOL
>
> Lol indeed.
>
> You know as well as I do that such information is impossible to quantify
> *unless* the culprits get caught and prosecuted, but then you *also* know
> that just because records *don't* exist showing that prosecutions aren't
> happening on a daily basis doesn't mean the industry isn't rife with the
> problem.
And I've got a "Tobyesque" view. Fark, they're ALL crooks.
Laughable.
> We've had enough examples just in this group to show how annual inspections
> make jack shit's worth of difference to the safety of a particular vehicle,
And if my mechanic (on yearly rego inspection) hadn't found a
small leak in my trucks slave cylinder I could have come to a
sticky end on my way to Townsville. So the system worked for
me and it works for those who are forced (because of it) to
have remeadial work done or bald tyres replaced etc.
You listen to the shit that gets thrown up in here *but* the
system works in the *majority* of cases IMO.
Maybe in your circles you just associate/hear about the cowboys.
> and despite all your posturing about the theory of it you *still* haven't
> come back with any practical examples of where it makes a difference.
See above.
>> Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey.
>
> Uh-huh....
>
>> Next you'll want to know if I trust tow truck drivers. :-)
>
> I couldn't care less who you do& don't trust. You have a somewhat bizarre
> "Tobyesque" view of the world.
Nah, Toby has a view that anybody in authority is a c..t, I
discriminate a little more than that.
D Walford
I'd only agree with annual roadworthies if there was evidence that they
actually achieved something.
I agree there are plenty of cars on the roads in very poor condition but
despite that fact unroadworthy cars aren't high in the list of crash causes.
Daryl
Noddy
> So you read your last sentence in the post and *still* make out that it's
> sensible?
Congratulations.
You've been awarded the "Dumbest cunt of the year" prize, which entitles you
to an honorary membership to the "Dribbling fuckwits who can't understand
basic English" club along with a gold plated plastic "L" medal for your
forehead. You'll be receiving it in the mail shortly*
* The medal has it's own easy to apply self-adhesive backing and comes with
basic "stick figure" install instructions. However, if you're too stupid to
work out how to stick it on (and most members are), then don't panic. We
also have a "1800-I'm-a-fucking-dumb-cunt" help line for those who go into
hypoglycaemic shock at the thought of doing anything more complicated than
picking their nose, and if you're too stupid to work out how to dial the
number (and most members are) then we suggest whacking a lump of 4be2 up
your arse and pretending to be a giant sized Golden Gaytime until our
counsellors make it to your place to assist you.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
> Noddy wrote:
>> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
>> news:hsi3ed$6d4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there fella/fem.
>>> :-P
>>
>> I don't think he has Feral.
>
> I'll leave that for Athol to decide. He seems to be (generally) more
> logical (being a injunear).
>
> <snip>
>
>> creating a "gouging" environment where repairers have the opportunity to
>> exploit people?
>
> You have proof that there are a *significant* number of them that do
> this. Interesting.
>
Even worse, a mate and were at another mates workshop in Footscray when
2 big blokes walked in demanding that Alex right them out a RWC without
looking at their car, they backed off when real quick when we walked out
from the back of the workshop to find out what all the shouting was
about, I know that doesn't have all that much to do with annual
inspections but it does show how crook the inspections have become when
people can walk in expecting to be given a RWC without an inspection.
RWC inspections have been tightened up a lot in the last year in Vic
which has resulted in making a lot of older cars not worth repairing
when their faults are minor and not safety related.
Daryl
jonz
Onya feral.............
Noddy
> And I've got a "Tobyesque" view.
You're playing with both your cocks if you think you haven't :)
> Fark, they're ALL crooks.
No, they're not all crooks, just like not all roof insulation installers are
crooks, but if you create the environment where crooks can prosper out of
the woodwork they'll come.
> Laughable.
It sure is.
> And if my mechanic (on yearly rego inspection) hadn't found a small leak
> in my trucks slave cylinder I could have come to a sticky end on my way to
> Townsville.
By "slave cylinder" I presume you're talking about a clutch, and if so I
fail to see how the failure of such a device could have caused you to come
to a "sticky end".
> So the system worked for me and it works for those who are forced (because
> of it) to have remeadial work done or bald tyres replaced etc.
The "system" catches some cars, sure, but the argument here is whether or
not it has any impact on accident numbers and there's nothing out there to
suggest that it makes the slightest bit of difference.
> You listen to the shit that gets thrown up in here *but* the system works
> in the *majority* of cases IMO.
Is that a gut feeling or you have evidence?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying every vehicle tester in NSW is a shonk, or
that every one in Victoria isn't. What I'm saying is that the difference
between the two otherwise similar states is that one has compulsory annual
"safety inspections" for vehicles over a certain age and one doesn't, yet
there is no evidence to suggest that accidents that are directly
attributable to poorly maintaned vehicles are higher or lower in one state
compared to the other.
You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but to me it suggests
that (a) the number of accidents directly caused by vehicles that are not up
to standard is very low, and (b) the number of accidents actually prevented
by such annual testing is even lower.
> Maybe in your circles you just associate/hear about the cowboys.
You're missing the point.
Once you create a situation where people *have* to do something to comply
with the law, you create situations that favour the people who are in the
positions to make that compliance possible and I'm not just talking about
vehicle testers. Look at licences for firearms for example. Once they passed
laws that made it compulsory to be a member of a recognised gun club in
order to obtain a gun licence club membership went from 40 bucks to 600
bucks per year. In a similar theme, when they took the exclusivity for
building permits away from local councils and allowed private suveyors to
issue permits councils suddenly discovered "Planning permits" were necessary
to gauge "environmental impact" on the local area. Now it costs 700 bucks to
get a building permit, and *another* 700 to a grand to have the planning
permit approved.
In the case of vehicle testers, similar situations occur. People take their
cars along to have the annual inspection done at the last minute before they
can re-register their car, and the testers *know* the owner usually hasn't
got time to be dicking around. They need the car passed, and they need it
passed pronto so they can get on with their lives an concentrate on the
important stuff.
To the unscrupulous, this is a "goose that laid the golden egg" situation,
and I'd bet any money you like there'd be *far* more unscrupulous testers
out there than you or I could possibly imagine.
> Nah, Toby has a view that anybody in authority is a c..t, I discriminate a
> little more than that.
Sure.
Personally, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper through the
difference sideways, but then that's just me :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
jonz
> On 14/05/2010 12:15 PM, Feral wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
>>> news:hsi3ed$6d4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there fella/fem.
>>>> :-P
>>>
>>> I don't think he has Feral.
>>
>> I'll leave that for Athol to decide. He seems to be (generally) more
>> logical (being a injunear).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> creating a "gouging" environment where repairers have the opportunity to
>>> exploit people?
>>
>> You have proof that there are a *significant* number of them that do
>> this. Interesting.
>>
> Don't know about "significant" but it certainly happens.
> Even worse, a mate and were at another mates workshop in Footscray when
them out a RWC without
> looking at their car, they backed off when real quick when we walked out
> from the back of the workshop to find out what all the shouting was
> about,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oooh yer scary dawwwil.....
I know that doesn't have all that much to do with annual
> inspections but it does show how crook the inspections have become when
> people can walk in expecting to be given a RWC without an inspection.
> RWC inspections have been tightened up a lot in the last year in Vic
> which has resulted in making a lot of older cars not worth repairing
> when their faults are minor and not safety related.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yer full of shit.......(long lunch??).......
>
>
>
> Daryl
Noddy
"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4becef1a$0$8842$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> All good in theory but it there is no evidence that it works in practise.
> I'd only agree with annual roadworthies if there was evidence that they
> actually achieved something.
Me too.
> I agree there are plenty of cars on the roads in very poor condition but
> despite that fact unroadworthy cars aren't high in the list of crash
> causes.
There's nothing to suggest they are anyway. Nor is there anything to suggest
that cars in NSW are in any better average condition than they are despite
annual tests being in force there for some time.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"jonz" <fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4bec...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Onya feral.............
Lol :)
That just reminded me of some bloke watching a conversation that went so far
over his head that you could drive a double decker bus through the gap, but
he still went "Wooh-wooh-wooh" at the end anyway :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
jonz
> "jonz"<fj...@deisel.com> wrote in message news:4bec...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Translation?
>
> You're shitting me, right? :)
>
> *Jesus*....
"MISTER CHRIST",.....to you,.... cockbreath.............
Feral
As Bighead would say Daz, have you got statistical proof to
back up your theory. :-)
Feral
> On 14/05/2010 12:15 PM, Feral wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
>>> news:hsi3ed$6d4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> You have stepped a *fair* way away from my statement there fella/fem.
>>>> :-P
>>>
>>> I don't think he has Feral.
>>
>> I'll leave that for Athol to decide. He seems to be (generally) more
>> logical (being a injunear).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> creating a "gouging" environment where repairers have the opportunity to
>>> exploit people?
>>
>> You have proof that there are a *significant* number of them that do
>> this. Interesting.
>>
> Don't know about "significant" but it certainly happens.
Duh!
And here comes the next instalment to prove that it should be
discarded in NSW?
> Even worse, a mate and were at another mates workshop in Footscray when
> 2 big blokes walked in demanding that Alex right them out a RWC without
> looking at their car, they backed off when real quick when we walked out
> from the back of the workshop to find out what all the shouting was
> about, I know that doesn't have all that much to do with annual
> inspections but it does show how crook the inspections have become when
> people can walk in expecting to be given a RWC without an inspection.
"2 big blokes" is quite a significant statistic. Fuckin' Nora Daz.
> RWC inspections have been tightened up a lot in the last year in Vic
> which has resulted in making a lot of older cars not worth repairing
> when their faults are minor and not safety related.
I daren't even ask.
Feral
> No, they're not all crooks, just like not all roof insulation installers are
> crooks, but if you create the environment where crooks can prosper out of
> the woodwork they'll come.
Crooks can prosper anywhere.
> By "slave cylinder" I presume you're talking about a clutch, and if so I
> fail to see how the failure of such a device could have caused you to come
> to a "sticky end".
Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
> The "system" catches some cars, sure, but the argument here is whether or
> not it has any impact on accident numbers and there's nothing out there to
> suggest that it makes the slightest bit of difference.
It does to me, because I know (using common-sense, try it)
that a significant number of cars in QLD (and I assume that
there are the same numbers in Vic) *are* unroadworthy and
dangerous. Bald tyres, shot shockies, twisted bodies etc.
These can make a vehicle accident prone.
> Is that a gut feeling or you have evidence?
See above.
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying every vehicle tester in NSW is a shonk, or
> that every one in Victoria isn't. What I'm saying is that the difference
> between the two otherwise similar states is that one has compulsory annual
> "safety inspections" for vehicles over a certain age and one doesn't, yet
> there is no evidence to suggest that accidents that are directly
> attributable to poorly maintaned vehicles are higher or lower in one state
> compared to the other.
And there's no evidence to the contrary. That's why I'm happy
to be in the State where the vehicles are tested (especially
for safety).
> You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but to me it suggests
> that (a) the number of accidents directly caused by vehicles that are not up
> to standard is very low, and (b) the number of accidents actually prevented
> by such annual testing is even lower.
And I say bullshit.
> Once you create a situation where people *have* to do something to comply
> with the law, you create situations that favour the people who are in the
> positions to make that compliance possible and I'm not just talking about
> vehicle testers. Look at licences for firearms for example. Once they passed
> laws that made it compulsory to be a member of a recognised gun club in
> order to obtain a gun licence club membership went from 40 bucks to 600
> bucks per year. In a similar theme, when they took the exclusivity for
> building permits away from local councils and allowed private suveyors to
> issue permits councils suddenly discovered "Planning permits" were necessary
> to gauge "environmental impact" on the local area. Now it costs 700 bucks to
> get a building permit, and *another* 700 to a grand to have the planning
> permit approved.
WTF are we going now?
> In the case of vehicle testers, similar situations occur. People take their
> cars along to have the annual inspection done at the last minute before they
> can re-register their car, and the testers *know* the owner usually hasn't
> got time to be dicking around. They need the car passed, and they need it
> passed pronto so they can get on with their lives an concentrate on the
> important stuff.
Have you got a number for the "unscrupulous"? Gut feeling?
> To the unscrupulous, this is a "goose that laid the golden egg" situation,
> and I'd bet any money you like there'd be *far* more unscrupulous testers
> out there than you or I could possibly imagine.
That'd be crap would it Athol (re: fines, loss of licence etc)?
> Personally, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper through the
> difference sideways, but then that's just me :)
Sure is, wrong again.
Feral
"I presume there was a mention of such in that load of shit
you offered up or what bother, right?"
--
D Walford
having annual inspections.
If you have evidence to the contrary please post a link.
Daryl
D Walford
As usual you missed the point but that's to be expected.
>
>> RWC inspections have been tightened up a lot in the last year in Vic
>> which has resulted in making a lot of older cars not worth repairing
>> when their faults are minor and not safety related.
>
> I daren't even ask.
>
Too difficult for you?
Daryl
D Walford
> Noddy wrote:
>
>> No, they're not all crooks, just like not all roof insulation
>> installers are
>> crooks, but if you create the environment where crooks can prosper out of
>> the woodwork they'll come.
>
> Crooks can prosper anywhere.
>
>> By "slave cylinder" I presume you're talking about a clutch, and if so I
>> fail to see how the failure of such a device could have caused you to
>> come
>> to a "sticky end".
>
> Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
A "slave cylinder" operates the clutch and has nothing to do with
stopping a car.
I assume you meant a wheel cylinder, if so a small leak is not likely to
result in total brake failure, since the time when you were a lot
younger car shave been fitted with split brake systems so even on the
slight chance that a rear wheel cylinder totally failed the front brake
would still work and since the fronts do the majority of the braking you
probably wouldn't notice much difference.
Daryl
Feral
> Sure just ask the Victorian Government,
No. I'm asking you to provide the evidence that the Victorian
Gov uses. Too hard? Yeah, you're talking crap. :-)
they use the same reason for not
> having annual inspections.
> If you have evidence to the contrary please post a link.
You first, you called.
Feral
> As usual you missed the point but that's to be expected.
I stayed *on* course.
> Too difficult for you?
I'm scared of drowning in your bullshit. :-P
Feral
> On 14/05/2010 6:27 PM, Feral wrote:
>> Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
>
> A "slave cylinder" operates the clutch and has nothing to do with
> stopping a car.
Is that fkn so. What planet are you idiots on, or from.
> I assume you meant a wheel cylinder,
Then you assumed wrong.
if so a small leak is not likely to
> result in total brake failure, since the time when you were a lot
> younger car shave been fitted with split brake systems so even on the
> slight chance that a rear wheel cylinder totally failed the front brake
> would still work and since the fronts do the majority of the braking you
> probably wouldn't notice much difference.
D Walford
> D Walford wrote:
>
>> As usual you missed the point but that's to be expected.
>
> I stayed *on* course.
>
>> Too difficult for you?
>
> I'm scared of drowning in your bullshit. :-P
>
>
bullshit.
Daryl
Noddy
> No. I'm asking you to provide the evidence that the Victorian Gov uses.
> Too hard? Yeah, you're talking crap. :-)
Once again the point flies so far over your head it needs oxygen to survive.
The Victorian government doesn't use any evidence because there *is* no
evidence. It does not say "Ooh, we think having annual roadworthy
inspections would reduce the number of crashes, and unless someone tells us
it won't that's going to be law from now on", it says "Until someone
*somewhere* can show us that annual vehicle inspections make *any*
difference to the number of crashes we're continuing as we are thanks very
much".
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
> D Walford wrote:
>> On 14/05/2010 6:27 PM, Feral wrote:
>
>>> Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
>>
>> A "slave cylinder" operates the clutch and has nothing to do with
>> stopping a car.
>
> Is that fkn so.
Yes.
Do you think otherwise?
What planet are you idiots on, or from.
Unbelievable, you don't know the difference between a slave cylinder and
a wheel cylinder and you call people who do idiots.
Instead of carrying on like a spoilt child you could try explaining what
you were talking about, did you mean master cylinder?
>
>> I assume you meant a wheel cylinder,
>
> Then you assumed wrong.
So you think a leaking clutch slave cylinder is dangerous and could
cause you to have an accident?
Daryl
Noddy
> I stayed *on* course.
Jeez, that'd be a first.
> I'm scared of drowning in your bullshit. :-P
God fuck me....
There's some more of that good old industrial grade Irony I was talking
about earlier :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Crooks can prosper anywhere.
Of course they can, and especially when you create an environment that
provides them with a captive audience.
> Try "needing to stop in a fkn hurry", fool.
Oh. You meant a *wheel* cylinder?
Sorry. I forgot you haven't got a clue about vehicle related matters :)
> It does to me, because I know (using common-sense, try it) that a
> significant number of cars in QLD (and I assume that there are the same
> numbers in Vic) *are* unroadworthy and dangerous. Bald tyres, shot
> shockies, twisted bodies etc. These can make a vehicle accident prone.
You *know* that there is a significant number of such cars out there in
these states, or you just *think* there are?
Just like you do, I also *speculate* that there are a number of cars out
there that are unroadworthy, and I see some just about every time I hit the
road. However I'd add that not every single one of them is unsafe *just*
because it doesn't meet the roadworthy requirements. Having a blown
taillight globe or an empty washer bottle would qualify a car as
unroadworthy, but it doesn't make one *unsafe* or more likely to be involved
in an accident.
On the other hand, I've spent plenty of time in NSW were annual inspections
are compulsory, and seen some horrendously bad cars getting around on their
roads.
> See above.
So you're just guessing. Jeez, who'da thunk it? :)
> And there's no evidence to the contrary. That's why I'm happy to be in the
> State where the vehicles are tested (especially for safety).
I'm happy for you.
For the record I don't care if we have annual inspections or not as I keep
my vehicles in good order and having them tested every year would bother me
as far as the vehicle is concered. What *would* bother me is the added
expense and inconvenience when I *know* it's not needed, and especially when
no one can show me *anything* that proves catagorically that doing so will
make the slightest difference to anyone.
As far as I'm concerned it's yet another example of more government dumbing
down....
> And I say bullshit.
Say whatever you like, but until you can show something that is contrary to
what I think I'll continue to think it thanks.
> WTF are we going now?
We're giving you examples of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Don't worry, we've moved on.
> Have you got a number for the "unscrupulous"? Gut feeling?
Do you mean *apart* from the ones I know about (which would be about 3000 or
however many new car dealerships are in Australia :)
> That'd be crap would it Athol (re: fines, loss of licence etc)?
Indeed. Athol is probably the best qualified person in this group to talk to
on this subject. He's in the part of the world that's covered by annual
inspections and I imagine he's seen his fair share of the goings on.
> Sure is, wrong again.
Sure Feral, but then only because *you* say so.
And you call *me* bighead :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Is that fkn so. What planet are you idiots on, or from.
Ah. You're one of these blokes who likes to use 1920's terminology,
regardless of whatever the rest of the world uses, right?
> Then you assumed wrong.
Uh-huh. Walk into an auto parts specialist of your choosing and ask for a
"slave cylinder" for the model of your choice and see how many brake parts
you get handed. When they stop laughing, you can give them your little
lecture about "When I was a young lad before the war these doo-dads were
called "slave cylinders".
Don't worry Poppy. They probably don't know what a crank handle or acetylene
lamp is either :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> "I presume there was a mention of such in that load of shit you offered up
> or what bother, right?"
Oooh, Jeez! Aren't you clever? It probably took the 4 year old kid doing the
typing for you, what, all of three minutes to think of doing that?
Fucking tool....
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
> D Walford wrote:
>
>> Sure just ask the Victorian Government,
>
> No. I'm asking you to provide the evidence that the Victorian Gov uses.
> Too hard? Yeah, you're talking crap. :-)
>
> they use the same reason for not
>> having annual inspections.
>> If you have evidence to the contrary please post a link.
>
> You first, you called.
>
The "Findings" concluded that "Overall,it would appear that vehicle
defects are a contributing factor in over 6% of crashes" which IMO is
not a significant enough number to justify the huge cost and
inconvenience of annual inspections.
I couldn't find in the Monash study any direct comparison between
Australian states that do or do not have annual inspections but the RAA
did a comparison which shows that annual inspections do not reduce
fatality rates.
http://www.raa.com.au/download.asp?file=documents\document_169.pdf
Daryl
Noddy
> Unbelievable, you don't know the difference between a slave cylinder and a
> wheel cylinder and you call people who do idiots.
> Instead of carrying on like a spoilt child you could try explaining what
> you were talking about, did you mean master cylinder?
He doesn't know *what* he means. All he does know is that his mechanic told
him something was leaking and it needed to be fixed.
Jeez, wouldn't it have been a total fucking shame if his mechanic was a
lying cunt and just wanted to charge him for something as a lark during his
"annual inspection"?
Nah, that couldn't happen. could it? :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
Not a chance, I wonder how many bridges he owns:-)
Daryl
Feral
> Once again the point flies so far over your head it needs oxygen to survive.
You pair haven't got a valid point between you.
> The Victorian government doesn't use any evidence because there *is* no
> evidence. It does not say "Ooh, we think having annual roadworthy
> inspections would reduce the number of crashes, and unless someone tells us
> it won't that's going to be law from now on", it says "Until someone
> *somewhere* can show us that annual vehicle inspections make *any*
> difference to the number of crashes we're continuing as we are thanks very
> much".
Yeah well, Victorians deserve to be served by such fools eh.
In NSW it is realized that keeping ALL owners of vehicles on
their toes with vehicle safety goes some way to making our
roads safer.
Feral
> There's some more of that good old industrial grade Irony I was talking
> about earlier :)
Your old irony ploy is outmoded bighead. Give it a rest. If
you're not interested in vehicle inspections you just aren't
interested in road safety. Full stop.
<flick>
Feral
> So you think a leaking clutch slave cylinder is dangerous and could
> cause you to have an accident?
Hooray, he got there.
And yes I do. Go figure.
Feral
> "D Walford"<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:4bed2f3c$0$8774$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Unbelievable, you don't know the difference between a slave cylinder and a
>> wheel cylinder and you call people who do idiots.
Daz realised he had that wrong, when are you going too?
>> Instead of carrying on like a spoilt child you could try explaining what
>> you were talking about, did you mean master cylinder?
err, no, I said "slave cylinder", and it was.
> He doesn't know *what* he means. All he does know is that his mechanic told
> him something was leaking and it needed to be fixed.
After I told him I was loosing pedal.
> Jeez, wouldn't it have been a total fucking shame if his mechanic was a
> lying cunt and just wanted to charge him for something as a lark during his
> "annual inspection"?
Seeing as I was under the truck helping at the time ....
> Nah, that couldn't happen. could it? :)
What a big headed clown you really are.
D Walford
> D Walford wrote:
>
>> So you think a leaking clutch slave cylinder is dangerous and could
>> cause you to have an accident?
>
> Hooray, he got there.
>
> And yes I do. Go figure.
>
if the cylinder failed completely the car won't be dangerous except in
the hands on a total imbecile.
A good driver can manage to drive a manual car without a clutch, it
isn't very difficult and only takes minutes to learn.
Daryl
Noddy
> Yeah well, Victorians deserve to be served by such fools eh. In NSW it is
> realized that keeping ALL owners of vehicles on their toes with vehicle
> safety goes some way to making our roads safer.
Is that your own belief, or is it the official reasoning behind the NSW
government annual inspection policy?
If it's the former then I'm wondering how you come to your conclusions. If
it's the later then I'm wondering if you can point to a link that outlines
this policy in detail? I ask because I'm genuinely curious, and think that
if the NSW government honestly believes annual inspections have an impact on
the number of vehicle crashes then it'd be reasonable to assume that they've
conducted case studies (or taken up those conducted by others) and I'd be
interested to see what those studies had to say.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Your old irony ploy is outmoded bighead. Give it a rest. If you're not
> interested in vehicle inspections you just aren't interested in road
> safety. Full stop.
What a load of absolute shit :)
I'm as interested in road safety as the next bloke, but what I *don't* buy
is the bullshit you're trying to feed everyone in that annual inspections
make vehicles *safer*. I agree with your earlier comments that they don't
make vehicles worse, but I'd like to see some genuine arms length evidence
that such inspections do anything other than make the cost of owning and
operating a car just that little bit more expensive.
> <flick>
Running off again? Oh well. Off you go then :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.