Older cars to be retired? Victoria

[heavychevy]

First up, sorry for the vague thread.
I was speaking with Dad last night and he mentioned that he had seen something recently on "current affairs T.V." about cars over a certain age being targeted for retirement. He seemed to think that it was not petrol related. I have no idea what he was talking about. He has a 89 Nissan Pintara. I've searched google etc .

[Padina]

I'm with that a 100%. This I had in mind for years and years. Would be good if it finally actually happened. I'm not talking about the well looked after cars either, so please, keep your shirts on, but any old rust bucket thats over 20 years old should be well retired. ;)


Cheers... :D

[sloone]

Who defines what constitutes a rust bucket as it should be a measurable decision. Also if you scrap all the 20 year old cars would that mean that they would disappear from wreckers etc so then they wouldn't be around in say 40 years time when someone is looking for a car resto/modified project to do.

[dmhhsv]

The article was on ACA and did refer to petrol, NSW scrapping lead replacement fuel with other states following. Older vehicles, pre 1986, will now need to run on premium unleaded with a fuel additive purchased seperatley.

[lx_torana]

The article was on ACA and did refer to petrol, NSW scrapping lead replacement fuel with other states following. Older vehicles, pre 1986, will now need to run on premium unleaded with a fuel additive purchased seperatley.

i do this with my torana anyways

[VX_CALAIS]

I wish AU would follow NZ and make it law that your car needs to have a road worthy certificate issued every year. I noticed last time I was over that even the older cars seemed cleaner. I've got no problem with older cars as long as they don't make me rush to close my extenal air vents before I get smoked by their fumes ..... :mad:

[paulvdb]

I wish AU would follow NZ and make it law that your car needs to have a road worthy certificate issued every year. I noticed last time I was over that even the older cars seemed cleaner. I've got no problem with older cars as long as they don't make me rush to close my extenal air vents before I get smoked by their fumes ..... :mad:

AU does (at least in NSW) - just not our wayward friends in Victoria (and QLD from memory). When I visited Vic (in the country areas) last year I saw a lot of cars that were barely moving in a forward direction under their own steam, let alone doing this safely. I simply do not understand the Vic government's argument (mentioned again in the last couple of months) that checking vehicles every year doesn't make the roads safer :mad:

I think that all AU should have mandatory pink slips every year and random safety checks by the roadside. The side benefit is that this will help catch more of the unregistered (and often unlicensed and uninsured) drongos who cause a very high amount of the road accidents that we normal drivers get the blame for.

[FNQracing]

If your car is in good condition, then I see no reason why you can't keep driving it for as long as you like. I've seen many 20 year old cars in much much better roadworthy condition than cars half their age. A cars usfuleness should never be based on age, butt rather it should be based on roadworthiness.

One angle some people will use is that older cars pollute more than newer ones. Well yes, they do. BUT, the pollution that is produced by making a new one is far greater.

Older cars have character. Let's keep'em around.

BTW - I'm all for ridding our roads of unroadworthy heaps, no matter their age.

[Nawdy]

There is a scheme that runs along these lines in Japan, with government assistance. From memory, it applies to vehicles up to 6 years old... it's 20 years since I was there last, and the memory is fading...

I think this scheme has a lot of merit, and would raise the level of vehicle safety across the country considerably. It would cost a fair bit of money to get up and running, but the financial flow-on effects would be enormous. Having said that, there should also be allowances made for older vehicles, maybe under some sort of 'hobby' classification.

The only people who I can think of who would be disadvataged would be the grey importers...

[RICHO]

Annual Roadworthy's would see plenty of rust buckets taken off the road.

But protect those people who look after their older car like a child.

Cost of roadworthy cert. to be partially funded by the govt. Say a 50:50 sharing of costs. Not only would it catch some of the rust buckets I have seen on the road but get plenty of cars with illegal / dangerous mods off the road as well.

And if the grey importers are affected.....a few less silvias and skylines on the road with drainpipe exhausts and 6million watt stereos....No complaints from me on that front!!

[VTBERLINA]

The $28 it costs for a pink slip (RWC) per year hardly breaks the bank, if you budget, its a whopping $0.54 a week.

[black_friday]

regarding japanese cars over there aparently it is prohibitively expensive to re register a car after say the first 5 yrs or so. thats why so many r imported coz there is no market for them over there.

[spaceman347]

I wouldn't support scraping ALL cars just 'cause they are 20 years old, but I would be more than happy to support yearly inspection for all cars over 10 years old.

[IIV8II]

First up, sorry for the vague thread.
I was speaking with Dad last night and he mentioned that he had seen something recently on "current affairs T.V." about cars over a certain age being targeted for retirement. He seemed to think that it was not petrol related. I have no idea what he was talking about. He has a 89 Nissan Pintara. I've searched google etc .

yeah, well if you idiot Victorians :p had annual safety checks like NSW, you wouldn't have a problem with crap old cars! The old dogs disappear, and the good ones get looked after and earn the right to stay on the road. It works well

[heavychevy]

yeah, well if you idiot Victorians :p had annual safety checks like NSW, you wouldn't have a problem with crap old cars! The old dogs disappear, and the good ones get looked after and earn the right to stay on the road. It works well

I'm all for it... well maybe ! Not having the process in Vic, how does a RWC inspection apply to current ( say 4 yo ) vehicles or are they exempt. I would be toey presenting a car that sounds a little 'too much like an 8' or has a tiny chip in the windscreen, when it is otherwise in pristine condition.

[Drewie]

I'm all for it... well maybe ! Not having the process in Vic, how does a RWC inspection apply to current ( say 4 yo ) vehicles or are they exempt. I would be toey presenting a car that sounds a little 'too much like an 8' or has a tiny chip in the windscreen, when it is otherwise in pristine condition.

Hopefully it would have to be a different system to the RWC we have here in Victoria at the moment as even a late model car can run into hundreds of dollars here when presented for a RWC upon sale, you usually have to bank on around $500 when doing a RWC as they pick things like a chip in the screen, maybe a slight oil leak, noise levels, vehicle height, have had friends knocked back for being too low and numerous other picky things, sort like a smorgasboard for the workshop doing the RWC to find as much as possible to drum up business. I think the NSW ones might be a bit more lenient.
Our inspection from memory is around $70 before the repairs start.

[Nawdy]

Hopefully it would have to be a different system to the RWC we have here in Victoria at the moment as even a late model car can run into hundreds of dollars here when presented for a RWC upon sale, you usually have to bank on around $500 when doing a RWC as they pick things like a chip in the screen, maybe a slight oil leak, noise levels, vehicle height, have had friends knocked back for being too low and numerous other picky things, sort like a smorgasboard for the workshop doing the RWC to find as much as possible to drum up business. I think the NSW ones might be a bit more lenient.
Our inspection from memory is around $70 before the repairs start.

From $70.00 to $500.00!!! :confused: :eek: Are they really this picky? I thought they were supposed to check lights, indicators, ect; ride height and maybe hoise levels if required?

A bit more than $45.00 in the NT

[VRIIClubby]

Kinda works well in Syd but there is always that shonky approver that will turna blind eye to some things...

But as others have said it is scary taking your car there when you know that she drives right but they might "ping" you for your exhaust, I jhust got my car Blue Slipped yesterday, had to change my parkers thats it, should have changed my pod aswell but told the guy i have the original box in the boot and that i would just swap it straight away anyhows, he saw some logic...

As for the age, Cars in NSW over 3yo have to have a Pink Slip prior to being re-registered...

[paulvdb]

The NSW RWC looks for basic stuff like - working lights, brake effort required to stop and braking g's, play in suspension and bearings, exhaust noise and emissions, tyres, and window tint legality. They are things that we all expect our fellow drivers to have work properly yet often the average car driver cares little for these basics (let alone changing oil & filters).

It scares me a little that I could visit VIC and have someone crash into me because their car is simply not roadworthy and then the police would tick the "speed was a factor" box, ignoring the fact that some clown can't keep their car in basic working condition.

[Drewie]

In Victoria the inspection only costs something like $70 might be $60 can't remember, but it is what they find, they have a pretty thorough list here,
wheels come off, brakes are checked for wear, suspension components like bushes, rubbers, shockers etc, exhaust, oil leaks, tyres, windsceen, light lenses for colour, wipers, even things like door locks and window winders come into it plus all the usual lights indicators and stuff, but in all a pretty thorough going over. Not real wise to buy a car down here without a RWC as it could cost heaps to get it roadworthy, so they can easily find several hundred dollars if the car has been let go a bit maintenance wise. On the other hand if you know someone in the game then a quick safety check and your off. If you were advertising a car for sale here in Victoria with a RWC,
you would have to calculate around $500 into the sale to cover the RWC just incase they found more than you thought was wrong.

[Bitza]

Where I hang out charges $70 for the Vic RWI itself and will quote on repairs if the customer wants him to do the work.
He's doesn't nitpick or go looking for petty things, just the obvious things that stand out.
Its basically what Drewie posted above.
Craig

[bobg]

Go to VicRoads' website and then Vehicles then either Vehicle Standards Information or Roadworthiness and look at Vehicle Standards Infornation [VSI] sheet No 26. Or check here VSI 26 (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/rdsafe/vsi%2026.pdf)

That tells you what the RWC requires of your vehicle. It sets the standards the vehicle must meet not what the inspector has to do as in NSW. In Vic the inspector has to do whatever is necessary to make sure the vehicle meets the standards. As Drewie says, it is a far more comprehesive check than the NSW one. In NSW the brakes could be down to the rivets [drum brakes] or part of the pad mounting plate touching the rotor [disc brakes] and it will still pass if it cannot be easily seen as the wheels [and drums] don't come off.

But all systems have their poor links [read corupt inspectors] and in Vic probalby about 50 out of the 2500 inspectors get kicked out of the system each year. But there are always hordes of other waiting in the wings with their "excellent reputations" waiting to take their place. And unfortunately, until they have been given a go you cannot be certain of their honesty.

Forget the NSW test making the fleet safer though - it is just an annual income for the inspection industry.

Sorry. I am getting on my soap box. After running the Vic scheme for about 10 years and comparing the costs and road safety benefits for the systems in different OZ States and around the world including NZ, Europe, UK, USA, etc, I can assure you that there is no road safety benefit in annual roadworthys.

Some years ago at a Parliamentary Inquiry it was estimated that vehicle defects could cost the Vic community about $60 million in road trauma each year [a very generous estimate produced by the interested parties, interested in getting some of the testing biccies into their pockets that is - my estimate at the time was more like $10 million as crash invsetigation figures suggest less than 1% of road trauma is caused by vehicle defects]. To inspect the 3 million Victorian vehicles to NSWs low standard would cost about $140 million [income to the inspection industry] and to a more effective standards as per VSI 26 about $200 million each year.

Spend $200 million of public money to save $10 million - not very cost effective!!!!!!! The Parliamentary Inquiry dismissed any suggestion of introducing annual inspections.

Besides there are still plenty of road improvement projects about that will return more than their cost in road safety benefits alone and then there are all the other amenity, freight, time savings and traffic iprovements they can deliver.

For road safety benefits, random on-road inspections is the way to go but even there you need skilled inspectors who can pick likely unsafe cars [not just crap heaps] with a high degree of certainty to make it economical. ACT saw the light several years ago and dropped their annual inspection scheme for light vehicles in favour of more random on-road [or in parking lot] inspections.

NSW and NT are now the only two OZ states with annual inspection requirements for light vehicles and road safety statistics certainly don't provide a convincing arguement for their systems - quite the contrary. However, there are a lot of other factors such as road conditions, driver training, distances travelled, population age, etc that complicate matters.

There!!! I have vented my spleen for the time being.

Regards


Bob G

[IIV8II]

Whoa, Bobg, I can understand your frustration at having to imlement and work with gov policy. But take a step back and look at the 'big picture': to say that annual safety inspections - a cost of $28 per car per year - doesn't work flies in the face of common sense... It stimulates people to look after thier cars. Random inspections don't because people will ALWAYS take the risk

And as has been demonstrated time and again, quoted statistics mean jack shit, really

[paulvdb]

Forget the NSW test making the fleet safer though - it is just an annual income for the inspection industry.

I appreciate your in-depth response Bob but note that statistics can tell you any story you want it to say. My thoughts are that if a driver knows what they are doing (which is a bit of an ask) then a well-maintained car is always going to be easier to get out of nasty situation than a poorly maintained one. Tyres and brakes alone make a massive difference.

When our wonderful pollies collate their statistics NO-ONE makes a decision at an accident as to whether the accident could have been avoided if the car was in better nick. If the data's not collected then of course it doesn't show up in any statistics. When speed gets blamed for accidents, what's often avoided is the fact that "speed" is a variable term. 45KPH in a bomb can be much more dangerous than 60KPH in a well maintained vehicle.

Whilst the NSW system has it's issues, I'd still fell more comfortable that people are forced to buy slightly better tyres every year and have brakes that can stop a car, as well as having their car lights working at some point in the year. The VIC system says that if someone can't afford a new car then they can keep their old car on the road forever, no matter how scary it gets. The only cars that get tested are the ones getting traded in - generally the better kept cars anyway.

I certainly agree that there are a very large number of factors that can make driving dangerous at times. NSW roads are surely the most dangerous in Australia as they are so poorly maintained and overused. Sydney's roads are extraordinarily bad at best. The car's wheels, tyres, steering, suspension and brakes then are a vital part of keeping a Sydney driver in one piece - again assuming that the driver know what they are doing. Our Govt's spending next to nothing on road conditions & nothing on driver training so keeping the cars reasonably safe is all that we have :-)

[SV99]

The article was on ACA and did refer to petrol, NSW scrapping lead replacement fuel with other states following. Older vehicles, pre 1986, will now need to run on premium unleaded with a fuel additive purchased seperatley.


what gets me with this is, No Cat converter on them. So i dont see why normal cars should have to run them either.

just because you add valve master doesnt mean the emmisions are going to go down. :bash:

[Inter-ceptor]

First up, sorry for the vague thread.
I was speaking with Dad last night and he mentioned that he had seen something recently on "current affairs T.V." about cars over a certain age being targeted for retirement. He seemed to think that it was not petrol related. I have no idea what he was talking about. He has a 89 Nissan Pintara. I've searched google etc .
Good riddance! :wave:

[bobg]

I am not saying vehicle defects don't cause crashes - they certainly do. The problem is, inspecting a vehicle once a year does not make sure it is free of defects the other 364 days. A number of overseas studies have shown that defect rates can be back up to 60% of the pre-inspection number within a month and up to 90% of the pre-inspection number within three months of the inspection.

When the type of vehicle defects that cause crashes appear, they become dangerous over a very short period and rarely will coincide with an annual inspection.

A person who looks after their car does not need an annual inspection [plus the cost] to ensure it is roadworthy and those who don't look after their car simply drive around for 364 days then use the inspection system to tell them what they need to fix. They then drive around for another 364 days until the next inspection - after all the government has implemented an annual inspection scheme and they must know what they are doing so who needs other inspections? [said with sarcasm]. We have got to get at this type of ignorant person and make them wake up or penalise them off the road!!!! WHY??? Because the owner/operator is the only person who can ensure the vehicle is safe at all times!!!!

With an annual inspection system there is no penalty for fronting the car in a shi*ty condition so why replace tyres, etc if the inspector would have passed the old ones [because they have a smidgen of tread left] anyway or fix anything else that should have been fixed six months ago? So the "just about bug*ered" tyres get passed and the owner thinks "She is right now for another year" and does nothing until the next inspection report or something breaks beforehand.

What we need is a system that ensures that cars are roadworthy at ALL times and the only system with a hope of doing this is random on road inspections. You don't know when you are going to get inspected and if the penalties for obvious neglect are stiff enough you make sure you don't get failed.

BTW, the Vic scheme is largely a consumer protection issue so that when you buy a second hand car it should come to you in a reasonably safe condition. After that, it is up to you to keep it maintained and hopefully the random on-road system [if high profile enough] will encourage you to do so.


Regards

Bob G

[bobg]

what gets me with this is, No Cat converter on them. So i dont see why normal cars should have to run them either.

just because you add valve master doesnt mean the emmisions are going to go down. :bash:

Don't you believe in improving the standard of the national fleet???

Older cars did not need airbags either so maybe you should be allowed to remove yours.

Even older cars did not require seat belts so maybe you should be allowed to remove yours.

Even older cars again only needed brakes on two wheels so if your front brakes are worn out maybe you should be allowed to dump them. They also got by with carbide lamps on the front so, if your headlamp globes blow, well maybe you should be allowed to travel at night with just your parkers [front position lamps].

Sorry SV99, don't take this to heart. I am just in a shi*ty mood and my reply is probably way over the top. But the issue is, we need to have constant improvement in vehicle safety and it is not usually practical or cost effective to upgrade older vehicles to the new standards. But likewise, we cannot allow new vehicles to just adopt the old standards.

You could certainly fit CATS to older vehicles and they would remain operational for a period now that they do not have leaded fuel available to bug*er them. [BTW leaded fuel was only introduced so that CATS could be fitted and would not be stuffed after the first tank full - not because of any reduction in roadside lead content although this is an added bonus]. But there would be little benefit as the engine management systems are way behind the eight ball.

Incidently, you don't specifically need a CAT on a vehicle even today but they are a cost effective way to meet emission requirements. Most cars sold in OZ from 1986 onwards had CATS to meet ADR 27C but Jaguar meet the requirements without CATs right up until the early 1990s at least.

There endith the sermon :D :D

regards

Bob G

[Daz Vx Clubbie]

Over here in Adelaide I believe you aren't required to submit your car for a RWI unless you managed to get defected or if you bring a car in from interstate.

This contributes to South Australia having the highest population of older cars in Australia. Im all for bringing in an annual RWI as it will help weed out the older cars that have been let go.

I too love my older cars and have owned some nice examples in the past, but the amount of rubbish that are on South Australian roads at present is reason for concern.

[seldo]

Bob, whilst I respect your credentials and understand that a lot of what you say is correct, sadly there is also some truth in the fact that many people will drive these old heaps of shite with absolutely zero maintenace until they just won't go any further. I'm sure you have seen it too where you pull up at the lights and while you wait you happen to glance down at the wheel of the car next to you and there is wire poking out of the casing where they have worn right through the tread. I pointed this out to a bloke one day and he was quite indifferent about it, with the only response being "Yeah, I know" . Now you can't say that some of these people don't cause accidents. What about the family a couple of years ago who lost three kids through CO2 poisoning when they were asleep in the back of a van which had a rusted-out exhaust? Sure, it is true that these inspections create a huge amount of business for workshops, but it is really forced maintenace, and without the inspections most of it simply would not be done, especially when it is out of sight, out of mind. They don't notice that the 2cm play in the steering has slowly grown to be 15cm. I once had a client drive 350kms to have a noise fixed under warranty in his Benz. It had been making the noise for 6months but was getting worse and so he drove back to Sydney to save himself some money. When we looked at it there was about half a turn of play in the steering and 3 of the 4 bolts that held the steering-box to the rail had sheered off and the 4th was finger tight! :shock: Yet if it wasn't for the fact that I would fix it for free he would not have had it looked at at all until it failed completely and he had a head-on or something.. Some people just need the compulsion!

[VQ304]

I've always noticed that when I go up to NSW, I never see any old shitboxes driving around. In Melbourne I could walk outside my house and within 1 or 2 minutes I'd see a rusted old Datsun go past blowing black smoke and backfiring up the street, but you'd never see anything even close to that in Sydney.

I'm all for adopting a system like they use up there, even though I suspect that annual RWC checks would put 3 of the 4 cars at my house off the road.

The system in Melbourne is rubbish, every mechanic does the roadworthy check in a different way and miss different things. I've had a car pass a RWC (not trying to get a dodgy one either) with a major leak in the power steering. :rolleyes:

[heavychevy]

Good riddance! :wave:

A 89 Nissan Pintara, dear old dad would be lucky to get 2 grand as a trade. Your ride... the VS Acclaim could be what he is looking for !!!! , 6 cylinder.. wouldn't break the bank or the speed limit either!

[bobg]

I'm all for adopting a system like they use up there, even though I suspect that annual RWC checks would put 3 of the 4 cars at my house off the road.@ VQ304
To use Darren Hinch's vernacular - SHAME! SHAME!! SHAME!! [One "SHAME" for each of the 3 vehicles which would be put off the road]


The system in Melbourne is rubbish, every mechanic does the roadworthy check in a different way and miss different things. I've had a car pass a RWC (not trying to get a dodgy one either) with a major leak in the power steering. :rolleyes:And what makes you think that the NSW [or any other system] is devoid of human error???

@ Seldo.

It had been making the noise for 6months but was getting worse and so he drove back to Sydney to save himself some money. When we looked at it there was about half a turn of play in the steering and 3 of the 4 bolts that held the steering-box to the rail had sheered off and the 4th was finger tight! Yet if it wasn't for the fact that I would fix it for free he would not have had it looked at at all until it failed completely and he had a head-on or something.. Some people just need the compulsion!

Agree entirely, mate. But he drove it for six months like this. How would an a annual inspection fixed this unless it occurred in those six months. As you have said, "he would not have had it looked at at all until it failed completely". This is exactly what we are dealing with - people who don't seem to care but expect the government to protect themselves [and other] from their own stupidity - at a huge cost to the other responsible road users.

My philosophy is - let the irresponsible user pay, not the responsible user.

An annual inspection puts the cost onto all motorists whether they are responsible or not but does not achieve cost effective results - once a year inspection does not ensure the vehicle is safe all the year and transfers the responsibility of the safety of the vehicle [in the eyes of the population] to the inspection regieme.

A high profile [and rigorous] random on-road inspection system can target just those crap vehicles and sheet home the costs to their owners - no costs to the responsible vehicle owners.

Also, it can create the perception [just as has the boose bus system] that if you are an irresponsible motorist and don't maintain your vehicle you will get caught and cop a significant penalty.

Unfortunately, because of the need of the financially challenged to still have transport, society is still prepared to waive hefty fines for driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition. [contrary to my sentiments - but then I can afford to keep my vehicle[s] safe at all times and would have no concerns if I was issued with a (legitimate) infringement notice for driving an unsafe vehicle]

Regards

Bob G

[V8R]

my 2c says that every year, i take my car to my prefered inspection station, and every year he tells me what i HAVE TO FIX (ie: no pink slip otherwise, as per "the book") and what i should fix up ASAP (those rear tyres are low, change em!) and what i should keep an eye on. every year, this same mechnaic gets my work, (which has cost me about 2k in the last 3 yrs) and every year i drive away a whole lot happier with the car (never knew it could stop / handle THIS good).
from the pos i bought in 2000, that just looked fine, to the car i have now (looks a bit worn but the underpinnings are good), there is a huge difference.. to think in qld or vic, once i got he car rego'd, it could have been left like it was, makes me shudder..

Also, i know its not their job, but my local plod run's their eyes over every car (even if its just a smokey / low tread check) they pull over.

i guess what im really saying is that .au should have AT LEAST a uniform, yearly inspection (a-la NSW pink slip) for cars older than 3-5 yrs. Anything else (rigourus on the spot road inspections, NOT dodgey canarys that cost you money to clear, whether there is a prob or not), i would welcome.

JM

[seldo]

........... This is exactly what we are dealing with - people who don't seem to care but expect the government to protect themselves [and other] from their own stupidity - at a huge cost to the other responsible road users.

My philosophy is - let the irresponsible user pay, not the responsible user.

An annual inspection puts the cost onto all motorists whether they are responsible or not but does not achieve cost effective results - once a year inspection does not ensure the vehicle is safe all the year and transfers the responsibility of the safety of the vehicle [in the eyes of the population] to the inspection regieme.

A high profile [and rigorous] random on-road inspection system can target just those crap vehicles and sheet home the costs to their owners - no costs to the responsible vehicle owners.


Bob, I agree with your basic philosophy, but of course you are making the rather benevolent assumption that some of these people actually care... Many people see any kind of forced expenditure (be it for their own good or not) as "big brother" making unfair demands on them. If there were mandatory 12 monthly checks on say anything older than 3 yrs, sure, it isn't going to pick-up every fault as it occurs, but what it will do is catch some faults before they become statistical because a vast majority of car owners just do not realise that ownership of a vehicle also brings with it some obligations in terms of maintenance. I would hazard a guess that something like 50% or more of the general population do not do anything other than put petrol in their cars and have them fixed if they stop.. Maintenance..?? Exhaust systems are replaced when they fall off or they get a bluey for excessive noise. Tyres - replace when they go flat at the bottom. Shock- absorbers are good for the life of the car, as are supension bushes, steering components etc. And who cares that the seat belts are all frayed - they still pass a casual check by the coppers as they drive past.. And the really sad part is that these people are not deliberately skirting the law or even their own responsibilities - they just genuinely don't know. THAT'S why we need compulsion, and yes, it is an impost on the rest of us, but it's also a bit of an insurance policy too to know that the other car coming towards me might have just been forced by an annual roadworthy to put new tyres/brakes or whatever into it.. Sorry, a bit of a rant, but just my 2 bob's worth

[SSBarney]

And as has been demonstrated time and again, quoted statistics mean jack shit, really

Unless your one of those that r statistically deceased...