Why Is NSW The Only State That Requires Annual Vehicle Inspections?

Windows7forever on 22/02/2025 - 03:16
Last edited 22/02/2025 - 08:25

I understand it is for safety purposes but no other states in Australia appear to mandate annual inspections. I have always found this a bit odd.

I'm thinking that certain hidden issues with a vehicle, such as worn out disc brakes/rotors, would not be easily detected by the police and could lead to catastrophic accident in the event of a mechanical failure.

I have a few questions:

  1. Is the onus on the individual and/or the police in these other states to identify and rectify (or defect) vehicles with obvious safety issues such as bald tyres and blown headlights?

  2. Is NSW a nanny state when it comes to road safety or are we leading the rest of the nation?

  3. Are vehicles in States outside of NSW potentially less well maintained and roadworthy?

It might be annoying having to take my car to a mechanic every year and pay $50 for a mandatory safety inspection, but it does give me some peace of mind knowing that other registered cars on the road are (hopefully) meeting minimum safety standards.

Automotive

Comments

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 22/02/2025 - 03:28
    +4

    Just buy a new car every 5 years!

    • tenpercent on 22/02/2025 - 09:46
      +3

      I don't think the neggers get sarcasm.

  • oscargamer on 22/02/2025 - 07:18
    +2
    1. Both
    2. No then Yes
    3. Yes
  • Jaduqimon on 22/02/2025 - 07:29
    +7

    pink slip is such a rort. so easy to get one even if your car is falling apart.

    • Devastator0 on 22/02/2025 - 13:59
      +1

      Yeah, I see so many cars on the road owned by older people that are rusted out, blowing smoke and with body panels hanging off that shouldn't even be on the road. I have no idea how that is still happening.

      • Kandrew on 23/02/2025 - 14:01

        I see the same - but driven by young people.

    • Shoocat on 22/02/2025 - 15:14
      +4

      Try watching 'Just rolled in' on YouTube to see what happens when we don't enforce annual safety inspections.

      • MS Paint on 22/02/2025 - 16:27

        Welcome to another episode of just rolled in. This customer states…..

  • tenpercent on 22/02/2025 - 07:34
    1. Both
    2. Yes nanny state, No leading
    3. Who knows
  • souths123 on 22/02/2025 - 07:50
    1. both…the onus on the owner, otherwise fined by police if caught
    2. no, yes
    3. prob yes
  • shaybisc on 22/02/2025 - 08:11

    Is that right? NSW the only one? They must not have any old defective vehicles anywhere else.

    • Windows7forever on 22/02/2025 - 08:24

      Apparently so Lol. Based on the few articles I have read.

      • MS Paint on 22/02/2025 - 10:19

        I think Northern Territory requires an inspection at 5 years then annually after 10 years based on the few articles I have read.

  • barge-in hunter on 22/02/2025 - 09:06
    +8

    I’m in Vic and honestly, there are a lot of old bangers on the road that simply shouldn’t be.

    Case in point - as a dumb 20 y/o, I was driving around my grandmas 70s ford that leaked oil, trans fluid and petrol - with worn out suspension and steering. The car hadn’t had a RWC since it was registered in her name in 1975.

    Yes, the onus was definitely on me - a broke student with no mechanical knowledge, who decided getting around was more important than listening to a mechanic

    • Windows7forever on 22/02/2025 - 09:36

      I suspect this was the case. Seems like a big gaping hole in state road safety. If I was poor or didn't have money to afford a decent car, Victoria would be the state to be in 😂.

    • Murkymerv on 22/02/2025 - 09:44
      -1

      a lot of old bangers on the road that . And you'd know , right ?
      Older vehicles aren't necessarily neglected because you've looked and decided that they're passed their use by date .

      • barge-in hunter on 22/02/2025 - 10:06

        I didn’t say that @Murkymerv - and I didn’t say that old ford couldn’t be fixed.

        The very necessary safety related repairs weren’t done because I had the choice. With an annual check up, I would have had to get them done or cancel the rego until I could afford to do them.

        • Murkymerv on 22/02/2025 - 10:35

          I'm pointing out what you said , and it doesn't mean much here so don't worry about what you "didn't" say .
          honestly, there are a lot of old bangers on the road that simply shouldn’t be.

  • GordonD on 22/02/2025 - 09:41
    +16

    NSW has annual inspections because of the political power of the Motor Traders Association. Garage owners make a fortune extorting money out of car owners for the inspections themselves, and whatever work they can force you to pay for them to do to get the pass.

    The rest of the country realised that very few road deaths and crashes result from defective vehicles, they result from driver behaviour.

    • Windows7forever on 22/02/2025 - 13:14

      An interesting counter argument. Thanks for sharing.

    • Euphemistic on 22/02/2025 - 14:06
      -1

      Id argue that part of driver behaviour is making sure the car is roadworthy.

      Having a mechnic throw an eye over a car once a year is a remonder you need to keep it roadworthy.

      Is it a pain? Yes. Does it mean more cars get their tyres, brakes and lights checked more often? Absolutely.

      • eug on 22/02/2025 - 15:03

        Does it mean more cars get their tyres, brakes and lights checked more often? Absolutely.

        I wonder how throughly cars are actually checked.

        • Euphemistic on 22/02/2025 - 16:16

          In my experience its not particularly thoroughly. BUT, it doesnt take a lot to check the lights are working, have a look at the tyres to check tread depth and give it a quick look underneath for oil leaks. It also involves a quick drive when done properly which gives the mechanic a few moments to see if there are suspension or brake issues.

          Its not a full mechanical inspection youd rely on for pre purchase, just a cursory check of major safety items.

    • brad1-8tsi on 22/02/2025 - 15:23
      +1

      Garage owners make a fortune extorting money out of car owners

      An eSafety check is $46 which is 20 minutes labour at the cheapest mechanic you can find. If you can't afford $46 maybe you shouldn't be running a car.

      I've never had to make any repairs as a result of an annual eSafety check. That's 46 years of car ownership. Maintain your car and it passes the check.

      • fantombloo on 22/02/2025 - 20:04

        I went to rego check my mum's car last year and the first 2 shops I asked (not my regular, different location) blew me off saying they make no money on them and only do them for regular customers.

        • brad1-8tsi on 23/02/2025 - 11:34

          I've experienced the same. And then there were the 2 shops trying to knock me back on tyres that were a few months old (the style of tyre made it look like the edges were bald).

          My current guy doesn't look very hard. He invests 10 minutes with the car and then we gasbag for another 10 minutes.

      • Neoika on 24/02/2025 - 13:06

        $49 already. It looks you have got a new car last year.

        • brad1-8tsi on 24/02/2025 - 20:14

          My Pajero Sport is a 2016 model I purchased in 2022(?).

          The Golf is a 2017 purchased last year.

          The Honda is a 2004 and has been in the family from new but 3 different registered "owners".

          I try not to buy new cars anymore as I get too annoyed with the first scratch.

    • TEER3X on 01/03/2025 - 22:29

      I don't think garage owners have any difficulty making money, for now anyway.

      Agree that driver behaviour is a massive factor in accidents though.

  • shaybisc on 22/02/2025 - 09:58

    Determining the exact number of deaths caused by defective vehicles in Australia is challenging due to limited specific data. However, studies have estimated that vehicle defects contribute directly to approximately 3% to 19% of road accidents, with more robust studies indicating at least 6%. Common defects identified relate to brakes and tyres.
    monash.edu

    In the 12 months leading up to January 2025, Australia recorded 1,324 road deaths.
    datahub.roadsafety.gov.au
    Applying the 6% estimate suggests that around 79 of these fatalities could be attributed to vehicle defects.

    ChatGPT

    • Kim DArcy on 11/03/2025 - 16:47

      However, studies have estimated that vehicle defects contribute directly to approximately 3% to 19% of road accidents, with more robust studies indicating at least 6%. Common defects identified relate to brakes and tyres.
      monash.edu

      Interesting. But the number we need is the difference between WA, no inspections ever, and NSW, yearly inspection.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 22/02/2025 - 10:05
    +3

    States other than NSW, have resisted being bent over by the MTA, who periodically agitate for annual inspections. No self interest in churning out pink slips for some easy bakshish, of course.

  • wallet72 on 22/02/2025 - 10:18
    +1

    I've lived in WA, QLD and NSW and believe that NSW still has old death trap cars on the road - just a heck of a lot less of them.

    While I think it's a good idea to have inspections, I'd rather it was a random thing or even every second year. But to be honest as long as you keep up on the essential maintenance an insepction shouldn't be a problem.

  • shaybisc on 22/02/2025 - 10:29
    +1

    "But to be honest as long as you keep up on the essential maintenance an insepction shouldn't be a problem."

    That is precisely the problem. Many people won't.

  • Wiadro on 22/02/2025 - 11:18
    -1

    have you been in vic?
    the amount of old clappers on the road is insane
    then again in NSW you can get a inspection done without anyone seeing it

    • Windows7forever on 22/02/2025 - 13:18

      Yes, i have. You generally see more old clappers in poorer areas, country towns and outer regions. It's not hard to find a dodgy mechanic who will pass rego on any old bomb but in the event of an major accident the crash investigators might audit them and they could lose their licence.

      • MS Paint on 22/02/2025 - 13:34
        -1

        event of an major accident the crash investigators might audit them and they could lose their licence.

        Source?

        • Wiadro on 22/02/2025 - 13:41

          his brain.
          car crashes dont have have the ATSB investigate them

  • Protractor on 22/02/2025 - 11:23
    +1

    It's a $$making scam to appease motoring orgs.Traffic cops (which we have more than enough of) should divert activity from news worthy car chases etc, and perform more actual patrols. Once word gets out that old bangers are being defected (often and as they should).
    ( Remember the dark ages when 'prevention' was a thing?)
    The age of the domestic fleet has changed over time so the whole concept of rorced inspections is obsolete, and easily gamed by cowboys, so the safety dividend is moot. The admin alone is a burden tax payers should be released from. Scrap that shit.
    Certainly appreciate that other states are not so easily duped by vested interests

    • rumblytangara on 22/02/2025 - 11:36

      It's a $$making scam to appease motoring orgs.Traffic cops (which we have more than enough of) should divert activity from news worthy car chases etc, and perform more actual patrols. Once word gets out that old bangers are being defected (often and as they should).

      Serious question here and not trying to start an argument- how would traffic cops reliably and impartially judge that a car was an 'old banger' that justified issuing a requirement for a checkup?

      Just because the exterior looks a bit crap or bright and shiny wouldn't be much of an indication of something like the brakes needing work.

      Speeding, running red lights, etc seem much more objective than deciding if a car is an old banger.

      Seems like this would be massive grey area and (depending on your viewpoint) either place a huge onus, or give police too much leeway for judgement for making roadworthy calls.

      • Protractor on 22/02/2025 - 11:48
        +1

        Old banger is just a term. It could be a new car with bald tyres. Police ? The point is visible presence, and doing their job.
        Police are trained to know the basics of road-worthiness, already. Vehicle inspection stations would/should do the full examinations beyond that. You don't need blanket saturation via every mechanical w/shop to maintain a network of inspections. The annual inspection /pink slip model is the rort.If was only about safety all states would do it, it may even be free . It's an exercise to raise money and validate input from vested interests to preserve a paradigm.

        TDLR Not all crap looking cars are unroadworthy. Not all flash looking rides are roadworthy. There is a better cheaper way to get unsafe cars off roads.By traffic police doing their jobs

        • brad1-8tsi on 22/02/2025 - 15:27

          It could be a new car with bald tyres.

          If they were really smart they would target cars almost 5 years old before the first eSafety check was due. Bald tyres abound.

          • Protractor on 22/02/2025 - 18:00

            @brad1-8tsi: You'd have to prise them away from TV News story policing ,first.

  • Drakesy on 22/02/2025 - 12:36

    Mechanic/motor vehicle group lobbysits are to blame.

  • Euphemistic on 22/02/2025 - 14:13
    +4

    Personally id rather drivers are forced to get an annual inspection for rego. Too many drivers would not replace tyres (the biggest problem IMO) anywhere near as often. It would be so much easier to tell the oil change guy youll get new tyres next week and then drive worn out tyres for another 12 months if yoy didnt need an inspection.

    Yes, getting a pink slip is a pain and a bit of a rort. No, id rather not be surrounded by cars that havent seen a mechanic in 5 years.

  • 7ekn00 on 22/02/2025 - 15:17

    Yearly in the NT too ;)

    • MS Paint on 22/02/2025 - 16:30

      After 10 years of age.

  • Muppet Detector on 22/02/2025 - 19:44

    Most states put the onus onto the driver of the car to ensure it is safe and meets road worthy standards.

    Basically every time you get behind the wheel of a car you are signing a little contract saying I have checked this car, it is in roadworthy condition and complies with all rules and regulations.

    When an accident occurs, if the condition of the car is found to be lacking, the driver can now be deemed negligent (as they knew about the issues but drove anyway) and awarded fault and liability.

    In NSW, however, it appears that the Gov has decided not to take everybody's word for the condition of their car and is taking proactive measures that shouldn't be too onerous for most people, to ensure that most cars on NSW roads at least meet a minimum standard.

    CAN have the affect where negligence may shift in whole or in part to the regulatory body should a failure occur which causes injury. Probably why other states haven't followed suit so as not to blur any lines of negligence and leave it entirely on the driver of the car.

    • Euphemistic on 22/02/2025 - 20:21

      ;CAN have the affect where negligence may shift in whole or in part to the regulatory body should a failure occur which causes injury

      Im not sure how that could happen. As you rightly point out, its the driver first, then perhaps the mechanic that performs the inspection. The regulatory body would only be held responsible if the standards they set were too low for the vehicle to be safe.

  • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 08:13

    Seems ridiculous to be inspecting a car that may be still under warranty, considering some of the long warranties being given out these days. Also frustrating when mechanics are ultraconservative, forcing you to replace tyres that may have edge wear but be perfectly legal across the remaining 90% of the tread face. Its also no coincidence that you end up paying well over tyre shop prices for those tyres….

    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 08:51
      +1

      If the tyre has edge wear its a sign the grip is less than it should be and something is wrong with the alignment or suspension. Uneven worn tyres are not 'still good'

      There is nothing stopping you from getting your own tyres fdpm your favourite cheap place and going back to get the inspection cleared.

      However, its not hard to check your own tyres before the inspection and get them sorted beforehand, thus negating the need to pay more or go back for a re-inspection. It is, in fact, important to give your car a once over before taking it for the inspection so you dont get surprises.

      • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 09:26

        your tread exists to provide grip on wet roads. wear on the outside edge is largely irrelevant as the tyre doesnt generate enough lateral load to get onto the outside edge in wet conditions. it's an arse-covering exercise, and there are countless tyres that are still perfectly useable in landfill as a result.

        the last time he changed my tyres, he replaced my 'worn' tyres with tyres that had considerably less wet grip. I'm not sure how this constitutes a safer outcome…

        • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 11:52
          -1

          If its worn bald in an area its becasus that part of the tyre was doing more work. There is a reason that uneven wear on tyres makes them 'worn out', and its not an arse covering exercise. Its because they are not safe.

          If you want good wet grip out of your tyres, then YOU need to step up and specify what tyres are put on YOUR car not juat accept the cheapest tyres you can get.

          Maybe you shouldnt be driving at all if this is your attitude.

          • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 12:17

            @Euphemistic: disagree. a strip <1 inch along the outer edge with tread depth 1.5mm or less is not inherently unsafe. binning a tyre that has legal tread depth across >90% of the tyre face is wasteful and arguably unnecessary.

            • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 12:50

              @b0son: You can disagree all you want. It is not 'arguably unnecessary'.

              • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 13:25

                @Euphemistic: according to tyre suppliers (supposedly quoting the road rules), the legal minimum tread depth for a tyre is 1.6mm across the central three-quarters of the tyre's width. this allows for the edges to be below 1.6mm. if it's unsafe, why is it legal?

                • Windows7forever on 25/02/2025 - 14:58
                  -1

                  @b0son: I tend to agree with boson here. It's very wasteful and costly to the consumer, all in the name of "safety"(profits).

                • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 15:46

                  @b0son: And what is the appropriate tread depth on the edges?

                  • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 15:56

                    @Euphemistic: they're permitted to be 0mm, provided the middle 75% is legal. i suspect that's not what you're asking though….

                    • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 17:19

                      @b0son: Can you provide a link for that?

                      • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 18:08

                        @Euphemistic: varies by state, but in NSW, https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/curre…

                        (2) Except at tread wear indicators, a tyre fitted to the vehicle must have a tread pattern at least 1.5 millimetres deep in all principal grooves on the tyre in a band that runs continuously

                        (4) In this rule—
                        principal grooves, in relation to a tyre, means wide grooves, other than secondary grooves—
                        (a) usually positioned in the central zone of the tyre tread but that may run across the tyre tread, and
                        (b) in which tread wear indicators are usually located.
                        secondary grooves, in relation to a tyre, means shallow grooves in the tyre tread that may disappear during the life of the tyre through wear.

                        so while in NSW there isnt mention of 75% (there is in other states), there is allowance for the complete wear of the secondary grooves. I've been denied a pinkslip for precisely this. suffice to say, this mechanic no longer gets my business.

                        • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 18:15

                          @b0son: You missed an important bit in that link.

                          Except at tread wear indicators, a tyre fitted to the vehicle must have a tread pattern at least 1.5 millimetres deep in all principal grooves on the tyre in a band that runs continuously—
                          (a) across the tyre width that normally comes into contact with the road

                          My read of that is the 3/4 does not apply. you cant have zero tread on the shoulders.

                          • b0son on 25/02/2025 - 18:48

                            @Euphemistic: the shoulders are not principal grooves. the principal grooves are longitudinal and have tread indicators. secondary/lateral grooves do not need to be legal depth.

                            • Euphemistic on 25/02/2025 - 18:58

                              @b0son: I can kinda see what youre saying BUT why do you want to run around with worn out tyres? Just becuase legal doesnt mean its all good. The tyre tread recommendations from websites inlooked at say that less than 3mm is starting to compromise grip - wirh corresponding increase in stopping distances.

                              • b0son on 26/02/2025 - 08:20
                                -1

                                @Euphemistic: Because I disagree that they're 'worn out'. As I already mentioned above, outer edge wear is of little concern as you dont generate enough lateral load on a wet road to be able to rely on the outer tread face as opposed to the middle. It is the central longitudinal grooves that do the majority of the work clearing water. I agree it's not optimal, but it isn't such a big compromise that it warrants tossing the tyre out.

                                • Euphemistic on 26/02/2025 - 14:22

                                  @b0son:

                                  outer edge wear is of little concern as you dont generate enough lateral load on a wet road

                                  What happens when you corner? That is when the lateral loading comes into play and arguably when grip is most critical.

                                  It is the central longitudinal grooves that do the majority of the work clearing water

                                  How do you figure that? The side tread patterns also clear water out to the side using the lateral grooves. That is why there are grooves that run to the sides.

                                  • b0son on 26/02/2025 - 23:56
                                    -1

                                    @Euphemistic:

                                    What happens when you corner? That is when the lateral loading comes into play and arguably when grip is most critical.

                                    You still have the middle 75% of the tread in contact, if not more. If the primary grooves are still capable of clearing water, even a completely bald outer edge isnt going to be able to produce aquaplaning.

                                    How do you figure that? The side tread patterns also clear water out to the side using the lateral grooves. That is why there are grooves that run to the sides.

                                    Sure, but they are typically not as deep or as wide. They shift a lot less water, and are permitted to wear to zero. Presumably, the tyre engineers dont consider the performance dropoff to be so severe that the tyre is 'worn out' and warrants replacement.

                                    • Euphemistic on 27/02/2025 - 05:47

                                      @b0son:

                                      They shift a lot less water, and are permitted to wear to zero.

                                      Still disagree with that. You havent shown a reference that says its only the middle 3/4.

                                      (a) across the tyre width that normally comes into contact with the road

                                      This says otherwise.

                                      You still have the middle 75% of the tread in contact, if not more. If the primary grooves are still capable of clearing water, even a completely bald outer edge isnt going to be able to produce aquaplaning

                                      And I'm still not sure why you are convinced this is a good idea. 75% of a hand print in contact with the road doesnt seem like a good idea.

                                      I'm willing to accept new evidence based on legislation or scientific testing but you've provided neither and I'm sceptical of your assertion

                                      • b0son on 27/02/2025 - 08:23

                                        @Euphemistic: if you search on 75%, you'll find this is what many tyre suppliers work with (eg. https://www.tyroola.com.au/guides/how-to-make-sure-your-tyre… ), as this rule goes back to UK tyre legislation which AFAIK still references 75% and formed the basis of our own legislation. the current ALVSR now only mentions the principal grooves, but also defines what they are. the shoulder grooves are in most cases considered secondary grooves, being narrower and often not as deep as the principal grooves. the ALVSR specifically mentions these grooves as being able to disappear. the only grooves one need concern themselves with for compliance are the widest principal grooves, the ones with tread wear indicators. I'll leave it at that as we're going in circles now.

                                        • Euphemistic on 27/02/2025 - 08:55

                                          @b0son: Thats not a scientific or legislative link. The legislative link provided says full width of tread. Yes, the principle grooves are where you MEASURE from. If the edge is bald, it has no tread. Therefore your tyre does not have full width of tread.

                                          As for circles, seems more likely thats what youll be doing with your substandard tyre tread.

  • ratoloko on 28/02/2025 - 11:31

    The inspection is painfully easy, unless your car is falling apart, you won't have problems.
    I support it, that will force the cars on the road to have the basics in place.
    I go to the same mechanic, he spends 2 min to check my motorcycle, $24 something and I'm on my way.

    Have you seen the US?? How madmax cars are over there??

    I got a new car so if it follows my motorcycle rule at the start, inspections should be required every 2y only.

    • b0son on 28/02/2025 - 12:04
      +3

      That's not necessarily true. Wife's car 'needed' $2k in urgent suspension repairs according to dealer. That is what you get for trying to get your pink slip the day before rego is due.

      Declined the repair, went next day elsewhere and passed without issue. It's great when you have a trusted mechanic who isnt out to gouge you. Our usual mechanic used to be great. Change of management, new one hits you up for whatever he think he can get.

      I dont see this scheme as being anything more than an opportunity for easy money for the providers. At least not on cars <10 years old. Our road toll isnt appreciably better than other states, so it's doubtful 'roadworthiness' is a big factor in most crashes.

      • tenpercent on 01/03/2025 - 22:24

        Our road toll isnt appreciably better than other states, so it's doubtful 'roadworthiness' is a big factor in most crashes.

        Oh dear. Citizen #42069 is using logic to question government policy. Initiate sports ball distraction protocol and petty internal party politics squabble distraction.

      • ratoloko on 03/03/2025 - 12:21

        That is a mechanic issue and not an inspection problem. My statement remains unchanged.

        • cloudy on 14/03/2025 - 21:01

          Your understanding of human nature is zilch. That’s the problem and your statement won’t change until you learn

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2025 - 22:12
    +1

    Motorists would be better off having to do an annual resit of their driving test 😂

    • Windows7forever on 03/03/2025 - 17:07

      Only if you cop demerit points. Let the rest of us safe drivers carry on as normal.

      • Euphemistic on 03/03/2025 - 19:46
        +1

        Everyone should have to pass some sort of knowledge test at each licence renewal. Rules change and get forgotten. Sure, you remember the main ones, but bou cant expect to know all the rules if you were last tested 30y ago.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join