What do you guys think about bill 203?

[nzwasp]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/dealers+unhappy+with+proposed+alberta+repair+legislation/11813599/story.html


Jon Carson, the NDP representative for Edmonton-Meadowlark, put forward a bill last week that includes a requirement for repair shops to provide an estimate before they can charge customers for any work, unless those customers decline the estimate or specify a maximum amount they will pay ahead of time. Bill 203 also calls for repair shops to provide warranties on all parts installed and the labour required to install them for at least 90 days or 5,000 kilometres, whichever comes first.

I think actually think this is needed. Last year for example I was fucked over by a repair shop that didn't put the clip back in when repairing my cv joint. When I took it back to the shop they denied the wrong doing.

I guess the NDP could take this a step further and enforce a system of inspections every year on every vehicle and give some sort of cerification of passing to keep the standard of vehicles on the road up to par. In New Zealand they have this yearly and its called a WOF (warrant of fitness) meaning a car has to be mechanically sound to be able to drive on the road.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. From a contractor perspective they may not like it, but at the same time if you can't estimate the job reasonably well, you probably didn't do enough due diligence before taking on the client.

I would MUCH rather see the road-worthiness inspections happen though, thousands of cars would be taken off the road.

[mzdspd]

I agree with some parts of the bill but how can a mechanic guarantee an estimate? Or guarantee that the first repair is the final repair?

Sometimes you repair one obvious issue and it is not the root cause.. You can't put the mechanic on the hook for that.. Otherwise it will cause mechanics to quote to repair Everything when it could actually just be one small issue.

I may be reading into this wrong, but that is the message I got from another news article.

[nzwasp]

Originally posted by mzdspd
I agree with some parts of the bill but how can a mechanic guarantee an estimate? Or guarantee that the first repair is the final repair?

Sometimes you repair one obvious issue and it is not the root cause.. You can't put the mechanic on the hook for that.. Otherwise it will cause mechanics to quote to repair Everything when it could actually just be one small issue.

I may be reading into this wrong, but that is the message I got from another news article.

Maybe it will just lead to every repair shop doing a 150 point inspection for $50 before estimates will be given.

[schocker]

Maybe they should take a look at amvic first.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by mzdspd
I agree with some parts of the bill but how can a mechanic guarantee an estimate? Or guarantee that the first repair is the final repair?

Sometimes you repair one obvious issue and it is not the root cause.. You can't put the mechanic on the hook for that.. Otherwise it will cause mechanics to quote to repair Everything when it could actually just be one small issue.

I may be reading into this wrong, but that is the message I got from another news article.

Are they guaranteeing an estimate? Or providing one and then calling the customer if something changes to inform them of the new estimate?

Too many times they will do work then demand to be paid without permission. I think this is what it is talking about.

[Hallowed_point]

I think it's a big step in the right direction.


Road worthiness annual inspections would be even better though. There are a ton of unsafe vehicles on the roads here. Non functioning brake lights, unsafe lift kits, racing steering wheels on street cars etc. Sure if you modify the car in a "safe" manner it can be fine..but there are too many people who tamper with the safety features.

[nzwasp]

This is what they check on in NZ for the road worthiness inspections:



tyre condition (including tread depth)

brake operation

structural condition (rust is not allowed in certain areas)

lights

glazing (is your windscreen safe?)

windscreen washers and wipers

doors (do they open and close safely?)

safety belts (must not be damaged or overly faded; buckles must work properly)

airbags (if fitted)

speedometer (must be working)

steering and suspension (must be safe and secure)

exhaust (there must be no leaks and the exhaust must not be smoky or louder than the original exhaust system)

fuel system (there must be no leaks).


The windscreens and tyre conditions alone would probably fail a tonne of cars.

If your car is modified then you just have to show your certificate of modification. I think the exhaust has the same sort of system the cops tried to bring in here a few years ago to measure dB.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
I think it's a big step in the right direction.


Road worthiness annual inspections would be even better though. There are a ton of unsafe vehicles on the roads here. Non functioning brake lights, unsafe lift kits, racing steering wheels on street cars etc. Sure if you modify the car in a "safe" manner it can be fine..but there are too many people who tamper with the safety features.

f*k off with your annual safety inspections ... that's just going to become a cash grab and gigantic waste of time.

so there's a bunch of jallopies on the road. Who cares, they arn't the ones i see in multi-car accidents. I'd rather they do something worthwhile, like if you're caught on your cell phone while driving you lose your license for 2yrs. That would make a difference in road safety.

i don't see the purpose of this bill. Most shops already provide an estimate and a good one will stand behind their work. If a shop won't stand behind the work there's no way in hell I'm bringing my car back to them, even if the repair is free the next time.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by M.alex
f*k off with your annual safety inspections ... that's just going to become a cash grab and gigantic waste of time.

so there's a bunch of jallopies on the road. Who cares, they arn't the ones i see in multi-car accidents. I'd rather they do something worthwhile, like if you're caught on your cell phone while driving you lose your license for 2yrs. That would make a difference in road safety.

i don't see the purpose of this bill. Most shops already provide an estimate and a good one will stand behind their work. If a shop won't stand behind the work there's no way in hell I'm bringing my car back to them, even if the repair is free the next time.

:rofl: Worried about your vehicles getting targeted? F&ck off with your self centered crap.

You're telling me that some idiot with non-functioning tail lights in a lifted 1981 Jeep is safe? I'll continue to report plates for anyone I see on the road like that. :D

[rage2]

Originally posted by schocker
Maybe they should take a look at amvic first.
I thought it was kinda funny that this is coming from the NDP and not AMVIC.

[heavyD]

Man I just wish we could get lemon laws on new vehicles like Americans. I get so jealous being on car forums and all these guys with problems end up getting their money back for lemons while I had to take a hit on my Mustang because in Canada when you get a lemon you are screwed.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by heavyD
Man I just wish we could get lemon laws on new vehicles like Americans. I get so jealous being on car forums and all these guys with problems end up getting their money back for lemons while I had to take a hit on my Mustang because in Canada when you get a lemon you are screwed.

Yup, we need lemon laws here.

As for bill 203, I just don't know how enforcement would work for the general public who know dick all about cars. At least we car guys knows some basics and at least know how to scan for codes.

But it's a great idea. And Audi already put 1 year/20K warranty on all parts install thru them, you do have to pay more than normal shop tho. So I would assume everyone in the industry have to increase the margin to cover these complain and claims.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point

You're telling me that some idiot with non-functioning tail lights in a lifted 1981 Jeep is safe?

Please provide evidence of how many "unsafe" vehicles cause accidents in Alberta on a yearly basis.

I would be surprised if the number is higher than a big fat zero. So yes, f*&k off with your nazi vehicle regulations that only make it more expensive for people to own vehicles.

[btimbit]

Yeah I'm slowly leaning more and more against annual inspections, seems like a cash grab to me. But I also see the point. Maybe just have them on vehicles over 15 years old and every 2 years?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[nzwasp]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

It also means if you want to work on your car and add mods, it is going to be a huge PITA

Whats the effect of adding car mods to your insurance (out of interest to me)

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Hallowed_point]

Insurance companies don't care what you do as they only pay out for a stock factory vehicle. So they won't pay for your k&n intake/seibon carbon hood in the event of a claim. However, they could elect to disqualify your vehicle depending on the claim based on modifications. I would think this would be in the case of superchargers/NO2/hellaflush etc etc. The more radical modifications.

[nzwasp]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
Insurance companies don't care what you do as they only pay out for a stock factory vehicle. So they won't pay for your k&n intake/seibon carbon hood in the event of a claim. However, they could elect to disqualify your vehicle depending on the claim based on modifications. I would think this would be in the case of superchargers/NO2/hellaflush etc etc. The more radical modifications.

I.e if your modifications in some part caused your accident like exceeding the top speed of your car due to a NOS system installed.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Please provide evidence of how many "unsafe" vehicles cause accidents in Alberta on a yearly basis.

I would be surprised if the number is higher than a big fat zero. So yes, f*&k off with your nazi vehicle regulations that only make it more expensive for people to own vehicles. Again, this is coming from people who obviously would be affected due to said modifications. I have no problem with intake/exhaust/rim cars. You want to run a roll cage and remove safety features on a street car? How about...don't drive it on the public roads :dunno:

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by nzwasp
I.e if your modifications in some part caused your accident like exceeding the top speed of your car due to a NOS system installed. :thumbsup: Exactly..at the end of the day they are in the insurance game. Those big glass towers don't get paid for from pay outs.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
You want to run a roll cage and remove safety features on a street car? How about...don't drive it on the public roads :dunno:

Why? There is no reason not to, except for a case of the "feels" related to safety. If I want to remove safety features on my car, I should damn well be able to, especially if it affects no-one but myself.

Either argue safety, or argue that you are a prick that doesn't want other people to have fun. Don't misconstrue the two points though.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Why? There is no reason not to, except for a case of the "feels" related to safety. If I want to remove safety features on my car, I should damn well be able to, especially if it affects no-one but myself.

Either argue safety, or argue that you are a prick that doesn't want other people to have fun. Don't misconstrue the two points though.

I say this due to an idiot at my work with a RHD WRX, racing wheel without a bag (no horn either!) and a roll cage without padding. Seems pretty sketchy. The problem is, if buddy crashes and hospitalizes himself with aggravated injuries due to such changes, we all pay the bill through taxes.

I'm all about fun :burnout:

[rage2]

The only good that an inspection to remove unsafe vehicles off the road is so that we can get rid of the excuse that we can't increase speed limits because older cars are unsafe at that speed. Since increasing speed limits will never happen, there's no reason to put in an inspection to remove unsafe vehicles.

[01RedDX]

.

[16hypen3sp]

I'd love to see how all the poor people (people that can't afford newerish cars/repairs, or financially challenged or whatever the politically correct term is) respond when their vehicles are deemed not roadworthy.

"I can't afford repairs."

Yikes, don't give them any ideas guys. The NDP government would probably come up with some way for the middle and upper class to pay for the poor's repairs.

Add on a hell of a lot of push back from the farmers....

I think the yearly inspections are a slippery slope.
Be careful what you wish for.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


I say this due to an idiot at my work with a RHD WRX, racing wheel without a bag (no horn either!) and a roll cage without padding. Seems pretty sketchy. The problem is, if buddy crashes and hospitalizes himself with aggravated injuries due to such changes, we all pay the bill through taxes.

I'm all about fun :burnout:

And so it goes. It is the exact problem I have with our societies stance on drugs, HOWEVER, I am not so narrow minded as to not see the parallels between my activities, and how they can be compared to others.

Of course, one is actively harming yourself (drug use), while one only has the potential to harm yourself when acted upon by others (being in a vehicle accident, unless you yourself cause the accident then I agree it is on you) but I digress. By its very nature, you also must want to ban any form of outdoor activities as they all can cause serious injury or death.

See the point I am getting at? It's why I believe I am more libertarian by the day, because the overwhelming control that line of thinking produces is one where you live in a bubble, unable to do anything without the govs position. And thats not the kind of life I advocate for.

I understand your irritation with dudebro in his jdmy0! wrx that's wicked fast, but I don't think that is a valid reason to cause car ownership costs to go up massively when at the end of the day it doesn't solve anything (bad driving skills).

[nzwasp]

Do they have inspections in any province or does everything just sort of run the same way alberta does it.

[carson blocks]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


I say this due to an idiot at my work with a RHD WRX, racing wheel without a bag (no horn either!) and a roll cage without padding. Seems pretty sketchy. The problem is, if buddy crashes and hospitalizes himself with aggravated injuries due to such changes, we all pay the bill through taxes.

I'm all about fun :burnout:

Should people be allowed to ride motorcycles then in your opinion? None of that safety shit on a bike. Really, enthusiasts who run roll cages etc. on the street are a very, very small percentage of drivers. Making massive systemic changes to get rid of less than ~0.001% of cars on the road seems like a waste.

[dtrieu]

Originally posted by carson blocks


Should people be allowed to ride motorcycles then in your opinion? None of that safety shit on a bike. Really, enthusiasts who run roll cages etc. on the street are a very, very small percentage of drivers. Making massive systemic changes to get rid of less than ~0.001% of cars on the road seems like a waste.

Chances of a motorcycle killing you in an accident is a lot smaller than another car doing high speeds.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by carson blocks
Should people be allowed to ride motorcycles then in your opinion? None of that safety shit on a bike. Really, enthusiasts who run roll cages etc. on the street are a very, very small percentage of drivers. Making massive systemic changes to get rid of less than ~0.001% of cars on the road seems like a waste. Sure. A motorcycle can brake, accelerate and corner on a dime. Plus the odds of someone on a bike killing anyone besides themselves as opposed to a lifted Cummins would be substantially lower. I don't really like the comparison though as we are talking a different class of vehicle. I agree that it's a small percentage, but go to the NE and you might see some skewed stats!

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
And so it goes. It is the exact problem I have with our societies stance on drugs, HOWEVER, I am not so narrow minded as to not see the parallels between my activities, and how they can be compared to others.

Of course, one is actively harming yourself (drug use), while one only has the potential to harm yourself when acted upon by others (being in a vehicle accident, unless you yourself cause the accident then I agree it is on you) but I digress. By its very nature, you also must want to ban any form of outdoor activities as they all can cause serious injury or death.

See the point I am getting at? It's why I believe I am more libertarian by the day, because the overwhelming control that line of thinking produces is one where you live in a bubble, unable to do anything without the govs position. And thats not the kind of life I advocate for.

I understand your irritation with dudebro in his jdmy0! wrx that's wicked fast, but I don't think that is a valid reason to cause car ownership costs to go up massively when at the end of the day it doesn't solve anything (bad driving skills).

Well for sure. It would have to be "reasonable" and not overly punitive for me to support it. We live in a world of grey, not b&w :)

[carson blocks]

Originally posted by dtrieu


Chances of a motorcycle killing you in an accident is a lot smaller than another car doing high speeds.



Originally posted by Hallowed_point
Sure. A motorcycle can brake, accelerate and corner on a dime. Plus the odds of someone on a bike killing anyone besides themselves as opposed to a lifted Cummins would be substantially lower.

Nope, your original argument is using the WRX with the rollcage and racing wheel as an example, which are mods that put only the drivers life at risk, not other road users. This is why I chose a motorcycle as a comparison. I choose to ride a bike, it is a substantially more dangerous mode of transport, but I do it anyways. How is this any different than your example of rocking a racing wheel and a full cage on the street?

[M.alex]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
Sure. A motorcycle can brake, accelerate and corner on a dime. Plus the odds of someone on a bike killing anyone besides themselves as opposed to a lifted Cummins would be substantially lower. I don't really like the comparison though as we are talking a different class of vehicle. I agree that it's a small percentage, but go to the NE and you might see some skewed stats!

A car can't corner/brake/accelerate on a dime.

There are more cars than bikes on the road.

Therefore the bikes are the aboration and present a safety risk and should be banned.

Hey, I like your logic, what else can we ban and screw people over with.

[ExtraSlow]

Ban Motorbikes, AMG and wheelie shoes!

[max_boost]

:winter: :whocares:

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


:rofl: Worried about your vehicles getting targeted? F&ck off with your self centered crap.

You're telling me that some idiot with non-functioning tail lights in a lifted 1981 Jeep is safe? I'll continue to report plates for anyone I see on the road like that. :D

He's not worried about his vehicle. he's saying you're daft.

vehicles that fail will find other means of bring shadily passed just like our oop program. What mandatory inspections will do is make everyone with good vehicles waste half a day of their life and $200 passing some pointless shit for everyone if their vehicles. Total burden on society. Thinking otherwise just makes you look like a moron that can't think outside of the box..

[jhmed]

Originally posted by nzwasp
Do they have inspections in any province or does everything just sort of run the same way alberta does it.

I know that New Brunswick does. Don't know about any of the other provinces.

[Zhao Kan]

Bc had air care and dumped it hard as being completely pointless