blog 3 vehicle safety systems

For this task we had to check the safety systems of three different cars, and one of which I will blog about, safety systems can range from the airbags to seatbelts and a lot of the items that are in the interior of the car along with some external parts like windscreen wipers.

The first part of the task was to list 9 different safety components found in the vehicle, the vehicle I was testing was a 1998 Mazda Familia, but since the vehicle was quite basic I could only list 6.

1.)Driver side srs Airbag
2.)Handbrake
3.)Front and rear Seatbelts
4.)Park Lights
5.)Anti-lock Brake system
6.)Child lock (rear doors)

Next the check list for the safety system began, but first we had to list number of seatbelts and what type they where and the car class.

Vehicle Class-MA
Type of Seat belts(front)-L/D (Lap Diagonal) Number of belts-2
Type of seat belts(rear)-L/D Number of Belts-2 (and 1 Lap belt)

Safety Check List


TONGUE and BUCKLE ASSEMBLY


-Check the engagement of tongue and buckle: PASS

-The tongue and buckle should securely latch: PASS

-The tongue should eject actively when released: PASS

-There should be no visible cracks on the buckle and the buckle
 cover must be intact: PASS

-The tongue and buckle should have no metal deformation
 webbing or visible cracks on metal or plastic sections: PASS


RETRACTOR


-Pull the belt out as far as it will go, then release it: PASS

-The belt should return all the way to the retractor
without sticking , gripping or stalling: PASS

-The retractor should lock if the webbing is pulled
 out suddenly: PASS

WEBBING


-The Webbing should be securely attached to it end
 fittings and displaying no stretching or pulled stitching: PASS

-The webbing should be flat throughout its entire length: PASS

-Look for plastic burn marks, frayed stitching and any
signs of ripping: PASS


ANCHORAGE


-Ensure all anchorages are free from corrosion and are
securely fastened to the vehicle structure: PASS

-All mounting points should not show any signs of deformantion: PASS

Warrant of Fitness

WOF Check list

Make: Mazda       Model: Familia

Odometer reading: 234582 km

Year: 1998

Fuel Type:Petrol

CHECK AREAS

Area and Rule ID#

Vehicle Identification : VIN: 7A8C10H0703101007

                                       Chassis: GF-BJ3P

Vehicle Exterior:

-Structure: PASS (no rust)

Vehicle Structure

-External projections: PASS (body in good order)

lighting

-HeadLamps: PASS

-Front and rear fog lights: PASS

-cornering lamps: PASS

-daytime running lamps: PASS

-direction indicator lamps(front): PASS

-direction indicator lamps(rear): PASS

-forward facing position lamps: PASS

-rearward-facing position lamps: PASS

-stop lamps: PASS

-high mounted stop lamps: PASS

-rear registration plate lamp: PASS

-rear reflectors: PASS

-reversing lamps: PASS

Vision

-Windscreen: PASS

-Sun Visors: PASS

-Wipers: FAIL

-washers: PASS

-rear view mirrors: PASS

Reason for wipers failing the test was there was no rubber on the right hand side windscreen wiper meaning driver vision can be impaired causing an accident.

Entrance and Exit

-Door and hinged panels retention system: PASS

Vehicle Interior

-Seat and seat anchorages: PASS

-Head restraints: PASS

-Seatbelts and seatbelt anchorages: PASS

-airbags: PASS

-interior impact: PASS

-speedometer: PASS

Tyres, Wheels and Hubs

-Tyre Condition: PASS

-Tread Depth: PASS

     -Left Front: FAIL

     -Right Front: PASS

     -Left Rear: PASS

     -Right Rear: PASS

-Spare wheel security: (No spare wheel)PASS

-Wheels: PASS

-Hubs and axles: PASS

-Mudguards: PASS

The reason the left front tyre failed was because the rim was badly buckled and one of the wheel studs/nut/bolt was missing which would make the wheel unstable and it could potentially fall off due to not being well secured.

Towing Connections

-Towing connection: PASS

These are all the tests that can be done to check the safety system of a car and the reasons why the mazda familia failed on some parts of the test.

Blog 4 Vehicle inspection

The task to be done was to do a full vehicle safety inspection of a car, the car that we inspected was a 1984 Toyota Corolla GT.

Vehicle Make: Toyota         Model: Corolla GT      Year:1984
VIN: AE86-00370061 (this car did not have a VIN so the chassis number was used)
Fuel Type: Petrol


EXTERNAL INSPECTION


-Direction Indicator Lamps Front: PASS
-Forward Position Lamps: PASS
-Front Fog Lights: N/A
-Direction Indicator Lamps Rear: PASS
-Rearward position lamps: FAIL
-Stop Lamps: PASS
-High mounted stop light: PASS
-Registration plate lamps: PASS
- Rear Reflectors: PASS
-Windscreen: PASS
-Doors and hinged panels: PASS
-Mudguards: N/A
-External Projections: PASS
-Structure/Corrosion: PASS
-Dimensions: PASS


The reason the rearward facing lamps failed was because the reverse lights did not light up when reverse was engaged. This could be dangerous for other drivers as they will not know if the driver wants to reverse and might not allow enough room for the driver to reverse causing an accident or crash to occur.

INTERNAL INSPECTION


-Wipers/Operation: PASS
-Rear view mirrors: PASS
-Sun visors: PASS
-Seatbelts: PASS
-Seats & Seat anchorages: PASS
-Head restraints: PASS
-Interior Impact: FAIL
-Airbag self check: N/A
-ABS Self check: N/A
-Audible warning device: N/A
-spare wheel security: PASS


The reason the interior impact failed was because there was roof lining, roof lining is made to protect occupants of a car during a crash.

CHASSIS UNDERBODY

-Wheels, Hubs and Axles: PASS
-Steering mechanism: PASS
-Suspension Mechanism: FAIL
-Fuel tank and fuel lines: FAIL
-cable linkage: PASS
-Brake controls: FAIL
-Lines and hoses: FAIL
-Exhaust system: FAIL
-Tyre condition: PASS
-Tyre tread depth: PASS  LF: 5.0mm RF: 5.0mm LR: 5.5mm RR: 5.5mm
-Towing connections: PASS
-Structure/corrosion: PASS


The reason the suspension mechanism failed was because of leaking shocks which could cause longer sopping distances under heavy braking and poor handling which could cause a crash.

The reason the fuel tank/fuel lines failed was because the fuel tank filler pipe was unsecured, and in the case of a crash the petrol could leak on to the road causing a risk of fire.

The reason the brake controls failed was because one of the outer C/V boots had come loose and there was grease from the C/V boot on the left front brake calliper which could get on the brake disc causing the car to  pull right every time the driver brakes as there is no longer any friction on the left front disc which could cause and accident.

The reason lines and hoses failed was because the Left front brake hose was not secure. This could mean that the hose might get caught in something and brake fluid pressure would no longer be able to be applied to the brake callipers causing the car to pull right every time the driver brakes which could cause an accident.

The reason the exhaust system failed was because there was an exhaust leak at the flange just before the muffler, this could cause poor emissions and possible excessive noise from the exhaust system.

ROAD BRAKE TEST


Service brake readings: PASS
Front: 19% imbalance
rear: 4% imbalance
LF:2.68 KN RF: 3.53 KN LR: 1.15 KN RR: 1.20KN


-Service Brake Performance: PASS
-Service brake balance: PASS
-Park Brake readings: PASS
 4% imbalance  LH: 1.17KN  RH: 1.29KN
-Park brake performance: PASS
-Speedometer: PASS


UNDER BONNET: 


-A/F system in working order: N/A
-A/F system cert. current: N/A
-A/F system safe: N/A
-modified vehicle: N/A
-chassis VIN number: FAIL
-structure/corrosion: PASS
-Engine & Drive train: PASS
-Fuel system: PASS

The reason the chassis VIN number failed was because there was no VIN number which means it is hard to identify the car.


These are all of the checks that are done to a vehicle during a Warrant of Fitness, and the reasons as to why the Toyota failed in some parts of the check.

Blog 2 Treaty/sustainability worksheet

1.  What part of the Treaty relates to pollution and sustainability? Write the phrase that relates here: 

 -"the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession."

2.  What are ways that modern civilization could pollute the land, the sea, or the air?

- The modern ways civilization could pollute land, sea and air is with the land, the pollution can be done through land fills or rubbish dumps. The spraying of chemicals onto farm land which could wash off into rivers and eventually end up in the ocean. The sea could also be polluted by people putting chemicals such as soap or cleaners down storm water drains which drains out to sea, Oil spills could and would pollute the sea, and sewerage being drained into the sea would cause pollution. The air is polluted by cars emissions and factories pumping out smog and aircraft can pollute the air as well.

3.  What New Zealand legislation directs what should happen about pollution?  Record your answers here:

-The resource management act of 1991 section 15 tell of what people should not disharge into the land, sea or air as seen below. If any of the below laws are broken due to pollution then that person could face fines up to $200,000 and up to two years imprisonment.

5 Discharge of contaminants into environment

• (1) No person may discharge any—

  • (a) contaminant or water into water; or

  • (b) contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or

  • (c) contaminant from any industrial or trade premises into air; or

  • (d) contaminant from any industrial or trade premises onto or into land—
  unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent.
  (2) No person may discharge a contaminant into the air, or into or onto land, from a place or any other source, whether moveable or not, in a manner that contravenes a national environmental standard unless the discharge—

  • (a) is expressly allowed by other regulations; or

  • (b) is expressly allowed by a resource consent; or

  • (c) is an activity allowed by section 20A.
  (2A) No person may discharge a contaminant into the air, or into or onto land, from a place or any other source, whether moveable or not, in a manner that contravenes a regional rule unless the discharge—

  • (a) is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations; or

  • (b) is expressly allowed by a resource consent; or

  • (c) is an activity allowed by section 20A.
    
    
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM231978.html?search=ts_act_resource_resel
    
    

Blog 1 Bad customer experiance

Discussion Questions:

1.  From Don’s point of view, what was wrong here? What did the shop do

wrong that upset Don so much. (After all, they were fixing his van.)

-What the shop did wrong was take apart the engine without consulting Don about it first. As Don was only expecting the van to be in the shop for half a day and the fix not to cost too much it was a big surprise to Don when the shop told him it would take 3 to 4 days to fix and cost nearly 4 times the amount of his monthly mortgage payments. All of this without even talking to Don about fixing the van before they started the job. 

2.  From the repair shop owner’s point of view, what was wrong with Don

getting upset at them? What did they do right or wrong?

-Don should not have got to upset with the shop owner as he did ask for the shop to fix his car and gave no time limit or expectations on what he was expecting done and telling them how much he could afford before they started checking and fixing the car.

3.  What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what

would you have wanted to be done?

-The shop should have offered a discount on the repair of the vehicle, to an amount that Don could afford to pay, and the shop should have offered a loan vehicle for Don so that he had a vehicle to carry on with his work. This is what I would have wanted to happen if I where Don.

4.  When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van, he took the

van and did not pay the whole repair bill. Did the repair shop have the right to

hold the van until they got paid?

-Yes the repair shop did have the right to hold the van until the bill was paid as the shop had only carried out instructions to repair the vehicle so they needed to be paid for the work that was done. Only once the bill was fully paid is when Don should have got his car back.

5.  If Don took the repair shop to court, what would you have ruled if you were

the judge? Should the repair shop pay for a replacement rental vehicle?

Should Don pay the whole repair bill? Should the repair shop pay Don for lost

business because he could not pick up and deliver clothes to his customers?

-If I where the judge I would have told Don that if he did not pay enough of the repair bill then I would have ruled that he should pay more, but not all of it as the repair bill would cost Don a lot more than what he could afford.  And if the shop had not yet finished repairing Dons van then they should offer a loan vehicle or rental vehicle for him to use until the shop has finished. But the shop should not have to pay for lost business as the shop was only doing as it was told to repair his vehicle they should have just offered a loan vehicle to use.

6.  What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws

say should have been done in this case?

-The link to the fair trading act was not working so I could not find out what the New Zealand laws would have stated. But I presume that it would state that Don would have to pay the repair bill in full and that the shop would have to offer loan vehicles to people whos cars are going to take a while to fix and the shop would have to pay Don for lost business.