No doubt there is more damage than with a 'properly' repaired car, but how much compared with say a ten year old car in similar circumstances, or my old Kia Pride.
It's to launch a new approved repairers scheme. Ho hum!
|
No doubt there is more damage than with a 'properly' repaired car
Indeed.
"Properly Repaired Cars just as Safe as New"
doesn't have the same headline-grabbing potential.
|
|
|
|
How many people would just get a B post repair without involving their insurance company ? Is this part of the industry not already regulated ?
Surely the comeback would be against the insurance company insisting on the work being done at the garage ?
OK, there are always going to be people who damage a car, have a cheap fix done and sell the car on but this new scheme is hardly going to stop that or make it any more detectable to the man in the street.
|
That guy uses the words 'potentially' and "fatal" far too much. Sounds like a load of scaremongering to me. I would like to see the test repeated on a car with 'proper' repair for comparison. I would also like to know how many fatalities or serious injuries are due to poor repairs.
It's also true to say that grapes are 'potentially fatal' to small children...
|
Can't say I agree moonie old chap. I'm not normally one for defending bureaucrats, but that's one area where i'd take my hat off to them.
If there's a proper safety standard to be adhered to, then it should be done properly.
Not everyone can afford to buy a car that comes either guaranteed or virtually guaranteed not to have had a good smack...so outside of brand new or nearly new from a main dealer, you're into the zone of 'trust'. I wouldn't fancy my chances in that Vectra or something similar.... and as that clip said, how would you know?
|
>>If there's a proper safety standard to be adhered to, then it should be done properly.
Yes, but, what's a proper safety standard?
The BSI, with good intentions, doubtlessly aided and abetted by interested parties with less pure motives are effectively making all repairs more expensive, making cars that would be repaired scrap, or even worse, driving them into the really disreputable secotrs of the trade.
Like so much modern legislation, the intentions are good, but the consequences maybe not so.
|
Yes, but, what's a proper safety standard?
Quite, NC.
I sometimes think that people who obsess about passive secondary crash safety are expecting to have crashes, which is similar on some level to intending to have them. In any case no one should imagine that the latest safety standards will necessarily protect them in a crash. In that moment of mayhem all sorts of unpredictable things can happen: people can survive horrendous high-speed smashes in old rustbuckets and die in minor shunts in brand-new cars renowned for safety. It's a bit of a lottery. Primary safety - braking, roadholding and proper driving - is far more important, because it makes crashes less likely.
On repairs, I would expect the body shop to explain what they intended to do, and perhaps offer a choice. I wouldn't have my car repaired at a body shop that didn't.
I suppose though for an average car owner the kitemark solution would constitute playing safe. As NC suggests though, it would be playing safe at a price.
|
|
|
motives are effectively making all repairs more expensive making cars that would be repaired scrap or even worse driving them into the really disreputable secotrs of the trade. Like so much modern legislation the intentions are good but the consequences maybe not so.
Spot on NC. Seen it all many times before.
|
|
|
|
In about 1990, someone drove into the back of the car which I had at the time, which was an 18 month old Ford Escort.
The repair was done at the insurance company approved repairers (still trading today), and involved some welding to the boot floor.
About 3 years later, another car drove into the back of the car. The second impact was less severe than the first. The boot floor fell apart where it had been welded in the first repair. The welds had clearly rusted badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies for removing some posts but they went when I temporarily removed the postings from kitemark flyer.
Please, "kitemark flyer" email the moderators to disclose your connection to car repairs etc. Until then then rest of the thread is no publicly visible.
Thanks, Rob (a moderator)
|
|
a really poor effort to promote a kitemark in my opinion, i think the car took that smash very well, the roof went up just as a "normal" car would, and a car now damaged that bad would be cat b [break only] not repairable.
|
|
|
|
