1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Test failure rates—why have they gone up?
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• While the 2001/02 VI Effectiveness Report is long on statistical data It's rather short on explanations. However, one reason the VI gives for the "upward-pressure on test fail rates" is "partly as a review of policy on repairs to vehicles on sites".
This follows a fatalfty at a VI test station in 2000 which led the Vito tighten up its policy on "Pass after Rectification at Station" (PRS) under which drivers are sometimes allowed to repair minor defects that would otherwise result in a failure. But now VI test station staff "will insist on the supervision of any repair or adjustment to a vehicle", while "rectification work will now normally be limited to light repairs or adjustments".
Before allowing this work a risk assessment will be undertaken. If the assessed risk to VI staff or the driver is too high, or VI staff cannot supervise it, permission for the work will be refused and the vehicle must be removed.
Clifhas already received calls from operators complaining about local test station attitudes to allowing repairs or adjustments to test vehicles, and the VI concedes that "priority will always be given to inspection duties ahead of supervision of repairs or adjustment".
This new policy on PRS has made failures rise: if the Vi was more flexible about PRS, would failure rates fall?