Just spotted this in the Independent:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/mot-regime-may-be-relaxed-despite-safety-warnings-2341182.html

Anybody with connections in/to the industry care to comment ?

Nick

Edited 21 August, 201114 yr by Clunkclick

I think an MOT should be carried out once a year but to reduce the cost for the public they could bin certain aspects of the test that really are pointless.

I say stay on the yearly test as 90% of car owers won't touch their car, change a tyre or lightbulb unless they are forced to by the test. As for the no test for 4 years on a new car, I agree with that part.

I say stay on the yearly test as 90% of car owers won't touch their car, change a tyre or lightbulb unless they are forced to by the test.

+1

Most motorists do not do ANY checks on their vehicles, so IMO the MOT should be every year (from new) but for the first two years it could be a quick 'walk round' check for items like brakes, tyres, wipers and lights etc, no reason why they could not do this for around £10 as it would take less than 10 mins to do (including issuing the MOT certificate) there are far too many cars on the road with defective / illegal bulbs.

Agree broadly with comments above.

But so many cars nowadays, because of the use of relatively new technology + the "Rush-to-market" + value analysis and savage downward price pressure on component suppliers, have faults from new that cars of old would have never had.

Personally, I feel that many of the technical tolerances in the current MOT are not tight enough - see my earlier comments on suspension pin tolerances:-

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/202773-mot-proposed-changes-2012/page__p__2438510__fromsearch__1#entry2438510

And if you are baseing this policy change on the industry's reports of recalls, MTBF of components and recent apparent improvement in warranty conditions, like the customers, caveat emptor, don't believe everything you read.I should think that under-reporting of same has reached tragic levels during the last 15 years. Some on this forum have had experience of major faults which Skoda have just brushed-off because recall hasn't been enforced.

I'd say if your're going to loosen MOT, then tighten the Type Approval process, vigorously enforce recalls and increase the Traffic Police off-motorway presence. i.e. nil savings in fact you'd be spending more.

But when even Warranty Direct seem to be spinning the stats . . . .

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/207368-the-off-road-derby/

But, then again, the mass of the motoring market are not the brightest of the "Intelligent customers" that wer're told abound everywhere today.

Nick

Edited 21 August, 201114 yr by Clunkclick

That's a bad safety move. I MOT tested a Jaguar XKR the other week, 3 years old, 25,000 miles and it should have sailed through. Apart from both front headlamps pointing too far to the right, dodgily spaced registration number, one of the rear tyres had a 5 to 6mm deep cut on the inner wall where the tread meets the sidewall running half way around the circumference of the tyre. Not the first time that I have seen this on this type of car and not a problem that the driver would easily notice when checking tyre pressures and tread depth.

It's a bit reminiscent of the Ford Pinto, how much will it cost to fix the fuel system defect against the cost of the law suits resulting from the loss of life and seious injury. It won't save any money, only give the Government a chance to say that it will save you money.

They should make it more comprehensive and price it accordingly, then it might reduce the costs for the fire, police and health services.

A couple of years back, my dad's then 3 year old Fiesta failed its MOT on the steering rack, so I am all for every vehicle on the road being tested yearly from new. PCVs and trucks have to be tested yearly, so why not cars eh? I see too many cars running around for ages with headlamps out etc, and I know that 90% of motorists don't do owt to their cars until test time.

I think other country's in Europe do it every 2 years, I'm not sure how strict some of them are though.

I agree with others though, we should keep it as every year. The MOT is really only valid when at the time of testing. For example, a bulb can go as soon as you drive it out of the test centre.

...I agree with others though, we should keep it as every year. The MOT is really only valid when at the time of testing. For example, a bulb can go as soon as you drive it out of the test centre.

+1

Some drivers think that a valid MOT means their car will be safe for a year and therefore they don't do any checks at all :(

MOT checks should also start when a car has done a certain mileage - say 60K.

I would say to relax the MOT to every two years would be okay, if there were more Coppers to enforce the Laws, but with the lack of it would be insanity.

Been a mechanic at a dealer i see alot of newer line of cars upto prob 5 or 6 years olds and the state some of them come in for even a service with say tyres down to plys etc,

I personally think it should be ever year even from new especially with some of the starship mileage cars i see, some have 100k on clock before they reach 3 years old and don't get looked after,

Personally i think its a dangerious idea and whoever thought of idea should spend a month at a mot testing station and look at some of cars that come through

IMHO it should stay annual, because lets face it people worry not about the £50 on the MOT, but more the £<n hundred> cost of fixing things that are wrong.

Even if you take account of the we'll find £150 of work mentality that one or two places have to make an MOT £200, the point is that these faults do need fixing. Bald tyres, worn steering, knackered shock absorbers and so many other things that can quite easily be deadly not just to the driver, but to other cars on the road.

I spent nearly 10 years of my life driving far too many miles on a variety of roads and having seen some of the carnage that can result from these things, I think relaxing it is a very bad idea.

For new cars, you could have a 4 year system as currently run in NI and that would be ok as long as the car is serviced during that time.

The nice thing about 3 years is that the first MOT can be done in warranty, so you shouldn't end up paying the big bills.

Something I'd very much like to see is proper suspension test such as in Germany.

IMHO, the current shocker bounce test is a bit lacking because it can pass for years after the car's handling has degraded.

Edited 24 August, 201114 yr by cheezemonkhai

Daft idea.

It's hard enough to get some people to insure and tax their cars

as it is. Joe Scrote will just see it as an excuse to insure and tax

every other year as well.

Also a LOT can go wrong with a car in 1 year never mind 2.

This 2 year idea will just mean more uninsured drivers, more iffy motors

and ultimately more road deaths I reckon.

If you can't afford to keep a car in good order and legal you

shouldn't have one. End of.

There's a petition set up to oppose these changes:

Here