New Style MoT Certificate

Road_Hog

MOTs will be changing to the Continental system in the not too distant future, which is the 2 or 3 year MOT, no yearly ones anymore.

Crabman

Road_Hog wrote: »

MOTs will be changing to the Continental system in the not too distant future, which is the 2 or 3 year MOT, no yearly ones anymore.

I'm pretty sure this isn't going to happen, it's being opposed quite strongly by the AA among others.

If it does happen, coupled with an increased speed limit of 80mph the death rate on our roads would increase significantly - there is an abundance of idiots who believe that an MOT = a service.

patman99

Perhaps it is time to adopt the S. African MOT system. Over there the M.O.T centres are all operated by the Govt. and when the car has it's yearly check, they also carry out a full fluid and filter change along with new tyres if required. It costs a fixed-fee, but they reckon the money they save on not having to attend so many RTA's caused by vehicle faults is far greater than the costs above the fixed-fee.

Notmyrealname

Road_Hog wrote: »

MOTs will be changing to the Continental system in the not too distant future, which is the 2 or 3 year MOT, no yearly ones anymore.

Oh I hope so. Despite the fact they are every 2 years they are far far more stringent than the current MOT with far higher pass requirements.

Notmyrealname

Crabman wrote: »

If it does happen, coupled with an increased speed limit of 80mph the death rate on our roads would increase significantly

Why? New cars don't have to have their first MOT until they're 3 years old. I bought my Mondeo at 3 years old and it had 90k on the clock - one of the highest mileages I've ever had on a used car. 90k is about the same as an average car will cover in about 7 years so it has 7 years worth of mileage but wasn't required to have an MOT. Many company cars are the same. You don't see them massively contributing to death tolls.

So why would a 2 yearly MOT make a difference?

Crabman

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Why? New cars don't have to have their first MOT until they're 3 years old. I bought my Mondeo at 3 years old and it had 90k on the clock - one of the highest mileages I've ever had on a used car. 90k is about the same as an average car will cover in about 7 years so it has 7 years worth of mileage but wasn't required to have an MOT. Many company cars are the same. You don't see them massively contributing to death tolls.

So why would a 2 yearly MOT make a difference?

I don't know where you're getting your statistics about particular cars contributing to deaths on the roads.

MOT failure rates have increased in recent years (some say due to the recession) and it's simply ridiculous to suggest that allowing those vehicles to drive on the roads for an extra year would not have a negative impact on safety.

Your point about company cars I accept, but do bear in mind that vehicles under 3 years old need to be serviced regularly in line with fleet/lease companies' strict rules. Even a private owner of a new vehicle needs to get it serviced (not necessarily at the main dealer) to keep the warranty intact.

Outside the warranty period (minimum of 3 years), you will get owners who neglect servicing. For them and innocent road users, the annual MOT is a necessity.

I'm talking about the ones who express surprise their car failed the MOT because of worn tyres/blown bulbs. These are things that responsible drivers check at least weekly.

[Deleted User]

I've been to look at cars that only had say less than a month MOT left and they were right sheds with bulbs out, dodgy brakes, etc. Sometimes it is hard to believe that a car could have got in such a state since the last MOT.

Now bring out 2 or 3 year MOTs and this sort of problem will get worse. As people will think the car is still perfectly fine as it could still have a year of the MOT to run.