MSE News: Motorists advised to drive down MOT costs by maintaining a safe car

alastairq

The only 'obvious' thing I can see is....if folk contribute to this particular forum, then, yes, the authorities are stating the obvious....to you folk.!

But the advice is far from 'obvious' to the vast majority of people out there driving, and, especially, owning their own vehicles.

My experience, garnered from observation, and having been involved in 'driver education' for a couple of decades is, there's an amazing number of drivers out there who are totally unaware of their legal responsibilities regarding the vehicle they are driving.

In other words, most actually don't know these things.

Outside of certain specific areas of the country, there is little or no enforcement of regulations regarding obvious things like lights, tyres and stuff.

Currently affecting the world of so-called 'classic' cars and things, there is currently a debate regarding changes to the frequency, or necessity of, MoT's...and there is a loud lobby making the point that, with an MoT, at least once a year, a vehicle can be deemed ''roadworthy'' [This of course, really isn't the case, but the 'safety' lobby love these things]...

Which begs the question to me, are we simply relying on others to ensure our cars are 'roadworthy ' in all respects?

Are we [most of us] actually placing reliance on an annual [or more] test, rather than taking matters into our own hands as most on here would do?

This is the real point of the advice.....which seems to be politely appealing, for drivers to check their own vehicles regularly, rather than waiting for the MoT.[then complaining at the cost?]...because the accident causes seem to evidence a lack of driver care in this respect?

shaun_from_Africa

alastairq wrote: »

Outside of certain specific areas of the country, there is little or no enforcement of regulations regarding obvious things like lights, tyres and stuff.

But if drivers of 1+ ton lumps of metal that can and do kill people of a very regular basis need enforcement to ensure that basic things such as lights and tyres are safe, then IMO, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the drivers seat of a vehicle.

alastairq wrote: »

This is the real point of the advice.....which seems to be politely appealing, for drivers to check their own vehicles regularly, rather than waiting for the MoT.[then complaining at the cost?]...because the accident causes seem to evidence a lack of driver care in this respect? .

Advice such as that given in the article has been available for decades.
It is in the Highway code, newspapers, TV adverts, car magazines, adverts in petrol stations, and in car owners manuals.
I think that in this day and age, if someone still doesn't know or care about ensuring that their vehicle is safe to drive, no amount of "polite appealing" to them will make the slightest bit of difference.

BeenThroughItAll

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But if drivers of 1+ ton lumps of metal that can and do kill people of a very regular basis need enforcement to ensure that basic things such as lights and tyres are safe, then IMO, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the drivers seat of a vehicle.


Advice such as that given in the article has been available for decades.
It is in the Highway code, newspapers, TV adverts, car magazines, adverts in petrol stations, and in car owners manuals.
I think that in this day and age, if someone still doesn't know or care about ensuring that their vehicle is safe to drive, no amount of "polite appealing" to them will make the slightest bit of difference.

Exactly. It's mostly not because they don't know, but because they don't care.

Strider590

People fear taking their car to garages, because they think they'll get ripped off, and so a lot cars are driving around in unsafe condition, with little/no regular maintenance.

The real problem is the garages they trust are the garages that do rip people off, they're the ones with the large advertising budgets, fancy signs out front and a cosy waiting rooms.

People have also come to think of the MOT as being a measure of the cars condition, rather than it's conformance to basic safety standards.

We're not going to get out of this rut until certain garages stop ripping people off and THAT is never going to happen.

Jackmydad

Too many motorists or drivers (perhaps car operators would be a better term) just want to treat their cars as a sort of appliance to get from one place to another.
Minimal input of any sort on their part. An extension of their living room.
"Ooh look it's raining, snowing, freezing outside. What is that funny noise?"
It will only get worse.

Pincher

It's fundamentally how you treat your mule, if you were living a hundred years ago.

Buy an old one cheap, abuse it until it dies from extreme suffering, then flog it to a knacker's yard.

If you are rich, you ride a stallion that costs far more than a peasant can afford, and then look down on them for abusing their mule in disgust.

Fun thing is, the modern mule can have a brake failure, and kills the abuser.
Unfortunately, it tends kill a bystander or two as well.