Should We Get Rid of the Required Yearly MOT Test?

marlot

anotheruser wrote: »

...
But it begs the question, should the requirement of a MOT test be dropped?
...

Not having an MOT is a fairly trivial offence in law - a fine, but no points.

The law is sensible enough to recognise that the real offence is driving with a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

My take: given the number of people I meet with no mechanical knowledge whatever, I'd rather their cars were tested annually.

Indeed, I'd love to go one step further and give all the drivers top-up training annually also.

bigadaj

Richard53 wrote: »

What percentage? Zero.


If speed in itself were dangerous, then Concorde would have been the most dangerous vehicle ever built.


In accidents in which speed is a factor, it is always speed relative to the vehicle's limitations and the road conditions.


I'm trying to think of a scenario where a vehicle has an accident caused by excessive speed, where the vehicle itself or the road conditions were not a factor, and I am struggling.

Vast majority of accidents are driver error, this far override any other factor.

abssorb

I guess that these days cars might feel like consumer products, but because of their nature they really are engineering.

Testing of equipment is a standard part of engineering process, both during development and use.

Planes, trains, automobiles, heating boilers, tools, electrical equipment. Anything that needs servicing will also need regular testing.

Physics can't be influenced by incentives

Nodding_Donkey

Strider590 wrote: »

For example most people stand on the brakes if they start to slide, worst thing you can do.

Wrong

Sometimes it is the right thing to do.

You can't just make blanket statements like that.

anotheruser

motorguy wrote: »

Speed limits on motorways were set back in the days of mk1 Ford Escorts...

Also, what percentage of accidents are caused purely by excess speed, rather than excess speed for the prevalent conditions

A good question but a better one might be "how worse are accidents at 80mph, than at 70mph?". I sort of think about the 30mph adverts... there's an 80% chance someone will survive being hit at 30.

But raising the limit won't change anything. People (generally won't change their driving habits no matter what the condition.

Car_54 wrote: »

And which other countries?

I would guess there is at least one country that doesn't have an MOT (or similar) requirement.

Tarambor wrote: »

HGV speed limits were increased last April by 25% on single carriageways from 40 to 50MPH and by 20% on dual carriageways from 50 to 60MPH. No increase in accidents.

But that doesn't mean all speed limits should be increased surely?
Why not just leave 10 minutes earlier. Bad planning (and thus being late) is the problem. Raising the limit isn't going to change the journey time massively.



It surprises me that many are saying "raise the speed limit" but then defending the yearly MOT.

Yes, we can all agree that speed itself doesn't kill. But how people deal with that speed is the problem. Many can't react quick enough at 70mph, let alone quicker. An extreme example is if cars physically didn't go quicker than 30mph, then I suspect the amount of road accidents would go down. Because the vehicle isn't going as quick, the driver has more time to react.

By extension, you can say speed kills though... but these days, I suppose you have to be exact in what you say, because people can't do the math and join the dots? Hmm.

AdrianC

anotheruser wrote: »

I would guess there is at least one country that doesn't have an MOT (or similar) requirement.

Large parts of the US have no test or a positively laughable one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

They also have a road death rate many times that of the UK.

System

boliston wrote: »

Surely an mot of 54.85 is not much more than many people pay for one tank of fuel

Not paid full price for years. Even my local Ford dealership offers MOTs for £30.

System

marlot wrote: »

My take: given the number of people I meet with no mechanical knowledge whatever, I'd rather their cars were tested annually.

Given the mileage many people do I'd rather they were inspected at the manufacturers service intervals. We have taxis around here that do 100,000 miles a year making the whole idea of the MOT laughable as a way of guaranteeing some kind of mechanical minimum standard.

Car_54

anotheruser wrote: »

I would guess there is at least one country that doesn't have an MOT (or similar) requirement.

But you originally said

"Perhaps a discount could be offered for those with a valid test certificate? I understand many people will leave their test and not bother, but surely it works like this in other countries?"

I'm sure there are many countries that don't have an MOT, but can you name one that offers a discount as an incentive for a voluntary test?

And a discount off what?

usernameisvalid

Tarambor wrote: »

Not paid full price for years. Even my local Ford dealership offers MOTs for £30.

MOT's here in NI are £30.50 and can only be done at government testing stations

We also don't MOT until 4 years old

I think it's a better system. There's no reason for the MOT centre to say you need work doing unless you do. No false MOTs issued either for a back hander