Should We Get Rid of the Required Yearly MOT Test?

Herzlos

If the premise is that motorways should be faster because cars are safer, you need to ensure the cars are safer.

Why not apply an 80mph speed limit to cars with a MOT within 6 months. You get your MOT done twice a year and you can drive at 8, you get it MOT'd every 12 months and you're stuck at 70.

almillar

Speed limits on motorways were set back in the days of mk1 Ford Escorts with drum brakes, no ABS, no servos and narrow little tyres.

Of course, these cars still exist, and could be driving our roads. The Ford Anglia (?) upon which the braking distances you learn are based, could still be on the road. As could even older cars which perform even worse. Braking distances for your car may be a lot shorter, but we still learn this old one, and people still drive into the back of each other!

Anyway, MOT. No it shouldn't be scrapped. There are plenty of people who ignore servicing schedules and pay no attention whatsoever to car maintenance until they are legally obliged to, via MOT. The quality of cars on the road would become worse, hubs and suspension components would fail, and more crashes would happen.

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

And from my observations, every time I'm in GB, I see older cars, in worse condition. Maybe it's just my imagination...

GothicStirling

I may be a little smug as my car passed its MOT first time with no advisories (2009 Toyota IQ). I'm all for yearly MOTs, because a lot of the time we don't realise that our cars are developing serious faults, and aren't road worth. An MOT gives us the heads up, or advisory to get minor problems fixed before they become major problems. Which is what happened to me this year. Three advisories in 2016 (one of them the brake pads), got the jobs done, pass straight away.

oldagetraveller

Brake pads nearing their minimum thickness should be spotted, noted and/or rectified during routine servicing whether d.i.y. or elsewhere! A M.O.T. test is not there in place of said servicing.
Also, any potential or existing serious, or minor problems should be spotted at routine servicing and not as a m.o.t. advisory or fail.

boliston

Herzlos wrote: »

If the premise is that motorways should be faster because cars are safer, you need to ensure the cars are safer.

Why not apply an 80mph speed limit to cars with a MOT within 6 months. You get your MOT done twice a year and you can drive at 8, you get it MOT'd every 12 months and you're stuck at 70.

The DRIVER is the weak link in the equation - however "safe' the car might be you will get idiots who have no idea of safe driving so the speed limit needs to be set for the most stupid driver NOT the safest driver.

System

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Wrong

Sometimes it is the right thing to do.

You can't just make blanket statements like that.

Yes you can. If the tyres have stopped rotating and you're sliding down the road you're both simultaneously exceeding the braking capabilities of the tyres and removing the ability to steer the vehicle.

Say I'm wrong, please do and I'll point you to the fact that ABS which stops wheels from locking up completely has been mandatory on all new cars for a few years and mandatory on all HGVs for over a decade.

AdrianC

Tarambor wrote: »

Yes you can. If the tyres have stopped rotating and you're sliding down the road you're both simultaneously exceeding the braking capabilities of the tyres and removing the ability to steer the vehicle.

Say I'm wrong, please do and I'll point you to the fact that ABS which stops wheels from locking up completely has been mandatory on all new cars for a few years and mandatory on all HGVs for over a decade.

You're absolutely right... BUT...

Sometimes locked wheels DO stop a vehicle quicker than unlocked. It's only in very specific, relatively unusual conditions... Basically, on very loose surfaces, a wedge builds up in front of a locked wheel, while a rotating wheel will roll over the start of that wedge.

onomatopoeia99

Tarambor wrote: »

Far better would be a system which made servicing to the manufacturers schedule mandatory. It would mean cars had to be serviced as the manufacturer intended and couldn't do starship mileage between inspections.

Two of my cars are kit cars. What manufacturer schedule would that be then?

Another is 49 years old and has spent the last few years off road so has done zero miles. It hasn't had the manufacturer scheduled six monthly services in that time either. Not that the manufacturer would service it anyway, since the "manufacturer" nowadays following various mergers and takeovers is technically Peugeot (it's a Singer), and I use Castrol R in the engine so no garage would put the right oil in as it's not trivial to get hold of.

And how do you deal with people like me that service some or all of their own vehicles? I don't have a stamp for the service book, not that it matters as my newest car is 15 years old and the book is long since filled, and I don't invoice myself on headed notepaper for my efforts, so you've just got my word that I've done it.

AdrianC

...and then there's the minor detail of improvements in lubricants making longer oil changes possible.

On the flip side, there's manufacturers lengthening service intervals despite no change in the actual component. I can think of one steering component that was unchanged in 40+ years of production, yet the service interval quadrupled.

RickRastardly

The argument that some people do more miles and others is a mute point, its a criminal offence to drive a dangerous vehicle, MOT certificate or not. If during an accident you kill or injure someone because a of lack of maintenance on your own vehicle, expect the magistrates to throw the book at you.