MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

Grey_Critic

What do you think - Good idea or a recipe for disaster?

MikeJXE

4 year test from new should be ok

It's the proposed 2 year between test I don't like although I have a 6 year old car

Have you seen the junk on the road lately ? 

The_Unready

No thank you. DVSA data from 2021 found that "13% of three-year-old cars failed their first legally required safety check last year, the equivalent of over 280,000 cars".

The roads are already dangerous enough for vulnerable road users without adding to the problem!

https://myessentialfleet.co.uk/dvsa-data-reveals-13-of-three-year-old-cars-failed-their-first-legally-required-safety-check-last-year-the-equivalent-of-over-280000-cars-in-2021/

MikeJXE

It doesn't specifically say what caused the fail. Guessing many are down to tyres, lights, wipers and windscreen chips mostly down to the driver not making sure he's safe on the road rather than the car being unsafe. 

The roads are only unsafe because of bad driving, cars need testing and so do drivers 

IMO we should all be tested every 10 years and older people over 70 every 3, I'm 82 btw 

Herzlos

It seems so many people rely on MOTs to do the most basic checks of their vehicles safety - so less frequent MOT's means more unsafe vehicles.

a new car not needing an MOT for 4 years means someone could break a headlight leaving the forecourt and it remain broken for 4 years.

I get the idea that it'll save the motorist a bit of money and reduce the pressure on testers, but I don't think the saving is worth the risk at all. Any remedial work would need done whether it's now or in a years time, and arguably it could potentially cost more if put off such as if brake pads are worn enough to damage the discs. So realistically it'd be saving drivers an MOT testing fee which is insignificant compared to the cost of living increases.

MikeJXE

Cars are not dangerous drivers are 

diystarter7

Hi
3 years is too long never mind 4.
A MoT should be every year and cars that have covered more than 60k miles should be tested every 9 months as more to go wrong
A mot is a preventative and imo does save some people from accidents related to the failure of a component.
Thanks

Grey_Critic

I recall someone I knew was handed a hire car when making a programme for the BBC. I cannot recall make/model but he described it as being like the Spaceship Enterprise with lights on the dash for everything.

I wonder if many people today rely on the lights on the dash to tell them if something is wrong.

During my time in the trade I came across a lot of people who never opened the bonnet or checked the tyres, some even sought out petrol stations where they put it in for them.

Bigwheels1111

In my old job a 4 year old car would have 200k on the clock.
My car had done 9000 miles on its first mot, would have failed its mot if the service guy had not fixed the issue.
The fault had been there since day one when I got the car.
One mot a tear is good.

Martin_the_Unjust

Of course it should, the MOT was introduced in its current state when cars were far less reliable and far more prone to rot etc etc.

Cars have improved out of all recognition since then, both in quality and reliability.

First one at four years and then every other seems eminently sensible to me.

marlot

Very few road collisions are caused by defective vehicles.

Most are caused by driver error.  If we really want to make the roads safer, we should be focusing more on the drivers.