MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

MikeJXE

marlot said:

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.

Totally agree, there are more unsafe drivers on the road than unsafe cars 

unforeseen

It's been 4 years from new in NI for years. They don't seem to have a problem with it

The_Unready

MikeJXE said:

marlot said:

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.

Totally agree, there are more unsafe drivers on the road than unsafe cars 

Nobody is disputing that, but it doesn't mean that we (society) should ignore other potential causes of death and KSIs and try to make the roads as safe as possible.

Martin_the_Unjust

The_Unready said:

MikeJXE said:

marlot said:

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.

Totally agree, there are more unsafe drivers on the road than unsafe cars 

Nobody is disputing that, but it doesn't mean that we (society) should ignore other potential causes of death and KSIs and try to make the roads as safe as possible.

There is a cost to MOT’s and is it the most effective use of that money is the discussion we should have.

Would it be better spent on driver training or retesting etc etc?

The_Unready

It's not about cost, it's about (potentially) saving lives and injuries.

How many deaths/KSIs caused by faulty vehicles is acceptable? One, ten, 100?

Who can be seen as 'expendable'. You, me, your wife/husband, my daughter, somebody else?

unforeseen

How many deaths/KSIs caused by faulty vehicles is acceptable? One, ten, 100?

In a perfect world none, but the world is far from perfect so there has to be a figure. That applies for any form of transport. 

There was a situation back in the 90s where BR/Network Rail were looking at an additional safety system. Once the numbers were crunched it was decided not to go ahead with it for the simple reason that the cost of implementing it was greater, by a factor of 10, than the payout for an accident that the safety system MAY have prevented.  That is the real world. 

prowla

As owner of three cars, I disagree with the plan:

• People with new cars (ie. 3 years old) can afford the test and, though you would expect the car to be mechanically sound, 3 years is about the time tyres may need replacing.
• Older cars need to be regularly maintained and tested to ensure roadworthiness; I typically do MOT + service.
  

marlot

The_Unready said:

It's not about cost, it's about (potentially) saving lives and injuries.

How many deaths/KSIs caused by faulty vehicles is acceptable? One, ten, 100?

Who can be seen as 'expendable'. You, me, your wife/husband, my daughter, somebody else?

And yet when I suggest that drivers should have more training, the objection is usually cost.

For the price of an MOT, we could have each driver spend an hour with a driving instructor, pointing out their bad habits.

As a minimum, we could have every driver resit their theory test from time to time. 

The_Unready

unforeseen said:

How many deaths/KSIs caused by faulty vehicles is acceptable? One, ten, 100?

In a perfect world none, but the world is far from perfect so there has to be a figure. That applies for any form of transport. 

There was a situation back in the 90s where BR/Network Rail were looking at an additional safety system. Once the numbers were crunched it was decided not to go ahead with it for the simple reason that the cost of implementing it was greater, by a factor of 10, than the payout for an accident that the safety system MAY have prevented.  That is the real world. 

That's OK, then. Let's just hope that it's not someone you care for that is killed as collateral damage in a cost-saving exercise.

tripled

An MOT test is currently £54.85, so the averaging saving per year would be just under £27.50. A tank of diesel is the best part of £100. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me check that a several ton lump of metal, often emitting toxic fumes, moving at potentially high speeds, and guided by someone of questionable competence, meets safety and emissions standards, at the cost of less than half a tank of fuel.

That being said, if there were no advisories on a test certificate, I can see an argument that it could be issued for two years. Particularly if the savings were used for other safety improvements - say driver training and/or re-testing every 10 years, or increasing VED and putting the extra revenue towards additional traffic policing or additional road improvements.