MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

MikeJXE

It's not just that it's drivers don't keep up with the Highway Code some deliberately break it. 

Crossing double whites, driving in hashed safety zones, jumping lights, driving too close, hogging a lane, using the wrong lane approaching a roundabout, using a phone when driving, speeding, not knowing how to join and leave a motorway. 

The times I see cars turning left into a junction and making the pedestrian thats trying to cross wait, I doubt it's deliberate it's more like they don't even know they should. 

SiliconChip

The_Unready said:

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

But it clearly is about cost as well as safety, from the BBC article the Department for Transport "...said delaying the first test for new vehicles could save motorists around £100m a year."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64318141

caprikid1

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.

Well that proves that the current MOT System and frequency is working then.

The_Unready

SiliconChip said:

The_Unready said:

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

But it clearly is about cost as well as safety, from the BBC article the Department for Transport "...said delaying the first test for new vehicles could save motorists around £100m a year."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64318141

I think you've misinterpreted my post. The proposal is clearly about cost. I am saying that cost should not be the determinate - it should be safety.

unforeseen

The_Unready said:

SiliconChip said:

The_Unready said:

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

But it clearly is about cost as well as safety, from the BBC article the Department for Transport "...said delaying the first test for new vehicles could save motorists around £100m a year."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64318141

I think you've misinterpreted my post. The proposal is clearly about cost. I am saying that cost should not be the determinate - it should be safety.

Is it more dangerous on the roads in NI where they only MOT new cars at the 4 year point? 
They have that data to work from and I'm guessing that the death rate for accidents involving cars less than 4 years isn't much/if any different to the mainland. 

MikeJXE

Safety obviously isn't top priority or smart motorways and all lane running would have been shut down as soon as it became apparent more lives were lost.

Safety isn't top priority or cyclists would have to have number plates so they could be punished for breaking the law. 

Slow moving vehicles need flashing yellow lights, horses don't 

Herzlos

MikeJXE said:

Cars are not dangerous drivers are 

Both can be. A car with worn brakes and bald tyres is dangerous even if Lewis Hamilton was driving it. So whilst I agree that driving standards are terrible in the UK, that doesn't mean we can ignore mechanical standards.

Whilst I don't see mechanical defects in the top 10 lists of accident causes, I suspect that the vehicle state will contribute to a few of them, like loss of control (11%) - it's going to be easier to lose control of a car with bad tyres, loose steering, defective brakes, etc.

The same issues will make avoiding an accident harder, and stuff like faulty instruments and lights are also likely to lead to more accidents.

It looks like about 40% of cars fail their MOT on the first attempt, likely with lots of preventative stuff like broken bulbs, worn tyres etc. Given a failure rate that high, can you imagine letting those cars continue another year in that state?

diystarter7

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. 

Hi
You have saved me the posting this, 100% agree with you.

At times when people are at the gagre for mot, they often consider or get a service and skipping a service at times may save money short term but cost more longer term

Thanks

diystarter7

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 

Sadly the unsafe drivers will remain inc the idiots using a mobile phone illeaglly at the wheel etc - so would you be happy to see mots at 4/6 years and often some cars can easily cover 100k in 4 years - incredilbe really when you think about it

Grey_Critic

Herzlos said:

It looks like about 40% of cars fail their MOT on the first attempt, likely with lots of preventative stuff like broken bulbs, worn tyres etc. Given a failure rate that high, can you imagine letting those cars continue another year in that state?

That of course ignores how many are fixed BEFORE the test. Used to be that people booked their cars in for a Pre-MOT  test and so got it repaired before the test - does that still happen? No doubtb that some will have exhausts and tyres done before the test - and then fail on something else.

Only need to look in the local press to see how many are priosecuted for no tax - insurance and MOT - and there are more driving around than get caught.