MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

MikeJXE

Herzlos said:

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?

Lewis Hamilton wouldn't be driving it he would check the tyres and brake wear before he got in the car

All it takes is a walk round your car and a visual inspection before you drive off, a few seconds, it's the basics of being safe on the road 

diystarter7

Grey_Critic said:

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.

If the government really wanted to reduce the number of dangerous drivers/cheats etc that willfully ignore the mot/roadtax/insurance etc, thet gov could easily give web access to all just like the road tax and mot checks atm and let lawful drivers/people report those that are willfully driving around in untaxed/uniusred cars etc,

People do forget and i have always bought a 12 month road tax and re mot, you can forget but i set up reminders if required when/if current car is three years old.

A one stop data base for mot/tax and insurance would be great along with a public data base of those that are banned and IMO we would have slight safer roads/public.  

Re the mot, other than number 10 trying to look good, I am not sure how it helps anyone.

Thanks

The_Unready

The_Unready said:

» show previous quotes

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."

I don't know the point you're trying to make. I don't have the stats for NI, and I suspect you don't either. You suggest that 'they' do, however, but irrespective of what the stats show 'they' have decided to implement a 4-year-from-new MOT rule.

Neither you nor I know whether or not the stats show that there are 3 more deaths and 10 more serious injuries in NI by having a four year instead of a three year rule (you can pick your own numbers; mine are for illustration only). The point that I'm trying to make is that in NI 'they' have decided that those figures are acceptable, a decision presumably based on a number of factors. What I'm saying is that the safety factor should be paramount in making decisions such as these, and not factors such as cost.

A recent (not overly scientific) study has shown, and I paraphrase, that the UK population has a higher degree of acceptance of deaths and injuries on the roads than they have for other causes of death and injury (from plane crashes or murder, for instance). This shouldn't be acceptable, but it's usually only when an individual is directly affected by the death or serious injury of a relative or friend that attitudes change.

So, I refer to my earlier question: how many deaths are acceptable on the road? One, ten, one hundred, one thousand (noting that the actual annual deaths figure is always more than this)?

Grey_Critic

diystarter7 said:

A one stop data base for mot/tax and insurance would be great along with a public data base of those that are banned and IMO we would have slight safer roads/public.

For tax and MOT you can check on the DVLA website.

Strange people need to be reminded about Tax/MOT/Insurance yet they are very much on the ball if it is something owed to them.

MikeJXE

diystarter7 said:

Grey_Critic said:

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.

If the government really wanted to reduce the number of dangerous drivers/cheats etc that willfully ignore the mot/roadtax/insurance etc, thet gov could easily give web access to all just like the road tax and mot checks atm and let lawful drivers/people report those that are willfully driving around in untaxed/uniusred cars etc,

People do forget and i have always bought a 12 month road tax and re mot, you can forget but i set up reminders if required when/if current car is three years old.

A one stop data base for mot/tax and insurance would be great along with a public data base of those that are banned and IMO we would have slight safer roads/public.  

Re the mot, other than number 10 trying to look good, I am not sure how it helps anyone.

Thanks

I totally agree we should be able to report unsafe cars and drivers on a database 

People do forget because it's not important enough to remember, what's easier to forward date on a calendar when your insurance, tax or mot is due 

I have a dashcam and appalled at the videos I show my kids about reckless drivers and I only do 6000 miles a year now 

There are some police areas but not all where you can upload videos so why not all 

Yes it's all about votes 

Goudy

I don't think there is anything wrong with a cars first MOT after 4 years and would welcome them if they were more stringent.

Maybe even a fix and fine or crush option if cars failed on 2 or 3 majors.

Might help keep the death traps off the road and focus owners attention on regular maintainance.

Fines could be used to fund on road spot checks of "visible safety", like tyres and lighting.

Car_54

The_Unready said:

The_Unready said:

» show previous quotes

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."

I don't know the point you're trying to make. I don't have the stats for NI, and I suspect you don't either. You suggest that 'they' do, however, but irrespective of what the stats show 'they' have decided to implement a 4-year-from-new MOT rule.

No, 'they' haven't. decided anything.

'They' have simply launched a consultation to seek views on the proposal, see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-date-of-the-first-mot-test-and-research-into-other-mot-enhancements

Many (most?) such proposals come to nothing.

The_Unready

Car_54 said:

The_Unready said:

The_Unready said:

» show previous quotes

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."

I don't know the point you're trying to make. I don't have the stats for NI, and I suspect you don't either. You suggest that 'they' do, however, but irrespective of what the stats show 'they' have decided to implement a 4-year-from-new MOT rule.

No, 'they' haven't. decided anything.

'They' have simply launched a consultation to seek views on the proposal, see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-date-of-the-first-mot-test-and-research-into-other-mot-enhancements

Many (most?) such proposals come to nothing.

Thanks for the clarification (although it should really have been in response to 'unforeseen's' post as he/she provided the original info on the position in NI. I, obviously foolishly, assumed that he/she had the correct facts).

prowla

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

If it saved me £100m/year, I'd be all for it!

born_again

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

Just how many garages will close due to less MOT's to test. Thus costing government a lot more.

Nothing wrong wit it as now. Clearly from posts in this & other sections here. Many people seem to think that a MOT is checking that everything is OK. Rather than just the basic check it is.

Wonder just what the cost will be the the emergency services who will be picking up the pieces from this cost saving will be? Or to motorists in increased insurance costs.