MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

Martin_the_Unjust

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?

If you go down that route the only safe solution would be to ban all forms of transport other than walking.

But we live in a world where it is about cost (in its broadest sense) Would you be willing to reduce road accident deaths to zero at the cost of not being able to travel by vehicle?

diystarter7

Grey_Critic said:

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.

Hi

You decided to edit out the fact that I had already stated there was a database for mot and tax.

I'm not sure who or why you posted the second point as no one "owns" me anything and the reminders are fro myself as we have two cars, several properties and more and set up my self reminders as good practice to esnure I do not forget and get done for no mot/tax/insurance etc. 

Thanks

The_Unready

Martin_the_Unjust said:

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?

If you go down that route the only safe solution would be to ban all forms of transport other than walking.

But we live in a world where it is about cost (in its broadest sense) Would you be willing to reduce road accident deaths to zero at the cost of not being able to travel by vehicle?

The point I'm making is that 'we are where we are', and using that as a starting point we shouldn't now be putting into place legislation or guidance that would make that situation worse.

Martin_the_Unjust

The_Unready said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

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?

If you go down that route the only safe solution would be to ban all forms of transport other than walking.

But we live in a world where it is about cost (in its broadest sense) Would you be willing to reduce road accident deaths to zero at the cost of not being able to travel by vehicle?

The point I'm making is that 'we are where we are', and using that as a starting point we shouldn't now be putting into place legislation or guidance that would make that situation worse.

But you were not giving any reasoning or evidence to support your assertion that the proposal does make it worse, you were just spouting emotive nonsense.

The_Unready

Oh behave now! Are you just looking for an argument?

I've made my position clear on a number of occasions - it would be a bad thing to extend the MOT dates for new vehicles because of the increased risk of unsafe vehicles on the road that would, in turn, be likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries.

That's all there is to it, and I'm struggling to see how that can be disputed?

Martin_the_Unjust

The_Unready said:

Oh behave now! Are you just looking for an argument?

I've made my position clear on a number of occasions - it would be a bad thing to extend the MOT dates for new vehicles because of the increased risk of unsafe vehicles on the road that would, in turn, be likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries.

That's all there is to it, and I'm struggling to see how that can be disputed?

But how do you know it would be an increased risk! The evidence we have suggests that increase is negligible at best.

Wouldn’t be better to spend that money elsewhere where it would be more effective at reducing the risk.


PS you were the one who went off on a rant about parents, siblings etc 

Car_54

Martin_the_Unjust said:

The_Unready said:

Oh behave now! Are you just looking for an argument?

I've made my position clear on a number of occasions - it would be a bad thing to extend the MOT dates for new vehicles because of the increased risk of unsafe vehicles on the road that would, in turn, be likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries.

That's all there is to it, and I'm struggling to see how that can be disputed?

But how do you know it would be an increased risk! The evidence we have suggests that increase is negligible at best.

Wouldn’t be better to spend that money elsewhere where it would be more effective at reducing the risk.

What money? 

The DVSA is a self-funding agency, so the proposal should have no effect on the 'public purse' .

Any saving for the individual motorist (a massive £27.50 p.a.) is unlikely to be used to make a meaningful impact on road safety.

Marvel1

Save motorists £100 million a year - just for those who can afford a new car - ok then.

The_Unready

Martin_the_Unjust said:

The_Unready said:

Oh behave now! Are you just looking for an argument?

I've made my position clear on a number of occasions - it would be a bad thing to extend the MOT dates for new vehicles because of the increased risk of unsafe vehicles on the road that would, in turn, be likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries.

That's all there is to it, and I'm struggling to see how that can be disputed?

But how do you know it would be an increased risk! The evidence we have suggests that increase is negligible at best.

Wouldn’t be better to spend that money elsewhere where it would be more effective at reducing the risk.


PS you were the one who went off on a rant about parents, siblings etc 

Wot Car_54 said!

Martin_the_Unjust

Car_54 said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

The_Unready said:

Oh behave now! Are you just looking for an argument?

I've made my position clear on a number of occasions - it would be a bad thing to extend the MOT dates for new vehicles because of the increased risk of unsafe vehicles on the road that would, in turn, be likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries.

That's all there is to it, and I'm struggling to see how that can be disputed?

But how do you know it would be an increased risk! The evidence we have suggests that increase is negligible at best.

Wouldn’t be better to spend that money elsewhere where it would be more effective at reducing the risk.

What money? 

The DVSA is a self-funding agency, so the proposal should have no effect on the 'public purse' .

Any saving for the individual motorist (a massive £27.50 p.a.) is unlikely to be used to make a meaningful impact on road safety.

The money we spend getting MOT’s

……and an MOT cost up to £54 plus, as someone else has said that’s easily enough for an hours training which possibly would be far more effective at reducing accidents.