MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

Car_54

Marvel1 said:

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

No, only for those with 3-year-old-plus cars.

Those who buy new cars - and replace them regularly - won't be affected.

Car_54

Martin_the_Unjust said:

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.

So, are you proposing to make it compulsory for motorists to spend the saving on training? If not, how many do you expect would do it if it were voluntary?

Also, bear in mind that the government are positioning this proposal as a contribution to offsetting the cost of living, i.e. to be spent on energy/food/whatever ...

Martin_the_Unjust

Car_54 said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

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.

So, are you proposing to make it compulsory for motorists to spend the saving on training? If not, how many do you expect would do it if it were voluntary?

Also, bear in mind that the government are positioning this proposal as a contribution to offsetting the cost of living, i.e. to be spent on energy/food/whatever ...

No I’m not proposing that, what I’m suggesting is that, if we believe that it’s cost effective or necessary to reduce accidents then there may be better ways than sticking rigidly to a (possibly) outdated MOT model, one example of which could be driver training.

sevenhills

Grey_Critic said:

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.

Yes, great to have sensors telling you a light is out.
I drive a minibus which is required to be inspected every 12 weeks. So testing a car after four years would seem strange.

Herzlos

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.

Good point; the number of dangerous cars must be higher than that. There's certainly a lot of people who don't care about the state of their car as long as it passes an MOT.

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!

How can it not be an increased risk? An MOT forces a car to be safe (with a very low bar) at least once a year.
With the MOT every other year, that same car is only forced to be safe once every other year.
Cars degrade over time, particularly wear and tear items so will naturally have deteriorated more in 2 years than 1.

A tyre that's just under the 1.6mm tread may fail an MOT in the first year, but could concievably down to exposed wires by the 2nd years MOT.

You need to view safety legislation from the point of view of the worst case, and not the average driver. For your average driver who does regular checks, gets their car serviced and gets any suspicious noises checked out as they occur, then an MOT every other year isn't a big deal. But for those that pay no attention to their car, don't service it and get the absolute minimum done to pass an MOT - do you want them to be able to ignore issues for twice as long?

Technically having a car that's not roadworthy is already an offense so the MOT status is largely irrelevant, but that requires actual police officers checking cars and they are already grossly understaffed and underfunded as it is, so there's unlikely to be any improvement there.


If they were to move the MOT to every other year and double the cost (keeping the annual cost the same), and spent that extra money on agents to inspect/identify unsafe cars, then I could more or less get behind that idea.

Longwalker

prowla said:

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.
  

Why do you need an MOT to know your tyres need replacing?

You do not need an MOT to know your car needs maintaining 

sevenhills

Longwalker said:

prowla said:

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.
  

Why do you need an MOT to know your tyres need replacing?

You do not need an MOT to know your car needs maintaining 

Can the average Joe inspect a car to MOT standard?

Longwalker

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.

How exactly is increasing the length of time for new cars going to make a situation worse?

NI have 4 years for new cars, they also have been letting off cars having MOTs for the past three years because of the trouble they have with MOT centres - in Northern Ireland you can only get an MOT at a government Test Centre. - about a dozen thought the Provence . Just before the lockdowns, they found the lifts in all centres were suffering fatigue so couldn't be used. Then the lockdowns, centres shut. At the moment most people who are due an MOT are waiting 6 months past the due date. The insurance companies are still covering cars and the police do not send fixed penalties - as long as the MOT is booked

So right now there is an extremely high proportion of cars on the road that are not covered by MOTs

Oh and did you also know that in Northern Ireland, diesel cars are not tested for emissions ? 

An MOT is a government stealth tax, thats all. You can pass your MOT and come straight out of the centre, have a prang, but hey, your MOT covers you - car may no longer be road worthy but until you take that car back to a centre as far as the DVLA are concerned - its road worthy for a year.

How many people honestly prang their car and think " oh I best go get an MOT? to ensure its road worthy "

MOT in NI is only £35 btw

Longwalker

sevenhills said:

Longwalker said:

prowla said:

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.
  

Why do you need an MOT to know your tyres need replacing?

You do not need an MOT to know your car needs maintaining 

Can the average Joe inspect a car to MOT standard?

A friend of mine failed his MOT for having an emergency petrol cap 

Car was perfectly road worthy, still failed an MOT

I take my car in, they check the lights, horn, wipers, water bottles, tyres - all things Joe should know- then they check the brakes - something Joe should also know - hes the one using them every day.

Then up on the lift for a manual inspection of the underside. I cant imagine a 4 year old car is going to be needing springs, new shock absorbers or steering column 

The majority of fails at MOT centres are because of modifications, or not maintaining the basics, the things you should always check before driving - or at least once a week

35har1old

I usually have my car serviced prior to MOT With the lockdowns when i booked my car in for MOT i phoned my usual garage and was surprised when they told me the car had not been serviced for over 2 years. I actually thought they had made a mistake until i checked my bank statements which confirmed they where correct. They carried out the service and found nothing else outside what was required in a service it passed MOT with no problems car is 10 years old