MOT proposals could see new cars tested after four years

sevenhills

You only need to stand at the side of a main road during darkness. How many vehicles will pass you, untill you see one without a light out.

Longwalker

sevenhills said:

You only need to stand at the side of a main road during darkness. How many vehicles will pass you, untill you see one without a light out.

So you need an MOT to tell you that???

I get in my car in the morning , I can see the headlights on the garage door ( I park on the drive ) . I have to reverse off the drive onto the slip before making it onto the main road.  I can see if Im missing a light straight away

I spent a lot of money on my car ( and all the ones before )  Of course I maintain it. I know sod all about cars, but I know when my brakes dont "feel" right, or if the car is veering to either side. Or making any weird noises.  When that happens I pull into my local mechanic, say whats bothering me and let someone who knows whats hes doing check it out for me 

The_Unready

The forum 'Quote' function seems to be playing up for me at the mo, so here's a new reply instead:

Longwalker said:

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

It's really not rocket science, but let me try to help you understand by way of an example.

Let's say that by 35 months after first registration a car has developed one or more tyre safety issues (tread depth, for example) that, for whatever reason, the owner/driver/keeper either doesn't know about or doesn't care about.

These issues would be picked up at the car's first MOT after 36 months, and whether the owner/driver/keeper likes it or not he would have to fix them to be able to continue driving.

One month of an unsafe care on the roads is bad enough in itself, but if the first MOT was only to occur after 48 months then, on the assumption that the owner/driver/keeper remains unwilling to change the tyre(s), there is potentially an additional 12 months of the unsafe car being driven on the roads - ie, an additional 13 months instead of one month.

There may not be hundreds of thousands of cars in this situation, but it only takes one car and one negligent owner/driver/keeper to mean that a four-year MOT rule is, by definition, introducing a worse situation (in terms of general road user safety) than the current three-year rule.

Simples.

Longwalker

The_Unready said:

The forum 'Quote' function seems to be playing up for me at the mo, so here's a new reply instead:

Longwalker said:

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

It's really not rocket science, but let me try to help you understand by way of an example.

Let's say that by 35 months after first registration a car has developed one or more tyre safety issues (tread depth, for example) that, for whatever reason, the owner/driver/keeper either doesn't know about or doesn't care about.

These issues would be picked up at the car's first MOT after 36 months, and whether the owner/driver/keeper likes it or not he would have to fix them to be able to continue driving.

One month of an unsafe care on the roads is bad enough in itself, but if the first MOT was only to occur after 48 months then, on the assumption that the owner/driver/keeper remains unwilling to change the tyre(s), there is potentially an additional 12 months of the unsafe car being driven on the roads - ie, an additional 13 months instead of one month.

There may not be hundreds of thousands of cars in this situation, but it only takes one car and one negligent owner/driver/keeper to mean that a four-year MOT rule is, by definition, introducing a worse situation (in terms of general road user safety) than the current three-year rule.

Simples.

And once again, you are bringing up every day car maintenance/wear and tear up. If a driver does not know when their tyres are done they should not be on the road - simples, You learn all this stuff when you learn to drive, Tyre pressure, thread depth, where to put in oil, fill the water bottles etc

You have not shown how those in NI manage on MOTs after 4 years, nor how the NI MOT doesn't even deal with diesel emissions, nor that you can legally drive without an MOT

You are mistaking general car maintenance for ensuring the car is legally on the road

NI are proving they dont care too much about the MOT status of a car, unless the police have nowt better to do on a weekend and set stings on bank holidays when they open up the MOT centres and pull in all cars with any modifications at all ( Hell man in the street can wait 6 months for his MOT cos his car hasn't been messed about with, but mod your car - well there you go - a personal MOT just for you - with a police escort )

Herzlos

Longwalker said:

sevenhills said:

You only need to stand at the side of a main road during darkness. How many vehicles will pass you, untill you see one without a light out.

So you need an MOT to tell you that???

Going by the number of cars with broken lights it would appear so.

The point of an MOT isn't to tell you stuff needs maintained, it's to catch the people who don't want to maintain their car and keep dangerous vehicles off the road. We all know people who we wouldn't trust to maintain a car without an annual check-up.

I agree that people who can't/won't look after their cars shouldn't be on the road, but how do you enforce that?

Given an MOT costs less than half a tank of petrol, I don't really think it's a stealth tax. It's a safety thing where the owner pays the admin. They could make MOT tests completely free but it'd need to come out of the general tax pot and need paid by everyone anyway.

Longwalker

Herzlos said:

Longwalker said:

sevenhills said:

You only need to stand at the side of a main road during darkness. How many vehicles will pass you, untill you see one without a light out.

So you need an MOT to tell you that???

Going by the number of cars with broken lights it would appear so.

The point of an MOT isn't to tell you stuff needs maintained, it's to catch the people who don't want to maintain their car and keep dangerous vehicles off the road. We all know people who we wouldn't trust to maintain a car without an annual check-up.

I agree that people who can't/won't look after their cars shouldn't be on the road, but how do you enforce that?

Given an MOT costs less than half a tank of petrol, I don't really think it's a stealth tax. It's a safety thing where the owner pays the admin. They could make MOT tests completely free but it'd need to come out of the general tax pot and need paid by everyone anyway.

It is a stealth tax

I pay for a service every year. MOT £35, service £120

With my service  I get the filters changed, oil change etc - advised how long I might have left on tyres and brake pads. 

So I pay my £120, service at a main dealership, week later Im up for MOT. £35 and I fail because a bulb blew on my way up.

Your MOT is only valid for the precise moment it is issued. Yes I do understand its valid for a year, but who's to say a bulb doesn't blow heading out of the MOT centre?  You are no longer road legal, but hell your MOT issued 10 mins before says you are

And you dont think thats a stealth tax?

Theres a few people on this thread that are mistaking an MOT and road worthiness 

Thankfully Ive never failed an MOT. I look after my cars, they cost a lot of money plus I personally dont want to drive a heap of junk 

Id rather pay the equivalent cost of a tank getting my car serviced annually. 

Oh BTW, my first MOT is due next month, the date Ive got is March and a 40 mile round trip. However Im perfectly legal as long as my car is road worthy, to carry one driving with full insurance cover

So forgive me if I believe its a stealth tax ( Im old enough to remember when your car had to be 10 years old before its first MOT )

Grey_Critic

***Im old enough to remember when your car had to be 10 years old before its first MOT***

And there were a lot of failures - the fact is people do not check levels/tyres/lights things deteriorate over time, brakes not as efficient, steering not so precise, that annoying squeak we have got used to - we get questions on here asking do I need to service my car as I have only done 3,000 miles this year - that should answer the question should it be 4 years - So many experts but what was the figure quoted 40% failure rate on first MOT. Perhaps it would be better is it was every year from the start.

sevenhills

Grey_Critic said:

And there were a lot of failures - the fact is people do not check levels/tyres/lights things deteriorate over time, brakes not as efficient, steering not so precise, that annoying squeak we have got used to - we get questions on here asking do I need to service my car as I have only done 3,000 miles this year - that should answer the question should it be 4 years - So many experts but what was the figure quoted 40% failure rate on first MOT. Perhaps it would be better is it was every year from the start.

And then there are the illegal extras that people purposely add to their car.
Those LED lights, wide wheels and tyres, illegal tints etc 

35har1old

Longwalker said:

The_Unready said:

The forum 'Quote' function seems to be playing up for me at the mo, so here's a new reply instead:

Longwalker said:

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

It's really not rocket science, but let me try to help you understand by way of an example.

Let's say that by 35 months after first registration a car has developed one or more tyre safety issues (tread depth, for example) that, for whatever reason, the owner/driver/keeper either doesn't know about or doesn't care about.

These issues would be picked up at the car's first MOT after 36 months, and whether the owner/driver/keeper likes it or not he would have to fix them to be able to continue driving.

One month of an unsafe care on the roads is bad enough in itself, but if the first MOT was only to occur after 48 months then, on the assumption that the owner/driver/keeper remains unwilling to change the tyre(s), there is potentially an additional 12 months of the unsafe car being driven on the roads - ie, an additional 13 months instead of one month.

There may not be hundreds of thousands of cars in this situation, but it only takes one car and one negligent owner/driver/keeper to mean that a four-year MOT rule is, by definition, introducing a worse situation (in terms of general road user safety) than the current three-year rule.

Simples.

And once again, you are bringing up every day car maintenance/wear and tear up. If a driver does not know when their tyres are done they should not be on the road - simples, You learn all this stuff when you learn to drive, Tyre pressure, thread depth, where to put in oil, fill the water bottles etc

You have not shown how those in NI manage on MOTs after 4 years, nor how the NI MOT doesn't even deal with diesel emissions, nor that you can legally drive without an MOT

You are mistaking general car maintenance for ensuring the car is legally on the road

NI are proving they dont care too much about the MOT status of a car, unless the police have nowt better to do on a weekend and set stings on bank holidays when they open up the MOT centres and pull in all cars with any modifications at all ( Hell man in the street can wait 6 months for his MOT cos his car hasn't been messed about with, but mod your car - well there you go - a personal MOT just for you - with a police escort )

The reason for not doing a diesel emissions test is driven by health and safety at work rules applying to the government run test centers. 

Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) workers, instead, do “a visual inspection” for toxic fumes and check for engine malfunction lights say the Department of Infrastructure.

While lorries, vans and buses get a “fully compliant” emissions test, DfI bosses said: “The reintroduction of a full emissions test for cars and light goods vehicles under 3,500kgs, will require a substantial capital investment in the vehicle testing estate to create a safe environment for staff and customers, in which an emissions test for diesel cars and light goods vehicles can be conducted.”

NI drivers have to have there MOT carried out in these government test centers. When covid struck the test centers where closed

and also they suffered from hydraulic lift defects which are needed to check the undersides of cars. This resulted in MOT certificates being extended. there is still a backlog waiting to be tested and when you receive your reminder and if  you immediately try to book a appointment you are lucky to get one 2 mths after when your car was due and it might not be you local test center you have to take this appointment and then you have to visit the booking website  daily in the hope of getting a cancellation I did manage to get one within the time but had to travel. Around trip of 48 miles. ON the subject of police escort your are informed in you reminder letter that the police will not pursue any cases where you have a valid appointment made for your MOT this letter also states that you should discuss this with your car insurance company.

Money_Grabber13579

unforeseen said:

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. 

I’m from NI and I would be indifferent as to whether the first test is at 3 or 4 years. Any modern car should be capable of getting to 4 years and unless people do high mileage, brakes, suspension etc should still be good at 4 years. The most common thing for a 3-4 year old car to fail on is likely to be tyres but unless cars are tested every week, that’s always going to happen with people who never check them.

It’s the proposed move to 2 year testing which I would object to. When our MOT tests were cancelled during covid (I think I went for 29 months between MOTs at that point), the increase in the number of cars I saw on the road at that time with no functioning brake lights was staggering. We’ve now reverted back to annual MOTs again and it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen a car with no functioning brake lights.