|
Those were the days,Vauxhall Cresta with rope round the inner back door handles because the locks had rusted away you could see the back wheels if you lifted the boot and the steering box not the wheels moved when stationary due to inner wing rust drove it for 6 months like that in my youth.Yes thank goodness for the MOT no matter how many faults it has.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/11/2008 at 10:31
|
|
|
Believe me the MOT test does mean something.
Strange, though, because the 'Ministry of Transport' disappeared long ago :-)
12 months' VOSA, anyone....!
|
Strange though because the 'Ministry of Transport' disappeared long ago :-)
The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (see tinyurl.com/6hdcyz) operates on behalf of the Secretary of State, and works to standards agreed with the Ministry for Transport, see tinyurl.com/5ajec7
Edited by L'escargot on 04/11/2008 at 09:45
|
|
|
I don't agree that MOTs mean nothing, but, they certainly aren't what most ill-informed motorists think they are.
For some reason, motorists who can't be bothered to read the MOT manual (inexcusable now it's online) seem to think an MOT is comprehensive and any small fault found after an MOT means the MOT was incorrectly passed - the cost of an MOT doesn't allow the inspection to be anywhere near comprehensive.
Of course, it's entirley possible to put a vehicle with safety critical faults through an MOT and correctly obtain a pass.
The requirements of the MOT begin to make more sense if, instead of thinking of it as 12 month's permission, carte blanche, to use the car on the road, it is thought of as a backup check to make sure that the vehicle is being well maintained - a quality control on servicing.
A car which is being well serviced and maintained will not have trouble with the MOT - only people who are already being unsafe by scrimping on maintenance attract failure items on the MOT.
I think the MOT is meaningful in this quality assurance role, and as such represents really good value for money.
Yes, the test includes many subjective points, and is by no means a complete safety check, but, to test with more scope and rigour would cost more, and take longer.
Yes, the test being carried out by garages does include an element of conflict of interest, BUT, any garage taking advantage of this will not be doing MOTs for long - people are very keen to complain to VOSA about MOT issues, and a garage who are being over-zealous (or too cavalier) will attract a visit from VOSA very quickly. As VOSA can stop MOT activity with immediate effect, it's not a visit to take lightly!
I'm happy with the status quo, and I wouldn't be happy to move to an almost Japanese system where the cost of the MOT renders good cars as worthless after a few years (doubtlessly, the SMMT would love the idea). In short, the MOT is an excellent compromise - it allows modified cars to be assessed without the rigid constraints of a German TUV type system, yet removes the real death traps from the road.
In short, I think we should celebrate the common sense combination of Construction and Use regulations, SVA, and the MOT which allow people the freedom to make modifications to cars, to build kit cars, to run cars into old age and classic status, while protecting road users from the worst dangers of poor design, construction, and maintenance.
|
In short, I think we should celebrate the common sense combination of Construction and Use regulations, SVA, and the MOT which allow people the freedom to make modifications to cars, to build kit cars, to run cars into old age and classic status, while >> protecting road users from the worst dangers of poor design, construction, and maintenance.
I could not agree more. We really are not badly off by the standards of many other countries.
The almost unique SVA regs are also what keep our small sports car and kit car manufacturers in business.
The current system isn't perfect, but it could be a heck of a lot worse.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
For some reason motorists who can't be bothered to read the MOT manual (inexcusable now it's online)
Lots of older motorists don't have access to a computer and aren't computer literate.
|
>>Lots of older motorists don't have access to a computer and aren't computer literate.
They could ask to see their MOT station's copy. The point was (and I'm sure you knew that really) that the information has never been easier to obtain.
|
Not only is it easier to obtain, it is also pretty comprehensive, and by applying a bit of brain-power, even a complete eedjit can work out the WHYS of the MOT.
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me to have somebody independent ensure that the car will stop in time, won't fall to bits, can be seen at night, and won't poison you/the atmosphere with a dodgy exhaust.
But, as has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum, there are many who see the MOT (and insurance/road tax/ drivers licenses) as yet another piece of bureacracy which they will wilfully ignore.
|
amazes me the amount of drongos that think the mot is some kind of comprehensive service and fault fixing mission
"well my engine /clutch /gearbox shouldnt have failed it was only mot'd 8 months ago " and the like
|
In UK we have yearly MOT.
But in some EU countries, they have it every 2 years.
So, there is a probability that an MOT'd car from continent plying on UK roads which might have failed had it been tested in UK.
|
There are also a lot of 100,000+ mile, 2.something year old well hammered fleet hacks that have never been tested.
I still don't understand the three year exemption for new cars given what a modern car can do in three years. A former employer used to offload some of its engineers cars at 3 yrs old with 180,000 miles on the clock. Never been tested once and quite legally. Is this right?
|
>>Is this right?
I would be very surprised if the company skimped on servicing and repairs - after all, it legally has a duty of care to its employees. The cars would be serviced how many times in their 180,000 miles?
Yes, serious faults can and do happen during the first three years of a car's life, but, it's also during the first three years of a car's life when it is most likely to be well serviced and maintained, as opposed to the last three years of its life, when it might never be touched by a spanner.
So, as before, the situation isn't perfect, but is not a bad compromise. Would it really be a step change in motoring safety to abolish the 3 year rule? I think not.
|
>>Is this right?
Yes. Of course it is.
>>"a lot"
Exactly how many? As a proportion of cars on the roads. Would you require 3-monthly testing for cars over 10 years (say) old?
>>What a modern car can do in three years
A Hillman Minx could have done 100,000 miles in three years (pity the poor driver!), and just think what that might have been like. I don't understand why you focus on "modern" cars.
Cherry pickers, cranes and breakdown vehicles don't require MOTs at all.
|
I knew of a company which employed a team of sales reps. Those guys were issued with company cars. Their pay was made up of a basic salary plus commission but they could also earn bonuses. One of the bonus schemes was driven by keeping under their expenses budget. Resultantly with some of them the car maintenance was sketchy at best. I know for sure of cars which were run for three years and up to 100k with no servicing or maintenance at all other than tyres and cheap tyres at that.
I suppose if you inadvertantly give relatively low paid people a method of topping up their income, some of them will take it. Others kept their cars very well of course.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 04/11/2008 at 11:49
|
Yes, these cars were impeccably maintained, and often in surprisingly good shape. There were no safety issues on them as such. However, health and safety implications apart, this was down to company policy / diligence, and not the law.
My point was more general. This is an inspection designed to act as a 'safety net' for cars which are not properly maintained by owners, yet it does not take into account mileage for the first three years. Of course, a 3yr old 36,000 average miler should be reasonably safe whatever kind of life it's led, but that surely can't apply to the same aged car with 5x the mileage.
|
>>and not the law.
I don't agree DP. There is a legal backstop behind all of this, which is that a vehicle's safety is the responsibility of the driver, and for company car use, I think (someone like DVD might be able to clarify) that there are also the associated offences of causing use and permiting use of unsafe vehicles, which would apply to the company and fleet manager.
The health and safety implications are fully met by the company adhering to the manufacturer's servicing schedule, and insisting upon some regular checking of lights, tyres, wipers, etc.
As I've mentioned above, the best way to see the MOT is *not* as a primary means of identifying defects on the vehicle. The identification and rectification of defects should be done by the combination of basic user checks, and the vehicle's planned servicing and maintenance regime. The MOT then provides a *secondary* check for older vehicles which are more likely to fall outside a proper maintenance program.
|
Difficult to know how best to assess these things though. For example, one of my cars is 6 years old. It has over 150k miles on it. The brake discs are all original as are the rear pads. The front pads were changed for the first time at 90k and are still fine. The clutch is original as is the exhaust. This is of course a function of the type of mileage this car does. Lots of long distance cruising with little brake use and few gear changes. It gets regular scheduled servicing but has never had anything changed other than the front pads and appropriate fluids/filters. Tyres of course have been replaced but that would be expected.
Conversely, a car which is younger and has only relatively low mileage may have spent its life in stop start conditions and may show more wear in certain areas as a result.
Tough call really.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 04/11/2008 at 12:11
|
How did I know we were going to end up with a thread like this just after Rattle buys a cheap Fiesta?!?
You buy a relatively sought-after car on the cheap, nine times out of ten you get a nail. Simple as that.
I would not consider a small car from one of the larger Euro manufacturers at under £700. Sorry but that't the way it is IMO.
|
|
In Northern Ireland only government testing stations can issue MOTs. If we had the same thing here then an awful lot of dangerous cars would be taken of the roads.
|
is 6 years old. It has over 150k miles on it. The brake discs are all original as are the rear pads. The front pads were changed for the first time at 90k and are still fine.
Humph, have you had the Mondeo since new, I mean do you know deffo that the discs are original? If so you must be a light braker.
Mine had new front discs and pads at about 60k miles of mostly motorway driving and again after another 45-50k (around 105k in total) of more local / A road driving, the rear pads were also done at about 60k and 105k though the rear discs are still going strong at 131k miles.
>>The clutch is original as is the exhaust. >>
Likewise.
|
Well, I've had it since 35k. So fair enough they might have been replaced before that but I would be mildly surprised.
Yes, I must admit I do make a bit of a sport of trying not to brake or thrash the transmission. Got to do something to while away the long journeys and speeding isn't really an option nowadays.....
Of course it could just be that I'm a very very good driver and others aren't but it's not for me to say of course.....sighs smugly....
;-)
|
So what should Rattle do with the Ford? It seems like he lost a £100 deposit on the Vauxhall that had a fault, before he bought this one.
I know his post seems more of a statement, than request for advice.. but..
|
|
|
They could ask to see their MOT station's copy.
How many people would think of doing (or even want to do) that? If you asked to see the MOT station's copy it would more than likely put their backs up (they'd think you were checking up on them) and would result in the most severe criticsm of your car that they could come up with. Let sleeping dogs lie is my motto in circumstances like an MOT test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
