I have been relying on an annual MOT as part of my service regime so not a fan of changing. I doubt the garage industry or road safety people will be happy either. Gov clutching at straws and running out of ideas to save £50 every other year it will not happen. The sooner Grant Shapps leaves DOT the better he hasn't got a clue

35% of cars fail the MoT - some for trivial, but also major faults with braking, steering and suspension.

A cost of living crisis will inevitably increase the numbers who seek to avoid expenditure on car maintenance putting both themselves and other at risk. Less competent and/or knowledgeable car owners may be unaware that there is a fault!

We should stick to annual inspections - although there may be an argument to rethink the inclusion in the MoT of largely non-safety critical items to minimise costs.

Good point. Besides, saving people £54 a year, whilst nice would likely be gobbled up by a) one month's increase in their gas, electricity and especially car's fuel bill and leaving 2 years between MOTs would likely cause an increase in accidents (and thus the cost of them overall) due to dangerously worn parts such as lights, tyres, brakes and/or suspension.

Many people still use MOTs are a 'guide' to what they should have repaired on their car rather than use their own judgement via basic checks and a good mechanic to inspect and maintain it properly. My neighbour was lucky to have their passed its MOT after one of their tyres was within a small margin of being illegal (tread depth).

Easier way to save households over a 100 quid a year. Make the BBC manage on its own and abolish the licence fee.

Edited by Ethan Edwards on 27/04/2022 at 08:22

The Government taxes fuel, electricity and gas. Revenues rise as prices rise.

There is an obvious solution: but that would mean the Government would lose some extra revenues. Government is run by the Government for the Government. But paid for by voters.

Saving money on MOTs is irrelevant. The Energy Cap rise in April is £693 on average: 5% of that (roughly) is tax or c £35. And it is likely to increase a LOT more in October.

As a compromise, how about biennial tests from 3 years on, then annual from 10 years, when more serious defects and corrosion become common ? 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, ...

Agreed - almost. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12....... High milers who run new cars almost invariably have them serviced during the first four years.

And Sammy1 and like-minded others could stick to annual tests if they choose. Back in the 70s I worked with a risk-averse guy who had his Renault 5 tested every 6 months, just in case. Topped himself a few years later, sadly :-(

<< The car has to be re-tested every year. The driver, never. It is a classic case of looking at the wrong risk. If we really want to reduce death and serious injury, there are other risks we should be looking at. >>

It's not the 'wrong risk', as both risks should be considered. It's mainly that the car won't object to being tested at regular intervals, while the driver very probably would. And while the authorities can now detect cars on the road with expired MoTs, it is one way to keep up with those drivers who make little attempt to keep their cars roadworthy.

...

The annual MoT has them paying out £50 and any repairs needed to pass the test - what is wrong with that?

Of itself, nothing. But I'm pointing out that virtually all deaths and serious injuries are caused by driver error, not by vehicle defect.

The car has to be re-tested every year. The driver, never.

It is a classic case of looking at the wrong risk. If we really want to reduce death and serious injury, there are other risks we should be looking at.

I would say that whatever the stats, if someone neglects their car so that it has sufficient defects that are MOT fail items, the likelihood of them also being a careless or dangerous driver is, in my view, much higher than someone who properly maintains their car - irrespective of their financial means.

As many have sais, it's the attitude of the driver (i.e. owner) that makes the difference. That a car may also have bald tyres or defective brakes won't exactly help the situation even if it isn't the initial or main cause of the accident.

All for the sake of spending £54 on an MOT every year and about £200 on servicing. Often preventative maintenance reduces the cost of ownership because large faults don't occur or for several years, and can be negated or fixed at a far cheap price than to wait until they physically fail and/or the MOT.