What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
MOT frequency - galileo

Proposals to make MOTs less frequent assume that drivers have some enough sense to have their vehicle checked if they hear strange noises or notice steering or braking seeming abnormal.

In some states of the USA there no compulsory safety inspections are required: look on YouTube at "Just Rolled In" clips showing deathtraps driven in with serious faults that owners sometimes decline to be repaired.

MOT frequency - John F

The UK MoT is overprotective. There are too many 'faults' that render a car undriveable. This delights the garage trade.

Hardly any deaths or serious injuries are due to mechanical failure. The most common failure is depressurisation of a tyre. No amount of MoT inspection will stop careless insensitive people driving at high speed on a tyre with a slow puncture. The main cause of RTCs is the incompetence of the nut, sometimes under the influence of drugs (e.g. alcohol for the young, opiates for the arthritic old), behind the steering wheel.

MOT frequency - Terry W

That so few accidents are the result of mechanical failure demonstrates the effectiveness of the MoT regime in the UK.

I normally combine the MoT with an annual service - it is cheaper and less disruptive. I am happy to have the car I rely upon examined properly once every 12 months.

That some faults are more "social" (eg: emissions) rather than making the car less safe to drive, does not render rectification unnecessary.

MOT frequency - catsdad

I wonder whether advisories would be more seriously considered with a two year system. Currently some advisories I have seen are faults I would get sorted right away. Many people would leave them unaddressed for a further two years of deterioration.

I am we aware that advisories can disappear depending on what the tester picks up (or not) at the next MOT but a lot don’t.

Edited by catsdad on 29/03/2023 at 12:08

MOT frequency - Andrew-T

That so few accidents are the result of mechanical failure demonstrates the effectiveness of the MoT regime in the UK. ... I am happy to have the car I rely upon examined properly once every 12 months.

John-F's point is that the annual inspection ritual may be 'over-prescriptive' in the sense that if it were made biennial the failure rate for mechanical reasons might be little different. I believe the French operate a biennial system (? Focussed) which could give an indication, but as the French attitude to car ownership is rather different from ours, valid conclusions might be difficult.

But I agree that annual inspections are worthwhile, probably effective (on the whole) and combine easily with annual servicing, as required - as well as providing work for testing stations :-) It is probably good that drivers can be picked up for missing an annual test - i.e. forgetting to maintain their vehicle.

If the system were made biennial, owners could easily choose to test more often, as an erstwhile work colleague of mine used to have his Renault-5 tested every 6 months :-(

Edited by Andrew-T on 29/03/2023 at 12:13

MOT frequency - Engineer Andy

The problem is that neither the DVLA / DVLC (whichever is 'responsible') nor Plod ever seem to do anything when a car owner misses an MoT. A nera neighbour of mine didn't MoT their car for well over 6 months (maybe nearer 9) and...nothing done. Reporting them was nigh on impossible.

MOT frequency - Kekettykek

The Engine Management Light has to be one of the more dubious requirements of the MOT test. All vehicles have different criteria and sensitivity to make the light come on. As long as the emissions pass I don't see why it is needed.

Edited by Kekettykek on 31/03/2023 at 14:40

MOT frequency - RT

The Engine Management Light has to be one of the more dubious requirements of the MOT test. All vehicles have different criteria and sensitivity to make the light come on. As long as the emissions pass I don't see why it is needed.

Because the MoT emissions test is very basic, testing few of the pollutants - the EML will illuminate if any of the emission sensors detect a fault or out of range value.

MOT frequency - Warning

MOT history is particularly useful if buying a used car. Mileage history.

I know people who have never had their oil changed.

MOT frequency - Andrew-T

MOT history is particularly useful if buying a used car. Mileage history. I know people who have never had their oil changed.

Well, you won't learn that from the MoT history !

MOT frequency - madf

MOT history is particularly useful if buying a used car. Mileage history. I know people who have never had their oil changed.

Well, you won't learn that from the MoT history !

No but MOT history as far as advisories are symptomatic of the way a car has been maintained/neglected.

Anyone who submits a car for MOT with badly worn tyres clearly does not care about maintenance or their own safety.

Ditto underbody rust

www.inchcape.co.uk/blog/tips-and-advice/common-mot...k.

Edited by madf on 31/03/2023 at 10:19

MOT frequency - Gibbo_Wirral

Anyone who submits a car for MOT with badly worn tyres clearly does not care about maintenance or their own safety.

And the advisories that appear the next year, or become a fail item!

MOT frequency - Andrew-T

<< Anyone who submits a car for MOT with badly worn tyres clearly does not care about maintenance or their own safety. >>

Tyres which are genuinely 'badly worn' will fail the test, which is part of its purpose. Some drivers seem not to check whether tyres are fully inflated, never mind worn.

I think almost every driver (or person) cares about their safety to some extent (probably less about other people's) but there is a spectrum of caring. If personal safety is absolutely paramount one might choose not to drive, or go out at all. Some drivers prefer to jettison their tyres half-used because they believe that is the safe thing to do. I prefer to believe that the figure of 1.6mm (raised from 1mm many years ago) is a sensible compromise. There is no 'right' answer, so the MoT parameters are chosen as a safety net to catch the most extreme 'offenders'.

MOT frequency - focussed

<< Anyone who submits a car for MOT with badly worn tyres clearly does not care about maintenance or their own safety. >>

Tyres which are genuinely 'badly worn' will fail the test, which is part of its purpose. Some drivers seem not to check whether tyres are fully inflated, never mind worn.

I think almost every driver (or person) cares about their safety to some extent (probably less about other people's) but there is a spectrum of caring. If personal safety is absolutely paramount one might choose not to drive, or go out at all. Some drivers prefer to jettison their tyres half-used because they believe that is the safe thing to do. I prefer to believe that the figure of 1.6mm (raised from 1mm many years ago) is a sensible compromise. There is no 'right' answer, so the MoT parameters are chosen as a safety net to catch the most extreme 'offenders'.

I.6 mm tread depth is not a "sensible compromise" it's the minimum legal tread depth. You may not be aware that the minimum legal tread depth in the UK is 1.6 mm across threequarters of the width of the tread and around the entire circumference. The fine for driving or keeping a car on a public road with a tyre or tyres having less than 1.6 mm of tread depth is £2500 per tyre and three penalty points per tyre. In the case that all four tyres were below the limit you could theoretically get 12 licence points plus a £10,000 fine. www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/tyres/checking-tyre-tre.../
MOT frequency - RT

<< Anyone who submits a car for MOT with badly worn tyres clearly does not care about maintenance or their own safety. >>

Tyres which are genuinely 'badly worn' will fail the test, which is part of its purpose. Some drivers seem not to check whether tyres are fully inflated, never mind worn.

I think almost every driver (or person) cares about their safety to some extent (probably less about other people's) but there is a spectrum of caring. If personal safety is absolutely paramount one might choose not to drive, or go out at all. Some drivers prefer to jettison their tyres half-used because they believe that is the safe thing to do. I prefer to believe that the figure of 1.6mm (raised from 1mm many years ago) is a sensible compromise. There is no 'right' answer, so the MoT parameters are chosen as a safety net to catch the most extreme 'offenders'.

I.6 mm tread depth is not a "sensible compromise" it's the minimum legal tread depth. You may not be aware that the minimum legal tread depth in the UK is 1.6 mm across threequarters of the width of the tread and around the entire circumference. The fine for driving or keeping a car on a public road with a tyre or tyres having less than 1.6 mm of tread depth is £2500 per tyre and three penalty points per tyre. In the case that all four tyres were below the limit you could theoretically get 12 licence points plus a £10,000 fine. www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/tyres/checking-tyre-tre.../

The sensible compromise would be 3mm minimum tread depth but getting global agreement is difficult.

MOT frequency - alan1302

The sensible compromise would be 3mm minimum tread depth but getting global agreement is difficult.

Why would their need to be a global agreement?

MOT frequency - RT

The sensible compromise would be 3mm minimum tread depth but getting global agreement is difficult.

Why would their need to be a global agreement?

To get global tyre makers to use 3mm Tread Wear Indicators

MOT frequency - edlithgow

I prefer to believe that the figure of 1.6mm (raised from 1mm many years ago) is a sensible compromise.

Belief is for religion. I would prefer evidence.

I looked, and I couldn't find any.

MOT frequency - Andrew-T

<< 1.6 mm tread depth is not a "sensible compromise" it's the minimum legal tread depth. >>

Quite. It's a minimum chosen for a reason, presumably because some committee or group of people thought it was a safe(ish) compromise between new tyres and bald ones. There will be nothing magic about any particular number between 7-8mm on a brand new tyre and the original legal minimum of 1mm . Drivers can choose to shell out several £100s on a new set whenever they wish, especially if they enjoy driving near the limit, where it can make a noticeable difference. I don't do that, so I change my tyres a bit later.

MOT frequency - edlithgow

I used to run a 2-year MOT interval routine in the UK.

Worked for me (but then I didn't get caught). Probably not possible in these high surveillance days.

Here in Taiwan the interval is 6 months, which is inconveniently short, but on the whole preferable, since the test is less anal and doesn't have so much scope for arbitrary "testers discretion" jive built in.

MOT frequency - Bilboman

The "ITV" in Spain kicks in at 4 years, then at 6, 8 and 10 and then annually. Every 6 months for taxis, PSV, etc. There's an obligatory sticker in rotating colours (red, yellow and green), with perforations for month and year. It's smaller than a cigarette packet, and goes in the top right corner of the screen. No idea how much fraud goes on. A fake sticker doesn't get points on the licence, but big fines and up to two years behind bars seems to put people off!
It's all digitalised and the BiBs can easily check. I now have my driving licence - same number as my ID/residence card - and all the car "paperwork" on a phone app, so there's no faffing around at a roadside check, which might take 5 minutes on a bad day, and the police give a smart salute at the start and end of the interaction too!
The testing stations are licensed by the regional governments and do not do any kind of mechanical work. The curious anomaly is that prices vary from region to region, so border-hopping is common and urban legends persist that it's easier in one province than the one next door.
Driving standards and the condition of cars - some of the oldest in Europe - have increased remarkably in the 30 years I've lived in Spain, although roundabouts are still chaotic, with twice as many prangs as in the UK, which no doubt keeps mechanics busy.

MOT frequency - skidpan

I used to run a 2-year MOT interval routine in the UK.

I have been on the road since 1974 and its been an MOT every year on 3 year old and over cars all that time. Before on line tax you had to take your current MOT to the Post Office to tax it.

So not only were you driving with no MOT you must have been driving with no tax.

Pretty shameful really.