The MoT is an excellent lifesaver - my father used to be an MoT tester years back, and even with the more basic test of those days I remember him stopping some death traps getting back out on to the road.
There is nothing at all 'political' about the MoT. In 2006 so far , roughly a quarter of failed cars failed on inadequate brakes, a quarter have defective lighting and 10% have illegal tyres. These are very basic safety issues.
About 9% of cars failed on emissions and fuel systems defects (leaks, missing filler caps etc). A car which fails on emissions is running with poor performance and economy and producing more pollution. Most emissions fails are pretty basic - usually its down to a defective coolant sensor or lambda sensor - sometimes the cat. None of these should result in the car being scrapped. Major fuel systems faults (ingition failure, MAF sensor failure) would make the car difficult to drive as well as high on emissions - so if not economic to repair it would be scrapped anyway, MoT requirements or not.
The MoT saves lives - I have no doubt. Most drivers simply cannot be trusted to ensure that their car is roadworthy year in, year out. Most do not have the necessary knowledge to detect faults and most drivers 'get used' to the slow deterioration in handling, braking etc etc as defects slowly build up.
|
Quite right and very succinct Aprilia.
Most drivers are ignorant. Some of those who are not ignorant are lazy, slobbish or irresponsible (no names, you can just guess).
QED.
|
|
|
- my father used to be an MoT tester years back.
We have that in common Aprilia.
I think that the basic MOT, which we both remember our fathers carrying out removed most of the real death traps from the roads, without being especially burdensome to the motorist. Each new test aspect that is added to the MOT is really just a case of diminishing returns. They tend to make the test more expensive, and require the testing stations to buy more equipment.
I remember when brake rollers became mandatory - we had to build an extension on one end of our testing lane, to allow room for the rollers to be installed behind the ramp. Although, I will agree that brake rollers do enable you to spot poor brakes, and that was a worthwhile addition to the test.
I think that most of the death traps would be removed just as well by a much reduced "basic" test - like the crime scene thread, I suspect that via a kind of "mission creep", the MOT will continue to augmented by new rules until it becomes so expensive, time consuming, and difficult to pass that we end up in a similar state to Japan.
I think that there is plenty about the MOT that is political. Our emissions regs aren't exactly free from political influence, and I don't think they offer us a huge step forward from the old visible smoke requirements.
However, overall, I don't think it is a bad test. I don't think enough is done to remind people that the safety of a vehicle is always the drivers responsibility, and that an MOT does not mean a car is necessarily safe.
I know what you mean about people getting used to unsafe cars - many is the time I have driven cars in for my father to test or later for me to work on, when I haven't felt safe even at car park speeds!
Number_Cruncher
|
|
Cost of mot about £40. FIne for mot £60. Why bother, plenty of chavs dont.
|
Many of our "youf" drive untaxed, untested, uninsured cars, possibly without a licence as well.
If they get caught and banned they carry on driving regardless. (Don't pay the fine either!)
MOT or no MOT will make no difference, they just don't care.
|
Many of our "youf" drive untaxed, untested, uninsured cars, possibly without a licence as well.
I saw a programme a few weeks ago where police were going round spotting untaxed cars with ANPR, and taking them away to be crushed. Think it was a pilot scheme in Bristol or somewhere. They got one late 20's woman, took her Peugot 205 off her but rather than being embarrassed at being caught, she was mouthey and indignant, saying, "well how am I supposed to afford all that stuff" (meaning tax, insurance, MoT).
They also got a young bloke who's chav-mobile wasn't taxed and he gave some daft excuses. When he realised they were going to take it away, he went round slashing his own tyres, so they also did him for criminal damage!
|
They also got a young bloke who's chav-mobile wasn't taxed and he gave some daft excuses. When he realised they were going to take it away, he went round slashing his own tyres, so they also did him for criminal damage!
Can you do criminal damage to your own property??
Maybe it wasn't actually his though.
|
|
|
|
|
