Letters in a "well known Quality Sunday Paper" over the last few weeks suggesting with improved reliability that MoTs should be every 2/3 years instead of annually.
It was good to see HJ supporting the Annual MoT in Sat Telepgraph. If MoTs moved to less often I am sure there would be more accidents due to mechanical failures - at least with an annual MoT the car will at least have lights that work and tyres with tread.
I think the "rose tinted spectacles" view of your average "Quality Sunda Newspaper" with a 0-3 year old car . The view that the 3+ year goes in of a regular service / checkup is living in a world of fantasy. Many older cars only see a garge at an MoT or when it breaks down with no regualr safety check/service.
The current MoT is some way to ensuring a degree of mechanical reliability - however if 10% of cars have no road tax or insurance then probably 10%+ have no MoT! No amount of speed cameras will catch unregistered cars or cars with false plates.
|
Amazingly the MOT here in Estonia is every two years (from 3 years on). And that is with:
[1] 50% of the national road network is unpaved,
[2] the paved bits are in bad condition due to frost damage and studded tyre use,
[3] loads of salt used,
[4] inexperienced drivers - resulting in more crashes,
[5] economically poor drivers - resulting in repairs being delayed and of poorer quality.
However, the gov't owned MOT stations are very up-to-date and well equipped.
Ladas are quite a rare sight these days.
|
I think there's a strong argument for the first MOT to be moved to 4 years rather than 3.
In my own experience, I've never owned a car that needed anything for its first MOT ... but they all needed something for their second (at 4 years from new) -- either bushes, ball joints or similar suspension componentry.
With the state of roads in England (humps, potholes, bad repairs) I reckon every 12 months after 4 years is fair enough.
|
Mileage is just as relevant to component deterioration and safety related issues as time. For example a 30,000 mile car at three years old would be a very different prospect in terms of wear to things like bushes, dampers and bearings than a thrashed rep special coming off a fleet with 5x that mileage.
The mileages some cars cover in their first three years can represent over as much as 75% or so of what they will cover in their useful working life. Yet they are not subject to any mandatory checking in that time. It makes no sense.
The MOT should be required every x years or x,000 miles, on a whichever comes first basis. You wouldn't have a service schedule based on time only, so why should an MOT be any different?
Cheers
DP
|
I totally agree.
I would like the test to be after two years.
With tales of lease companies minimising servicing / tyres etc the MoT is a back stop.
A few more cars may get their lights fixed at least once a year.
With the number of new vehicles with faulty HID lamps perhaps a test for self leveling should be introduced.
|
With the number of new vehicles with faulty HID lamps perhaps a test for self leveling should be introduced.
I must confess I haven't seen problems on vehicles which come from the factory with HID lighting.
The biggest problem comes from those who have fitted HID kits to headlamps designed for halogen. They seem to think all they need is a bulb change (plus power module) not realising that HID reflector and lens design is usually different.
NB.... I am referring to the kits that one installs for £200 upwards, using proper HID bulbs and power supplies, not the cheapy 'Xenon gas' 12V bulbs which are available for £15-£20.
|
|
|
I totally agree. I would like the test to be after two years.
Me too. The 'abused company cars' thread conveniently highlights some examples of why the system should not be relaxed..
|
|
|
|
|
Amazingly the MOT here in Estonia is every two years (from 3 years on). And that is with: [1] 50% of the national road network is unpaved [2] the paved bits are in bad condition due to frost damage and studded tyre use [3] loads of salt used [4] inexperienced drivers - resulting in more crashes [5] economically poor drivers - resulting in repairs being delayed and of poorer quality.
Yes & lots of tehir Polish Cousins driving around Scotland - high numbers have accidents driving around in bangers - saw a 4WD LHD VW Gold (uncertain age) and a LHD Chrysler parked next to each other in Stonehaven last week. The builder's skip next to them was in the same condition or maybe slightly better.
|
|
Is it in Germany where the TuV(MoT equiv.) inspections are less frequent if the vehicle is Main Dealer serviced??
|
Don't know if it's still the same now, but in the early 90s in Denmark, an MOT test was only required if you were selling the car!
The police had "stop and impound" powers on cars that they suspected were unroadworthy, but if you had no intention of selling the car then it did not need an official inspection ....
|
|
Eire at one time had an optional Mot.
|
|
|
|
|
i agree with DP that an mot should apply at mileage use not 3yrs that is current.
i drive a company van everyday have it seviced regulary its a 06/55 plate not
due a mot yet for 10 months but has coverd 118,000 miles there must be some
amount of wear on bushes and other components. my car is 6yrs old (mk 3 mondeo) and done 120,00 but failed mot in january on rear brake pipes corrison and front arm lower bushes does these wear quicker with less use ie 120,000 miles in 6 yrs opposed to
118,000 in 2 and a bit yrs
|
i agree with DP that an mot should apply at mileage use not 3yrs that is current. i drive a company van everyday have it seviced regulary its a 06/55 plate not due a mot yet for 10 months but has coverd 118 000 miles there must be some amount of wear on bushes and other components
2 years and 118K miles and serviced regularly - my point the Van should be OK because if it was not then it would be spotted and fixed at the 4mth- 6 mth service intervals.
The problem is not just mileage or age it is that the car needs looked at regularly ( say 1 x per year at least) and many punteres will not do that unless forced to - HENCE the value of the MoT.
|
|
Trouble is, the MOT has moved from being a safety device to being just another tax on the motorist.
|
Trouble is the MOT has moved from being a safety device to being just another tax on the motorist.
How exactly has it done that?
In all the years that I was getting MOTs done on my cars, I have never found it to be anything other than a fairly impartial test of the roadworthiness of my car.
|
|
|
Trouble is the MOT has moved from being a safety device to being just another tax on the motorist.
>>
I look on it more as a tax on stupidity.
Just take a look at the state of tyres removed from vehicles. It is hardly rocket science to measure tread depth.
The high tech task of "are my lights working or headlamps tracking a passing 747 ?"
How can people be taught to identify wipers are shot or the washer bottle is dry.
That is all before the MoT lads do their bit.
Oh well I am off to get a new £80+ tyre to replace the existing new one that has a tiny nail in the edge of the tread. I am not waiting for the MoT to find it. :-(
|
|
Only those with a shred of responsibility bother to have an MOT done. Your local near do well doesn't bother and it is the likes of them who are more likely to be driving around in a dangerous motor.
|
"Trouble is the MOT has moved from being a safety device to being just another tax on the motorist."
Where does that come from!? as an MOT tester I can assure you there are some horrendous defects we find on newish car's. DP has a good idea but you also forgetting it now controls emissions. I have carried out 1st MOT on cars that have done in excess of 200,000 miles. Headlights so far out they could spot planes!, emissions that make your eye's water & cracked alloy wheels is becoming a common one! normally on the inside. makes you wonder if defects like that contribute to vehicles loosing control on a motorway when a tyre suddenly deflates. Insecure brake hoses chaffing on tyres & burst or snapped shock absorbers & snapped anti roll bar links, & thats not to mention the brake defects. MOT's are an essential part of motoring.
Doc
|
|
The New Zealand equivalent of the MOT is the "Warrant of Fitness". New cars are checked annually until 3 years old. From then on the check is six-monthly. We don't have inter-city motorways yet as the traffic density doesn't require them. From the description above of Estonia's roads we are slightly better off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letters in a "well known Quality Sunday Paper" over the last few weeks suggesting with improved reliability that MoTs should be every 2/3 years instead of annually.
We already have this - or, rather, the best hybrid idea.
A new car is "MOT'd" until 3. Then, it has to have an annual MOT. Why the hot air. I dunno.
|
|
|
