|
Or those tyre, exhaust, brake and suspension places that do MOTs, and somehow find a fault with tyres, exhaust, brakes or suspension.
|
I never ever have my car tested at any place that has a vested interest in failing it and then getting some rectification work.
|
|
|
|
|
The testing stations pay money to the DVLA set up. The proposed changes would have seen their income fall.
|
I piece of policy, probably arising from an objective to reduce administrative burdens on public and industry, that should never have seen the light of day. Quite how it got as far as being "endorsed" by GB before being subjected to the reality test it should inevitably fail is a tribute to either monumental stupidity and inexperience or to political monoeuvering of a very deep order.
|
|
I think that PM or Today had it down to a Euro Dictate. I disagree with Mr X vehicle defects have always been a factor in a proportion of serious injury/fatal accident.
|
But are such accidents likely to increase if we don't MOT every year. My view is no based on the 35 % failure rate figure and will remain so until we know what that 35% relates to. I have pointed out that having a wrongly spaced number plate will lead you to an MOT fail but I seriously doubt it will make you more likely to kill or injure some one in a road accident.
It seems that anything can be excused or allowed in this country so long as we dress it up in the clothing of ' saving lives ". Some posters on these boards might walk around with a bright yellow fluorescent hat on at all times if the Govt decreed it would ' save lives " but I'd like to think others would reject the idea.
|
|
But like everything else, MoT has to be designed for the lowest common denominator - i.e. the Joe Soap who won't even lift the bonnet or check the tyres between tests.
|
|
Thats the Joe I would like to see taken off our roads. They don't deserve to have a licence to drive.
|
>That's the Joe I would like to see taken off our roads. They don't deserve to have a licence to drive.
Perhaps not. But we already have a problem with drivers who should be 'taken off our roads'. Unfortunately it isn't easy to keep them off. The worst ones just nick a car from the rest of us.
The MoT test was introduced to limit the inevitable creep towards unroadworthiness of cars in the 1960s (I think). Cars have become much more robust since then, I agree, but as several posts have said, some drivers just drive their cars, nothing else. We have to have a method of waking them up periodically.
|
|
|
|
The yearly MOT fee is like the TV licence fee, a tax in all but name. Who would want to throw away the opportunity to collect it every year ?
So your alternative method of ensuring that the vast majority of cars on the road get at least one safety cheack a year is?...
And how will it be financed?,,,
Personally I'm with the stricter MOT brigade, it seems that we can't trust a large percentage of people to even do basic checks these days judging by the numbers of cars I see driving around with basic faults...
Perhaps the way to go is a stricter 6 monthly check and if you have no faults you get a discount on the fee and for every fault you get charged extra... that should be self financing!
As for it being a tax... perhaps I am seeing reds under the beds as well?!!
|
|
In fact I would support more roadside checks through the VoSA approach - random roadside checks like they do with lorries.
|
|
|
'Personally I'm with the stricter MOT brigade, it seems that we can't trust a large percentage of people to even do basic checks these days judging by the numbers of cars I see driving around with basic faults... '
So let the police start pulling these people and issuing prohibtion of use until rectified notices. They have already stated on another thread that they can spend several hours hunting down people using a mobile phone whilst driving so why not use that time to check on those cars that look like they are poorly maintained ? It is something every aspect of the force could get involved in, not just traffic plod.
|
So let the police start pulling these people and issuing prohibtion of use until rectified notices. They have already stated on another thread that they can spend several hours hunting down people using a mobile phone whilst driving so why not use that time to check on those cars that look like they are poorly maintained ?
I rather think that they do both at the same time... pull them over for using the phone whilst driving or a duff brake light and then do a full check on the car... sounds fine to me...
Thats hardly an alternative to an MOT, though, is it?!
|
|
For those who haven't understood. I am NOT advocating the ending of the MOT, only stating I would agree with a drop infrequency to once every two years.
|
2 years? Terrible idea, even 1 year is too long for most cars over 5-6 years old. At least the current test gives some comfort that basic safety items are working.
If you are conscientious in your maintenance then the MOT will cost you no more than 1/2 a tank of fuel and an hour. It's inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
In 5 years the MOT has risen from around £22 to £50 plus with a further £8 increase in the pipeline for 2009. The rises are always put down to the labour time of the testing station involved but ask them and they will tell you the govt are taking a bigger proportion each year in fees for those who sign up as testing stations.
|
In 5 years the MOT has risen from around £22 to £50 plus with a further £8 increase in the pipeline for 2009. The rises are always put down to the labour time of the testing station involved but ask them and they will tell you the govt are taking a bigger proportion each year in fees for those who sign up as testing stations.
I was told by my local tester that the money paid for the MOT test is their own profit. The garage can charge whatever they like for an MOT:- providing they DON'T go above the maximum fee that is imposed by VOSA. The govt don't get a cut of the money.
As for the price increase, a lot of that is down to the emissions testing equipment that was required (which cost my local garage something like £5000 or £6000), as well as the computerised system, and therefore the increase was to help the garages recoup the outlay for the equipment and the extra time the MOT test now takes..
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 13/12/2008 at 14:00
|
stating I would agree with a drop infrequency to once every two years.
I don't follow your logic at all, Mr X, on the one hand you have complained about the state of other drivers' cars and said the Police should full more of them over (where all these extra Police are coming from I'm not so sure) and on the other you want to introduce a sysytem which will actually encourage the very thing you don't like...
The only reason I can think of that you want it less frequently is because you regard it as a "tax"... ??
Edited by b308 on 13/12/2008 at 11:40
|
|
No its the ' lets make everyone put up with the cost and inconvenience because we can't deal with those who cock a snook " attitude I am against.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the MOT should be more often or more thorough.
I have never considered it a tax on the motorist. It is a safety check.
It has to be carried out by someone, so someone has to be paid to do it. Its not an excessive fee by any means either compared to hourly rates at many garages.
Some people are mechanically minded, some arent, so the system should cater for all.
This idea that not having some basic knowledge of oily bits is on a par with suggesting that someone who cant cook should starve.
I would introduce some of those spot-checks that the police seem to do on commercials but exclusively for cars. It needs manpower certainly, but if wide-spread car checks are made, you could start a system much like ANPR is used, to pull in cars suspected of being in poor condition, perhaps those that have been stopped before.
Cars are inanimate objects, so it should be the drivers who consistantly dont maintain their cars that are monitored.
As for that line about the stats - if more poor condition cars are allowed to roam the streets getting checked only every two years, it is quite a reasonable assumption that accidents due to such cars will increase. The balance of the stats would shift.
|
I agree with the majority - the MOT is a useful exercise that forces at least some maintenance to be undertaken by those that couldn't care less.
And as for the other points. Yes, don't really care about mis-spaced numberplates, but I am quite happy for smoky, smelly cars to be taken off the road by the MOT: that does us all a favour.
Just another tax? Give me a break, there are plenty of real grievances without making up spurious gripes.
|
|
|
I think the one year MOT is fine as it. The two year would be too dangerious, even people that do keep up with basic maintance may not always know about faults. With regard to stop checks are good idea as longs as its not used like speed cameras, e.g an excuse to give points and a fine. They need to be rectification notices served, and perhaps if the vehicle is really bad removed from the roads.
I check my tyres every week and also my lights every week, I also peep under the wheel arches every so often to check for things like cracked springs but other than that and checking fluids that is where my knowledge ends.
I also think the 3 year MOT should be made for two years, as there is many new cars driving round with no thread on their tyres and such like.
In this case I am sure the decision is purely safety based. I am told that they pay VOSA about £2 for each MOT they issue, now with all the up keep of the computer system, staff to monitor it etc I can't really see the government making profit from MOTs at all other than the VAT the garages charge.
Edited by Rattle on 13/12/2008 at 11:33
|
|
It surely can't be that difficult to deal with bad tyres with out having to resort to making us all pass through a garage every year. They are not hidden items and can be clearly seen. BIG ' Do not move this vehicle until fault rectified " notice on windscreen and draconian fines for those that do. You trek off, you get suitable tyre and you ring number for some one to come and check it is OK before they remove sticker. That way you punish those that do wrong in isolation .
|
|
I agree there is no excuse for bad tyres, however my car recently (in terms of milleage) passed an MOT, yet haaad a cracking tyre, even it was legal at the time surely that warranted an advisory? Too many people think because it has passed an MOT the car is fine and that is what needs to change.
|
|
|
It surely can't be that difficult to deal with bad tyres with out having to resort to making us all pass through a garage every year.
How many people round your way do you know that actually take the time to do safety checks like they are supposed to??
1 or 2% at the most, I'd guess... thats why we need an MOT...
|
|
|
|
|
Count me in too, i want the MOT test to be kept at a year..maximum.
How often here to we see a poster discussing some problem which may cause the car to fail the test, otherwise presumably quite happy to jolly along with all sorts of faults, no doubt many drivers would run around with no MOT or insurance and zero maintenance were it not for the ANPR van.
I dread to think just how poor some of the cars must really be out there.
The MOT test has been the mainstay of our enforced inspections for years, (unlike servicing a minefield in quality), and regulated by impartial rules and inspectors, long may it continue.
|
This thread,
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68822&...f
covers the subject well, and in particular, the link posted by jbif to the research done in the Netherlands raises some perhaps unexpected results.
www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_MOT.pdf
I pull out a particularly thought provoking paragrah;
----------------------8<---------------
....the safety effect of the MOT was not to be estimated as being large, but rather 'too small to measure' (Tromp, 1985). It had already then been determined that the contribution of technical defects to crashes occurring was limited, 2 to 6%. The MOT could only prevent a few of these happening: there are also defects, whether or not of inspected parts, that occur in between two MOTs. SWOV did not further specify these 'few' in terms of a percentage, but would now estimate this at 20-30%. So, 20-30% of 2 to 6% of all accidents could be prevented by the MOT, which amounts to less than 1% of all accidents on average.
----------------------8<---------------
I tend to think that we in the backroom are, not for the first time, becoming carried away with something that actually has a small effect on injuries and deaths on the road, rather than concentrating on the really big (but diufficult) issues of driver attitudes, alertness, and training.
Debating exactly how often to MOT cars is akin to debating how many angels on the point of a pin when you consider that a driver can carry oncompletely unchecked for over 50 years.
|
Mmm, but are the Dutch drivers the same as ours when it comes to regular checks, servicing, etc? Unless they are the same it doesn't really proven anything other than it was not a big factor in The Netherlands.
After staying over there a few times I certainly saw less "sheds" around than I do over here... I wonder how they keep them off the roads, then?
|
After staying over there a few times I certainly saw less "sheds" around than I do over here ..
IMO, with the increasing number of cars being taken off the roads due to the Police successfully using ANPR and MIB databases, the number of "sheds" on UK roads is destined to fall dramatically.
|
|
|
>>Mmm, but are the Dutch drivers the same as ours when it comes to regular checks, servicing, etc? Unless they are the same
Yes vastly different - don't their cars have square wheels?
|
>>Mmm but are the Dutch drivers the same as ours Yes vastly different - don't their cars have square wheels?
Here's me thinking they were round but with a windmill on top for propulsion! :)
|
I wouldnt trust the dutch, they invented the Gatso.
|
If mechanical failure leading to serious accidents were such a hot topic, I think the best thing we could do would be to make run-flats, together with a tyre pressure monitoring system mandatory. Sudden blowouts caused by tyre pressure loss is one of the more common failures which cause accidents.
Checking tyre pressure as part of the MOT would be quite pointless as;
a) tyre pressure can drop before the next MOT
b) tyres can be pumped up just before the MOT
Here, a continuous monitoring system could make a difference.
However, IMO, the nut behind the wheel is far more dangerous than any nuts, bolts or other parts anywhere else on the car.
|
|
|
Mr X seems to be only fixated on the state of tyres and is forgetting all of the other parts of the MOT. And an MOT only says how the vehicle was when tested - it could fail another test shortly after.
Yes tyres could be checked by someone easily on the street when the vehicle is stationary. I've sometimes had to tell people I know they have worn tyres because I'd glanced at them and spotted the problem. But what about when it's moving? And what about all the other items checked in an MOT that are "hidden". I suppose they could bounce up and down on each corner of parked cars to test the shock absorbers ;-)
And I also disagree that an MOT is a tax.
|
|
|
.. the link posted by jbif to the research done in the Netherlands
NC - Thanks for linking that thread, I was just about to search for it.
The reason I think that the 2 year test plans have been dropped is that the Motor Repairs Industry campaigned against it [ostensibly on grounds of safety, but in reality it was to protect their income streams]. In today's credit crunch climate where the Motor trade is getting squeezed, the Government had no choice but to give in.
That is in contrast to the Housing sector where despite objections from the trade, the Housing Minister has gone ahead with compulsory HIPs being required prior to putting your house on the market. They cannot reverse that Policy as it is their own and not the EUs.
www.trevorkent.com/mpfiles/tk2/HIP.htm
|
As a buyer of usually third or fourth hand cars I would prefer the annual MOT test to stay. Many people with cars out of warranty only get their cars serviced when the MOT is due. A two yearly MOT probably means much more engine wear on the cars I may buy as it could equate oil changes only once every two years on many cars if the engines haven't already ceased during this period due to a lack of lubrication.
An annual MOT is keeping my potential purchases in a healthier state of repair.
As an avid Honest John reader I'm a two to three oil changes a year man myself.
Edited by RichieW on 13/12/2008 at 13:57
|
|
Our local garage that does the MOT on my wife's car charges a lot less than £50. And as said above, I don't think any of that money goes to VOSA.
|
We have a local garage that is still doing MOT's for £35, can't be much of that going to VOSA if any at all.
They won't be doing this to get customers in for the work needed to pass either as they only do transmission work and MOT's and I beleive it would be technicaly possible to pass an MOT with a dead gearbox.
|
>>I beleive it would be technicaly possible to pass an MOT with a dead gearbox.
The garage can refuse to test the vehicle if it cannot move under its own power. Also, if the vehicle cannot be roller brake tested, it must be able ot reach a reasonable speed to allow a Tapley meter deceleration test.
However, for most cars, a working 1st and reverse gear would be sufficient.
|
The garage can refuse to test the vehicle if it cannot move under its own power. Also if the vehicle cannot be roller brake tested it must be able ot reach a reasonable speed to allow a Tapley meter deceleration test.
>
So could a helpfull MOT tester actually pass a car with a totally burnt out clutch?
I'm thinking bangernomics here, eg the owner of said car wants to be sure the car is worth saving before shelling out for a new clutch.
I once had a renault automatic that couldn't reverse out of the roller brake tester, it couldn't reverse uphill either, it passed but it took 4 or the mechanics to get it out of the workshop.
|
There are a number of reasons why a garage may refuse to carry out the MOT inspection. Among them are;
Vehicle too dirty to inspect
Vehicle too dangerous to inspect - a gross fuel leak for example
Vehicle too dangerous to conduct a brake test - e.g. a rotten suspension arm
Vehicle cannot move under its own power
That a garage did carry out a test on a car that couldnt move is really their call, and as you found, there isn't a specific failure item for a burnt out clutch or failed gearbox, and so, the car, correctly passed.
|
either as they only do transmission work and MOT's and I beleive it would be technicaly possible to pass an MOT with a dead gearbox.
of course it would. There is no legal requirement for a gearbox under the construction and use regulations.
|
>>of course it would.
Well, not quite.
The car might not fail an MOT if it couldn't move under its own power, but, it wouldn't pass either - the test would be refused.
Also, despite there being obvious common ground, there's no direct link between C & U rules and MOT requirements.
|
My personal view is that the MOT test should remain a yearly exercise - the difference being the Gov't pick up the tab not the motorist.
As a motorist I am fed up of being continually taken for a ride (no pun intended) - rises in the cost of RFL, fuel tax, threat of taxing me for using the road (e.g congestion charge) etc etc. Surely with all this money being collected the Gov't can afford to pay the £50 (ish) for someone to carry out the test.
Perhaps for a vehicle which fails to pass on a serious defect the cost should be bourne by the owner, otherwise the cost to said owner is nil. As someone else said above it should be self funding.
|
8< snip once more. You are becoming too high maintenance with all the whinging and complaining. Much more of it and I'll simply disable your account.
Webmaster.
Edited by Webmaster on 14/12/2008 at 01:36
|
Perhaps a better idea would be an aircraft maintenance style check - they have A, B C checks each being more througher than the former carried out at different intervals i.e. A check at 6 months, B at 12 and C at 24 for example.
Also think that mileage should be a factor - you could pass your MOT with 2 mm of tread on your tyres and then drive 30K before the next visit
|
100% Mikeyb!
Any roadworthy type check should be based on months OR mileage OR hours, whichever comes first.
Don't tractors (and tanks) run on hours, as opposed to miles?
Also, do Bristol cars still have an "hours" meter? Or is this a motoring myth?
|
|
Volvos still run on hours. 400 between services for the P2 cars up to 2006.
|
>>an aircraft maintenance style check
Just like the maintenance schedule as set out by the vehicle's manufacturer, with small and large services at differing intervals.
A mileage / usage based MOT would be costing a fortune to fix a non-problem. If we're going to be truly profligate, why not demand driving tests every 5 years?
|
If we're going to be truly profligate why not demand driving tests every 5 years?
Good idea.
|
Also think that mileage should be a factor - you could pass your MOT with 2 mm of tread on your tyres and then drive 30K before the next visit
>>
Hmm...not my MOT testing station they wouldn't. "Tyres are down to t'wood". They don't sell tyres either
|
|
I remember quite well, heading off to Swansea with a large cheque to collect two books of MOT certs for a friends garage. I had a letter and various forms of ID and was doing him a favour due to a crippling postal strike that meant books of certs were not being delivered to garages. That was around 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Some people are mechanically minded some arent so the system should cater for all. This idea that not having some basic knowledge of oily bits is on a par with suggesting that someone who cant cook should starve.
Surely most people would recognise when food is off?
and for that matter, I dont know of anyone who cant cook toast!
I dont expect every driver to have the full skills of a top grade mechanic (or a motor vehicle technician), but is it too much to ask that people should know to look at their tyres, oil, water etc, once a week?
for many moons, Ive believed that the basic checks should be taught as part of driving, and tested as part of the test.
Edited by the swiss tony on 13/12/2008 at 17:04
|
"for many moons, Ive believed that the basic checks should be taught as part of driving, and tested as part of the test."
Eh.. they are now aren't they?
|
The basics are covered and you do get asked questions on it in the theory and also a couple of questions in the test. The problem is how much of it goes in one ear and out the next?
But yep tyre thread depths etc is all covered at a very basic level.
|
From what I have gathered about the practical test you only need to know where to point when they ask where oil and goes, as this is on the car you take the test in it wouldn't show any knowledge, just that you have memorised the locations on that particular car.
Can anyone confirm this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
