First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article | Motoring discussion | Back Room Forum

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

Mon 13 Dec 2010 15:38

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - gfewster

The article posted about this on the HJ homepage raises some interesting questions.

I was astounded to read that, of the 580,754 three year old cars which failed their first MOT test, 271,567 failed on lighting/signalling - which as far as I can see basically means a blown bulb?

What sort of numpty puts their car in for a test without first checking that all the bulbs work?

Our first-test failure rate is one of the highest in Europe, and yet most countries do the first test a year later than us. If it wasn't for over a quarter of a million cars being put in for their first test with a blown bulb, then we'd have the best figures by a country mile.

So the questions:

1. Do the figures just show us up to be the stupidest in Europe?

2. Should bulbs be expected to last longer?

3. Looking again at the figures, I simply cannot believe that there were over 11,000 instances (in one year) of three year old cars failing the test over issues with SEATBELTS? I mean WTF?

Thoughts?

Oh, and as a footnote, the article is right in suggesting that we ought to seperate testing from commercial repair garages. Extra fault-finding to boost turnover is absolutely rampant, and you need to be on your guard to spot it.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 16:17

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - justadriver

Problem in the uk is "cost of servicing" at main dealers which is where most people go while the car is under warranty which is the same period as the mot time... 3 years... and difficulty in replacing bulbs. my car has to have the front grill removed and then the headlamp unit removed to change any of the front bulbs! where i am that is £70 +vat plus bulb...lots of money. it's ok for me 'cos i can change the bulb myself. but how many have time and are able to do it?

Ps Halfords have a fixed price service for bulb changes for most cars. (also wipers and some minor parts (no i don't work for them)

Prices from halfords website £5.99 headlamp bulb, other bulbs £3.99 wipers £2.99 pair..+ cost of part. on top of which you won't get stung with main dealer prices for parts.

other problem as someone else says here, no traffic police doing their job, just speed cameras to catch speeders and anpr for insurance/stolen.

Edited by justadriver on 13/12/2010 at 16:26

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 16:20

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - madf

What the report is really saying is that UK traffic policing allows idiots to drive around unhindered without working signals..

No surprise as they cannot even keep the uninsured and untaxed off the roads.. and they of course are excluded from MOT stats as they are never tested... so the UK stats are...understated for fails . As many people do not even check their tyres, a few faulty bulbs are no surprise..

Plus of course the penalties in the UK are not severe fo anything short of killing people through dangerous driving..

To summarise: no enforcement., lax penalties.. Sums up British justice quite well.

Edit : as for seatbelts: rear ones covered in chocolate and jammed will be quite common I suspect...

Edited by madf on 13/12/2010 at 16:22

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 17:29

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - SteveLee

Stand on the roadside in large swathes of London and north east ex-mill towns, you'll see blatant non-use of seat belts - cars heavily overloaded with unseated children, frequent mobile phone use by drivers, these areas are practically un-policed (apparently applying the law in these areas is victimisation) however those usually law-abiding people who actually drive their cars legally and are traceable as the rightful owner are hounded for any minor infringement in "nicer" areas as they will actually pay their fines.

My cousin is a traffic cop in Essex, he said they were told not to waste their time with drivers who are obviously going to be untraceable as these cost the 'force money (no shows in court etc.) with no return in revenue. So if he's following a knackered Nissan Micra with a shady bloke delivering pizzas with the patrol car's ANPR system ringing like a church bell as the lack of documentation peculiar to the followed car sets off his various alarms - he simply ignores it, instead waits for Mrs insured accountable with a minor fine-earning infringement - these are solved crimes on their statistics, removing an uninsured car and crushing it should be reward enough for police, but as the perpetrator will disappear without trace before he makes it to court, the crime will remain unsolved and will make their stats look bad so they are not interested. The exception is if course when they occasionally send out small units specifically to target those people who drive illegally to give the impression that they are doing enough - but this is for show - not the norm.

A friend of mine was knocked off his motorbike a couple of years ago in the middle of London in front of a police car, he thought the his luck was out and in at the same time and this would be an open and shut case. The police let the guy go handing my friend a slip of paper, he assumed this was the guy's insurance details. However the (Met) officer said this is his address as far as he could ascertain as the guy didn't speak very good English - the guy wasn't insured. The police let an uninsured driver continue his journey aiding and abetting a crime after he had just actually caused a traffic accident! My friend was aghast! The officer "justified" his action saying that no units were available to impound the vehicle. This is the police farce (sic) we now pay through the nose for. They come down hard on the largely law-abiding people whilst going out of their way not to arrest too many of the "wrong" people to keep the Guardian readers happy.

Edited by SteveLee on 13/12/2010 at 17:30

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 18:16

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - primeradriver

I didn't think we even had any ex-mill towns here in the North East.

Of course, if I am reading you right, such areas wouldn't have too many newish cars to fail their first MOT in any case.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 18:35

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - oldroverboy

Maybe someone can tell PLOD that if they stop cars and hand out £60-80 fines for driving an unroadworthy vehicle they might do it especially as they pay officers overtime on days off to sit in camera vans for revenue purposes. Problem with drivers who don't want to pay for anything! check average hourly costs in other european countries and servicing too. My car £250+vat main dealer service in uk .in France 200 euros inc tax! same oils parts.. welcome to rip off britain!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 13 Dec 2010 20:09

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - Dutchie

Sounds depressing the best advice is then by a old banger no tax no insurance and stuff it.

Whats a MOT anyway if you can legally drive on tyres less than 2mm tread.The amount of cars I see on the road with one headlight or use of moblile phones whilst driving.What is the saying the law is a a***.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 15 Dec 2010 09:12

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - Ubermik

The son of someone I do work for is a copper and according to him many of the rank and file would quit tomorrow if it wasnt for their pensions

He arrested a 24 year old for no insurance who had been driving since he was 18 never having been insured

He got a £300 quid fine and a 12 month ban, when he was leaving the court he smiled at him and said "my insurance would have been about 4 grand a year so that was a bargain"

A couple of months later, same bloke in a different uninsured car

As much as I do agree uninsured drivers ARE a problem though, its also a regular topic the government uses to distract us like immigration, single mums, the unemployed etc etc ad infinitum so we're too busy whinging about all those "nasty groups sucking the life blood from the country" to actually sit back and realise that the government itself is far worse than all those groups combined

It also distracts us from the fact insurance companies claim they HAVE to keep increasing premiums because of this army of uninsured drivers yet post enormous profits each and every year which most people seem to ignore in favour of blaming uninsured drivers like theyre told to do

The no win, no fee culture thats developed along with the "ooooh my neck really hurts pay me lots of money" nonsense is far more impactive overall

But if the cost of insurance was more reflective of insurance companies ACTUAL outlay, and less related to how much money their shareholders want this year I suspect many currently uninsured drivers would have insurance anyway leaving just the ones with no intention of buying it to deal with

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 15 Dec 2010 12:11

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - madf

It also distracts us from the fact insurance companies..........post enormous profits each and every year which most people seem to ignore in favour of blaming uninsured drivers like theyre told to do

Reads good.

Perhaps you write for the Daily Mail? If not , perhaps you should. Because your comment above bears zero relation to reality...

For the sake of reality I quote FACTS... rather than opinion..

"Reuters) - Britain's car insurance sector will return to profitability in 2011 after two years of steep losses, provided it can push through more price rises without losing customers, accountants Deloitte said on Tuesday.

Motor insurers, hit by soaring claims due to the growing influence of "no win, no fee" lawyers, are set for a collective loss of 1 billion pounds this year, after a record 1.6 billion deficit in 2009, Deloitte said."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6A100E20101102

But hey don't let me spoil the story :-)

Edited by madf on 15/12/2010 at 12:12

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 16 Dec 2010 11:12

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - Sofa Spud

I seem to remember reading that a lot of lamp-related MOT failures are due to poor headlamp alignment.

This is something you normally have to take the garage's word on, so they can pull a fast one and charge a few more pounds. How likely is it that headlamps will have gone out of alignment in a 3 year-old car, I ask?

Edited by Sofa Spud on 16/12/2010 at 11:13

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 16 Dec 2010 15:01

First-time MoT failure rates (2007) - article - gfewster

It doesn't happen - there are pulling a fast one. Beams adjusted on stiff threads do not just wander out of alignment - you'd only need a tweak if there had been some sort of front-end impact.

Try marking the alignment screws beforehand to see if they've been touched.......

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Ask Honest John

Sell Your Car

Real MPG

Fuel Calculator