Plans to ban cars over 10 years old

[gina2201]

These days a MOT does not mean much - it just means that on the day of the test the car was fit enough to be on the road. On the other hand there are still sevelar vehicles that are without MOTs/tax/insurance on our roads.

Very true! It is quite surprising how many cars out there are unroadworthy! Scary thought sometimes....

 

[Satch]

Can somebody post a news link BBC, Sky, DoT etc that mentions this forthcoming law? I did a Google and surprisingly couldn't find anything.

What is being toyed with is a ban on Diesel cars that cannot meet pollution standards.

Stuttgart started it and now Edinburgh plus a number of other anti car Local Governments are jumping on it:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/german_cities_c.html

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Very true! It is quite surprising how many cars out there are unroadworthy! Scary thought sometimes....

Given the surge in the number of un-taxed and uninsured cars, one can only assume that they're un-MOTed too. You're right, it's a scary thought...

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Given the surge in the number of un-taxed and uninsured cars, one can only assume that they're un-MOTed too. You're right, it's a scary thought...

The best way to sort this would be to enforce more stringent roadside stops. Considering tax, insurance, MOT:

If a car is stopped that has any one outstanding for 12 months or more, then the car is seized immediately

If car is stopped that two or three outstanding concurrently, then the car is seized immediately.

If a car is seized, and any one of the three is outstanding for more than 14 days then the owner is fined £1000.

Once a car is seized, then 7 days is given to provide evidence to the contrary. Should they fail to do so to the satisfaction of the police or courts, then the owner/driver faces a prison sentence, and the car sold to contribute to costs.

Repeat offenders will face a further prison sentence.

Firm but fair. Shame we don't the resources to do something similar...

 

[BonzoDog]

The best way to sort this would be to enforce more stringent roadside stops. Considering tax, insurance, MOT:

If a car is stopped that has any one outstanding for 12 months or more, then the car is seized immediately

If car is stopped that two or three outstanding concurrently, then the car is seized immediately.

If a car is seized, and any one of the three is outstanding for more than 14 days then the owner is fined £1000.

Once a car is seized, then 7 days is given to provide evidence to the contrary. Should they fail to do so to the satisfaction of the police or courts, then the owner/driver faces a prison sentence, and the car sold to contribute to costs.

Repeat offenders will face a further prison sentence.

Firm but fair. Shame we don't the resources to do something similar...

Do not the Police now have greater powers than that?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Do not the Police now have greater powers than that?

Great if they do. I fear the power is probably there but we're under-resourced to deal with it as a country.

 

[Shude]

Meanwhile there are cars less than three years old driving around with bald tyres, faulty brakes, blown bulbs, mis-aligned headlamps and possibly numerous other faults that would make them an MOT failure or worse considered "unroadworthy" and they would not be picked up by an MOT because the car is too young.

More stringent MOT inspection to be carried out on the day of and then every year from the delivery date please!

 

[W210 Fan]

As this thread has eared towards the road congestion debate i have a fix for this,

Driving test to start driving, then another test after 5 years, if you dont pass you dont drive, my father for example can hardly see past the end of the bonnet of his rover but is legally eligible to drive, this is wrong, driving back on the A12 the other day he missed the M25 as he couldnt see it, this would get a lot of bad drivers off the road and thus a lot of cars, but I suppose in contradiction to this this may fuel the huge problem of simply driving people underground who drive when they shouldnt by not taxing insuring etc, hense the roadside checks somebody metioned earlier, then there is the problem of police resources and isnt it annoying when you get stuck in a traffic jam when there is a road survey? people will just take another route and thus bypass it, another problem is overcrowded prisons, they let rapists and murderers off as there is no room at the inn so they are less likely to imprison somebody for a driving offense, thus with no deterrent there is no threat to getting caught,

I expect to either be made a lord or shot down in flames for this comment but most people in the local agree with it;

to get rid of the problem of over crowded prisons, souring crime rates, questionablely modified motors, bad driving, huge social security bill and teenage pregnancy stop testing on animals and test new products on chavs instead, there will be a public outcry for a while until the proceeds of my new plans start to pay off, lower taxs, smaller waiting times in hospitals as genuinly ill people will be there not people asking to have their heads stitched back together after drinking too much red stripe and fighting, clearer roads and generally people will be more pleasing to look at,

I suppose in many ways it makes sense but then engineers look at the world differently..........

 

[Sp!ke]

The big answer to our traffic problem isif the government encouraged companies to let their staff telecommute and work from home.

We all have broadband and almost free national calls now - there's little reason for many people not to be able to work a couple of days a week at least from home.

This could reduce traffic by 30%+ at a stroke.

 

[fuzzer]

Greg and Spike, I'd suggest that Fuzzer is slightly tongue in cheek. It's known as stirring it.

oops , forgot to reply yes i was in a funny mood that day and was maybe showing the bull the red rag

 

[W210 Fan]

The big answer to our traffic problem isif the government encouraged companies to let their staff telecommute and work from home.

This could reduce traffic by 30%+ at a stroke.

I whole heartedly agree, I could do my job at home, Solidworks (3D CAD suite) comes with 2 licenses, one for work, one for home, we communicate with out daughter site using software that allows them to look at out screen and activly take over each others computers whilst having in depth discusions about the problems on screen on the phone or using mic/speakers on the pc, the problem is 63% of bosses think productivity goes down when people work from home, overcome that problem and as you so rightly put it, 30% and I think maybe more of the traffic is wiped from the roads,

 

[kelvyn]

my father for example can hardly see past the end of the bonnet of his rover but is legally eligible to drive

Actually I don't think thats correct. There is a defined eyesight test (20 metres for the new style number plates).
If you are involved in an accident and its found that you do not meet this standard you will be in serious doo doo
On a personal note if you believe that your father has serious eyesight issues you should encourage him to visit an optician, for his own safety as much as everyone else's.

On another slightly different tack, there is a school of thought that believes that airbags will soon need to be certified in order to get an MoT certificate.
Depending on which airbag supplier you talk to they are reckoned to have a "shelf life" of between 10 and 15 years.
This means that the airbags in many older cars are actually well past their sell by date and in theory can't be relied on to operate properly.
Given that new units are probably currently in excess of £300 and that many new cars now have 6+ bags you can imagine that in 10 years time a perfectly serviceable car could be scrapped because it may cost more to have new bags fitted than the car is worth(assuming that is that spares are still made/available.

 

[W210 Fan]

until he gets stopped/is found out then he is legal to drive as nobody knows,

I do encourage him to get his eyes checked out and so do the rest of the family but he is very mistrusting of specsavers etc and while he is divorcing my mother, also kind of busy,

the point I was trying to make is that nobody is checking people like my father and so he carries on.......

 

[R2e]

The big answer to our traffic problem isif the government encouraged companies to let their staff telecommute and work from home.

We all have broadband and almost free national calls now - there's little reason for many people not to be able to work a couple of days a week at least from home.

This could reduce traffic by 30%+ at a stroke.

Couldn't agree more. Furthermore if this apology for a goverment (without bringing any political controversy into this you understand.... ) had any sense, they'd encourage home working by offering tax incentives. Mind you, can't see Gordy Broon giving anything away...........

Can you imagine the cut in congestion if only 10% of people were working from home on any one day. Sadly there are still too many dinosaurs of managers who believe in bums on seats and if you're not there you're skiving. I despair sometimes.

 

[R2e]

The best way to sort this would be to enforce more stringent roadside stops. Considering tax, insurance, MOT:

If a car is stopped that has any one outstanding for 12 months or more, then the car is seized immediately

If car is stopped that two or three outstanding concurrently, then the car is seized immediately.

If a car is seized, and any one of the three is outstanding for more than 14 days then the owner is fined £1000.

Once a car is seized, then 7 days is given to provide evidence to the contrary. Should they fail to do so to the satisfaction of the police or courts, then the owner/driver faces a prison sentence, and the car sold to contribute to costs.

Repeat offenders will face a further prison sentence.

Firm but fair. Shame we don't the resources to do something similar...

Issue the traffic police with machine guns and Semtex. No tax or insurance - on the spot summary execution and the car is blown to smithereens. That would concentrate the minds of those tempted to stray from the straight and narrow...................

Mind you, could Mr Plod be trusted? On second thoughts, maybe not.

 

[Apial]

Why not take mileage as the parameter to measure as to when it is time for a car to be taken off the road?

The mileage could be chosen to reflect the quality of the engineering in the first place. Thus a Fiat might be taken off the road after say 60,000 miles, and a post '95 Mercedes after 150,000.

Of course W124 models being the most over engineered of all would be permitted to stay on the road for at least 300,000 miles.

My car having done only 50,000 miles in 16 years should entitle me to a tax rebate for being so green, as this car will last at least 2 driver life times without a replacement car having to be made.

You can't really take a car off the road until its CO2 manufacturing debt is paid off in terms of miles travelled.

 

[Dieselman]

until he gets stopped/is found out then he is legal to drive as nobody knows,

the point I was trying to make is that nobody is checking people like my father and so he carries on.......

He is not legal to drive...
Any medical condition that affects ones ability to drive has to be notified to the DVLA by law. Defective vision clearly falls under this banner and as such your Father can't legally drive a vehicle.

In addition his insurance company require a declaration of fitness to drive when he took out the insurance, so he is technically voiding his policy.

I hope he gets stopped before he causes a crash..

 

[Shude]

but I suppose in contradiction to this this may fuel the huge problem of simply driving people underground who drive when they shouldnt by not taxing insuring etc

I like your thinking! You're suggesting a huge underground road network for illegal drivers? That should shift them off the usual routes!

Hey wait! Why do they get new roads when the law-abiding have to put up with poorly maintained nonsense?

 

[BenzComander]

What is it with the southeast, and notably London that causes so much congestion? Why are so many companies located there? The need to be in touch argument no longer applies due to the Internet, so what is it? The view??

If the government were truly committed to fighting congestion/pollution, it would offer tax incentives to companies to relocate to other regions of the country, Devon/Cornwall/Somerset anyone?? Companies could then pass on some of this saving to their employees so they could relocate, probably making a tidy sum in the process.

When the UK won the Olympic bid, where was it planned to be held? Yup, London (mainly) Why, when Birmingham is the true centre of the UK, has great rail/air/road links and plenty of building space was it not chosen. Kens coffers methinks!

 

[C240Sport97]

Birmingham host the Olympics? why?

why offer not the best, not the most well known and not the most desirable location?

Olympics would have never been awarded to Birmingham.

Not that I am convinced the Olympics is worth the cost, but maybe it is, just to beat Paris!

When the UK won the Olympic bid, where was it planned to be held? Yup, London (mainly) Why, when Birmingham is the true centre of the UK, has great rail/air/road links and plenty of building space was it not chosen. Kens coffers methinks!