Proposed changes to the MOT Test.

[grober]

Unashamed lifted from the AUTO Express article which poses some interesting questions. MoT shake-up announced | News | Auto Express
A possible two-year MoT test is a step closer after plans to change the current annual system, in place since the 1960s.
The change would bring the UK into line with the rest of Europe [ can't verify this but perhaps some of our European members might confirm this?] and save motorists money. “Car technology has come a long way since the 1960s,” said UK transport secretary Philip Hammond. “That’s why we think its right to look again to check whether we still have the right balance of MOT testing for modern vehicles.”
However it has angered industry chiefs. John Ball of the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI). said the Transport Research Laboratory predicted bi-annual testing could cause 30 extra road deaths a year.
Three options are being considered. The least controversial is for annual testing after the first four years. Option two is for a 4-2-1 format while the third suggestion is for a 4-2-2-2-1 frequency.
The most radical proposal would require a car to pass just three MoT tests before its 10th birthday rather than the seven at present.
Figures from VOSA show that 31 percent of cars fail the current test.


Questions posed by the article.

1. Are cars actually robust enough these days to allow two year intervals?
2. Do garages use the MoT as an excuse to suggest unnecessary work?
3. Will this mean an explosion of dangerous cars on our roads.

Personally would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the failure figures. Is there a time or mileage element for example in the distribution of failure- perhaps dare I say it a specific manufacturer or model factor.
Its very tempting to go for a longer time interval as an owner of an older car but against this the MOT test is often the only time many cars undergo any form of inspection and the prospect of lots of vehicles with dodgy tyres, brakes and steering on roads is not a happy one! At the moment I swayed towards some form of staggered system increasing in frequency as the years pass. Many comments seem to be in favour of more infrequent but stringent tests conducted by official Government run test centres [ like commercial vehicles] to remove the element of "job creation" the present system is open to. [The down side is the need to book a test weeks in advance due to the lack of test centres]

 

[LTD]

Maybe the Government should be looking to fix our blooming roads !

 

[alanuk400]

Many comments seem to be in favour of more infrequent but stringent tests conducted by official Government run test centres [ like commercial vehicles] to remove the element of "job creation" the present system is open to. [The down side is the need to book a test weeks in advance due to the lack of test centres]

We have that over here in NI already
DVTA Vehicle Testing - Home


Alan

 

[rf065]

We have that over here in NI already
DVTA Vehicle Testing - Home


Alan

Is it not much the same in Europe too? I know an episode of The Garage in Spain mentioned testing every two years.

Russ

 

[renault12ts]

Is it not much the same in Europe too? I know an episode of The Garage in Spain mentioned testing every two years.

Russ

Alan means we have centralised Gov run MOT centres. The MOT is, as with the rest of you, once a year.

 

[artyman]

Stronger enforcement on unroadworthy vehicles is needed, no MOT or unroadworthy or no insurance, instant crush regardless of age of vehicle with the option to return it to any finance company involved so they don't have to chase for outstanding balances. That may focus the minds of some owners.

 

[219]

I think the current annual test is about right .

Plenty can go wrong with a car over the course of one year - tyres can wear out , springs can crack , brake pipes can corrode .... the list is endless .

I also think it is wrong that cars have to wait until they are three years old before being tested - new cars have ever more complex systems on board and all the more to go wrong ; with ever more cost cutting in the manufacturing process , cars are less robustly engineered than before - I would advocate that brand new cars be tested at the point of sale ( paid for by selling agent ) , and annually thereafter .

If this picks up even one rogue new car with a dangerous defect because the PDI was done by someone simply ticking all the boxes without checking properly , then it will be worthwhile . Before anyone suggests this does not happen , please remember a great many new cars are sold when new registrations come out and workshops are pushed to the limit : the temptation will be great to say 'the car is new - it will be OK ' - most of the time , it will . A computerised MOT will not be so easy to fake since the tests have to be carried out to be recorded .

 

[voy2age]

why not have a two year test. if its good for the France, spain etc, why not us in the UK... we pay to much anyway in this country road tax etc, anything that saves a few quid, cant be bad, i think the dealer's and MOT places wont like it thought.. "Hate the bloody smoke test", i stopped going to one place near me, because the young lad testing it put his foot to the floor, it still passed, but i said if that was 2500 to 3000 rpm mate, i'm a monkey's uncle... just a thought

 

[JohnDeere8530]

maybe a major test every other year, pretty much as it is now and a cheaper minor one in between that just checks tyres, shocks and brakes (ie anything that can wear dramatically in the space of a yr)

Things like structural rust, brake pipe condition etc a decent MOT tester should be able to determine if they would get down to a critical value in a two yr time frame. If so fail it. Unlike now which means the car has to be roadworth/within tollerances just for that day only

 

[LTD]

An interesting statistic that we would probably never be able to find out would be the percentage of accidents that are DIRECTLY attributable to defects that would fail an MOT.

I guess the outcome would show driver error to be the major factor.

Ergo, annual testing works.

 

[MD5]

Ridiculous. Crime of the century is to exceed the speed limit, but it doesn't matter if it's in an unroadworthy car. Taxis here have a very stringent annual council test, but also have to have an regular mot in between.

I was shocked to learn at Ollie's that the anti-roll bar bushes were badly worn on a car that had only done about 500 miles since its last mot with no advisories. What price do you put on safety?

 

[grober]

I would hazard a guess that many many motorway / mainroad crashes are due to tyre failure at speed due to under-inflation/damage/ wear or simply lack of grip. That's a situation that can easily arise within the period of a year let alone two. There might be further consequences of an extended MOT interval. e.g a [pro-rata] raising of minimum tyre tread depth say to 3mm is one that comes to mind?? Sadly for many motorists the MOT Test is the only time their car is subject to any inspection and importantly a regular traceable official record exists of the car's mileage, nay very existence . Criminals in the car trade I'm sure are rubbing their hands at the prospect of a 2 year MOT test.

 

[Benzowner]

I don't see the problem one year or two years. The current set up for a new car is after 3 years, how many 3 year old cars have hundreds of thousands of miles covered, in many cases the lifetime of normal cars and yet they are officially not due an MoT. Back in the 80's I had a Vauxhall Cavalier which on its first MoT had covered 210000miles. I agree with a previous poster, full MoT every two years and a tyre and brake inspection in between.

 

[219]

how many 3 year old cars have hundreds of thousands of miles covered, in many cases the lifetime of normal cars and yet they are officially not due an MoT. Back in the 80's I had a Vauxhall Cavalier which on its first MoT had covered 210000miles.

This is another reason ( besides 'tick all the boxes' PDI's ) why I think all new cars should be MOT'd at the point of sale , and annually thereafter .

 

[MicB]

Every two years is in my opinion not often enough. The current annual regime works quite well and should be extended forward to year one as opposed to year three. It serves as a reminder to us all to get our cars checked over at least once a year which surely cannot be a bad thing.

Mic

 

[John]

I'm also for sticking with the 1 year. I'd also scrap the '3 years before test'.

How many people check their tyres (pressure and condition) often enough, let alone the things you can't see underneath from the road.

Make it EVERY year and put the additional revenue into fixing the roads.

 

[W4SIM]

How many people check their tyres (pressure and condition) often enough, let alone the things you can't see underneath from the road.

Make it EVERY year and put the additional revenue into fixing the roads.

Couldnt agree more, especially about putting more money back into the roads.

Though on an interesting side note, my mate who does MOT's reckons they're going to make the MOT every 2 years but at the cost of doubling your road tax!!!

The "government" isnt so interested in your safety or saving you money as it is about lining the pockets of the treasury first. This is a time when the government is supposedly near bankruptcy if you believe all that crapp!

 

[R2e]

Just as a matter of interest, has anyone had a car fail its MOT in the past, say, ten years for anything dangerous, if at all? Mercs I have owned during this period, and they've all been at least three years old when purchased haven't so much as failed or had an advisory. I don't do anything special other than having them serviced when the car tells me to and checking my tyres for wear now and again. I am even getting lazy about checking water and oil as the car tells me anyway, but I've never had to add either. Similarly my wife's VW Polo (bought new 1996 sold 2003) and Honda Jazz (bought new 2003, still in use) have never had even a hiccup at MOT.

This was not the case in the 70s/80s or 90s though cars did improve greatly during these decades and the MOT test became more stringent particularly regarding emissions. The last failure I had was in the late 80's on a 1974 Renault 5 my wife was using (sweet little car, but rusted away finally).

I wonder if we're actually trying to address a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[artyman]

When first introduced it was known as the ten year test, I think to ensure older cars or more particularly unsafe ones were removed from the road. Back then you could see some pretty horrific examples.

Mind you I daresay the type of owner that isn't bothered about proper maintenance isn't likely to be bothered about an MOT cert or probably insurance either.

 

[jepho]

My cynical self is not too keen on the current MOT test. Local garages always seem to find expensive work needing doing. The standards for the test may well be laid down but how are they being overseen and certified as a standard of work?

Every time my wheels fall into yet another deep pothole because our roads are not repaired, I get unreasonably irritated by the blame the car-driver mentality. Good car maintenance is just one part of a complex equation.

I would like to see road tax scrapped VED moved to a levy at the pumps. Everyone would pay it and the cash could be used to drag our road system out of the 19th century.

If the government were really interested in seeing road safety improve MOT tests would be free at point of use as well as compulsory. Moving to a five year test for drivers, with a concomitant reduction in car insurance would also help.