Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Posted here because this forum seems to get most widely read, I think this should concern every road user. There is a government proposal to reduce MOT testing to 2 yearly intervals. Before anyone shouts hurrah consider the implications that many road users that only get their vehicles checked at MOT time. My daughters car recently failed with worn brake pads, and CV boot split. Under this proposal I dread to think of the consequences to her or other road users if this had not been picked up for a further year. You can read about it here, and sign a petition against the proposal, if like me you think it is an insane idea. http://www.pro-mote.org.uk/take_action/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandya Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I feel I must register my strong disagreement with onefoots point of view. The MOT test only means the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of the actual test .One hour down the road this could be different due to, for instance, a damaged tyre or steering due to potholes or similar, an MOT station cannot guarantee roadworthyness of a vehicle for a year and it is irresponsible of any driver to think so ,the responsibility is on the driver to ensure the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of use it is also a condition of most motor insurance policies that the vehicle is maintained in roadworthy condition ie to the service schedule if found otherwise after an accident the policy may will be invalid Regards Sandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Sandy is spot on, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure the vehicle they are driving is roadworthy this also applies to hire cars. 1foot's daughter is a danger to other road users if she is prepared to take a car on the road in that condition I say again it is the responsibility of the driver & if they are not capable of carrying out the necessary checks regularly they should employ a confident person to do it. As for the MOT they are only bringing it in line with the rest of Europe 1st test at 4 years then by-yearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Why do we have to follow Europe, when they have much higher accidents rates than us. You must live in a parallel universe to me then is all I can say. Lets just hope you don't end up with some chav in his 10 year old Nova ending up in your lap because his car was last checked for road worthiness some two years before. There is right now a growing problem with people driving round in poorly maintained vehicles, bald tyres, etc. because of economic factors that are only being picked up on at MOT time. I'm not sure how many of you have a young son / daughter driving around, but in my experience whilst they know how to play "crazy birds" on their smart phones, they know nothing of vehicle maintenance or safety, and quite wrongly assume the only time they need their vehicle checked is the annual MOT. They here a funny noise like a wheel bearing on it's way out, and turn up the stereo to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrie w Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I agree with both the other posts. A "CT" ( Controle Technique) is by yearly here in France, the first being at 4 years.With an emission check in between if a utility vehicle. Cost this year on our Hymer was 72€. The test is different to a UK one but in some respects more thorough. As has been said the test is as the tester sees it at that time.He may advise on other items that are considered future safety related but not necessarily failable. Items such as brake pads are serviceable & should be the responsibility of the owner to check, not the MOT tester. Modern vehicle wear & tear items are generally more durable than they were 30 years ago when I was a tester, so the proposal is in my mind a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Whenever I see links to petitions on the forum, or anywhere else on the net, I always want to know who is behind it and why. This petition appears to be the work of an organisation called ' Pro-mote.org' Their website doesn't actually explain who they are but they list their ' supporters ' who as far as I can see are all motor industry related. The petition itself warns of a potential loss of 40,000 jobs. Having said that, it is of course up to the individual whether or not they support the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Unfortunately,for a good many motorists out there,the MOT is the ONLY time during the year that their car really gets looked at... Far too many motorists treat their vehicles like "white goods" nowadays,just running them until something "breaks".... :-S (..so one *could* argue that "MOTs" should be more frequent and more thorough...?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 1foot.....I wholeheartedly agree with you on this....and the posts from Sandya and Lennyhb above...well words 'almost' fail me.....what a crock of ####. Those folks must be incredibly conscientious mechanics or have OCD regarding road worthiness of their vehicles. Just out of interest do either Sandya or Lennyhb know what a CV boot is? I do and can tell you with utter confidence that 100% of car owners never ever check theirs from the time they own the car to the time they get rid of it. MoT time is usually the only time these get checked. The only other time is if the car is up on a ramp for servicing/repair then it might get spotted. Do either of you get down and check your brake pads thickness? Do you know what the minimum pad thickness is? The answer is probably NO to all three questions which is why the MoT at yearly intervals is important. It is there to check road worthiness and to spot components that are in need of replacement/repair hence 'advisory' notices are issued. Yes the certificate is only valid (as a measure of road worthyness) for the instant it is printed but it does indicate that the vehicle has been given a 'safety' check and is roadworthy, assuming it has passed of course. At that time advisory notices are also issued.......so as for 1foot's daughter being dangerous?....she is no more dangerous than any other motor vehicle owner/user. Oh and Lenny...do you, when taking a hire vehicle out check the brake pads, all lights, wiper blades, washer bottle contents, ball joints, CV boots, all seat belts for wear and functionality......etc etc......I bet you don't So IMO we should ignore Europe...on this and many many other things. The annual MoT is sensible and should be retained for the safety of all our road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I assume that anyone who is concerned about the condition of their car can have it Mot'd as often as they like - so two years would only be a maximum period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 sandya - 2011-11-08 9:30 AM I feel I must register my strong disagreement with onefoots point of view. The MOT test only means the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of the actual test .One hour down the road this could be different due to, for instance, a damaged tyre or steering due to potholes or similar, an MOT station cannot guarantee roadworthyness of a vehicle for a year and it is irresponsible of any driver to think so ,the responsibility is on the driver to ensure the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of use it is also a condition of most motor insurance policies that the vehicle is maintained in roadworthy condition ie to the service schedule if found otherwise after an accident the policy may will be invalid Regards Sandy To be fair to 1Foot (with whom I find I agree only rarely ;-) ) I don't think he was suggesting anything much contrary to what you have posted above. Neither do I see him defending the position of people who run unroadworthy vehicles (though his daughter may need a bit of talking to, worn pads and a split CV boot are far from uncommon, particularly among the less-motoring-savvy). What I think he was saying, and if so I agree with him, is that a large number of cars are run with inadequate care and maintenance, and faults and safety issues are often only diagnosed at MOT time. Whether it is sensible or not, some people regard the MOT test as their main (only) method of identifying whether their car is roadworthy, and, if not,any work required to make it so. If everyone maintained their vehicle in a roadworthy state at all times, then there would be little point in insisting on testing; they don't, so it is safer to have a test regime. So, does it then make sense to extend the testing interval? It is true that vehicles are generally more reliable nowadays than they were, but beyond a certain age, things still start to go wrong, and are less likely to be identified by proper servicing. I could possibly see a case for extending the interval to the first test (maybe by a year - most vehicles will still receive a manufacturer recommended service at the end of 3 years which should identify any issues), but beyond that point, continuance of an annual MOT test seems sensible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I for one wholeheartedly agree with 1foot, it is sheer lunacy to extend the MOT period to two years. Yes it IS the drivers responsibility to ensure his/her vehicle is roadworthy but let me ask you one question, answer it honestly: How many of you check your tyre pressures on a weekly basis? Or even before a long run? I'll wager its not many that do and I say this because I see motorhomes almost daily with ancient tyres showing sidewall cracking and uneven pressures around the vehicle and when I point these details out to the owners I often get blank looks in response. If you don't even check your tyre pressures how can you be expected to know that your brake pads are worn when you have to remove a road wheel to see them? 1foots daughters car should not have actually failed the test on worn pads unless they were worn to the point that there was no friction material left and therefore adversely affected braking performance. Worn brake pads should be no more than an advisory item in fact as the tester cannot remove a wheel to inspect them properly. The MOT test is a lot softer than it used to be. When I started in the motor trade some 35 years ago the spare tyre was brought into the test and if present had to comply to the same limits as the other tyres. Now though the only interest i the spare at test time is that it is securely fixed if underneath the vehicle. Sidewall cracking of tyres used to be a definite fail but now it is only a fail if the tyres cord structure is visible. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 malc d - 2011-11-08 10:23 AM I assume that anyone who is concerned about the condition of their car can have it Mot'd as often as they like - so two years would only be a maximum period. ......of course - though I doubt even the conscientious would :-S ; those who really need the discipline of a regular MOT check most certainly wouldn't. The MOT test can essentially be seen as a "distress purchase", largely to be avoided, even at the £28.50 it costs me for a really good tester locally. Hence its current compulsory nature. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Thanks for your support, yes I am specifically thinking of younger / irresponsible people who have either not got a clue about vehicle safety ( my daughter despite me banging on about it ) driving around in usually end of life cars, that by definition are likely to be potential death traps unless faults are spotted. I would go further and say after 8 years 6 month testing would not be a bad idea for some ! Ask some how often they have their car serviced and you get a totally blank look, or they say well its had its MOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero boy Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Have to agree with Robin here. I am in the fortunate position of being able to employ 'preventative maintenance' to my 9 yr old Audi - ie it gets serviced to the manufacturer's recommendations. Come MOT time, it always sails through. On the other hand, my children see expenditure on their vehicles (my so has now forgone his for a pushbike as he lives in a city) as an evil and MOTs as a necessary evil. However, if they didn't have that MOT test then, despite persuasion (verbal and financial) from Bank of Mum and Dad, servicing (or preventative mantenance) would not be carried out. I think MOTs should remain an annual affair with punative penalties for those without the required certificates ................or Tax...........or Insurance................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryW Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I have no doubt that this proposal is based on sound information on the increased reliability of modern vehicles but the data will probably covers mainly cars. In the case of motorhomes that spend long periods static, often in strong sun light I would suggest the probability of brake and tyre failure is greater than your average family car so I would counter propose that MH's should have an MOT every 6 months or perhaps be made to pass a commercial vehicle test. That way we will all be safer still ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I believe its based on bringing the UK into line with the EU, is that a good enough reason I wonder. If you take the trouble to read the link many organizations are quite rightly IMO opposed to this change on the grounds of safety to ALL road users in the UK.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 For my part I would welcome the change but only because the local garage that service mine on an annual basis is very through. How ever that still leave a lot of other vehicles on the road that may never be serviced so on the basis that I don't want to get close and personnel with any of those I also think the proposal is a retrograde step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The hire car comments are a red herring...Most hire companies sell the cars on after 6 - 12 months! 2 yearly fine by me and makes absolute sense.. But it should be stricter to get all these old bangers of the road... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Far from reducing the MOT I think it's scope should be extended to at least include tyre pressures and auxiliary lights which I understand are not currently included and it should also automatically include an insurance and VED database check with any potentially illegal vehicles being discreetly reported to the Police by computer link so that they can attend on the spot - if they have the manpower available - to avoid the garage owner becoming involved. You only have to look at the number of uninsured cars on the road - most of which don't have an MOT or tax disc either and add that to the number of cars that never get checked or serviced because of the cost to see that reducing the legal obligations in this country is not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-11-08 11:34 AM The hire car comments are a red herring...Most hire companies sell the cars on after 6 - 12 months! 2 yearly fine by me and makes absolute sense.. But it should be stricter to get all these old bangers of the road... That is the problem, how do you define "old banger" my 2003 Avensis with 40,000 miles and fastidiously maintained, or my daughters 4 year old Mondeo ex rep mobile with 180k, and not looked at from one year to the next at MOT time, despite me banging on to her and her Xbox addicted other half who would buy another Xbox game rather than spend out on car maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-11-08 11:34 AM The hire car comments are a red herring...Most hire companies sell the cars on after 6 - 12 months! . Can't agree I hired a car a couple of years ago, the car was only a few months old, had a bad steering vibration I had a look round & found a tire with a badly damaged side wall where it had obviously been heavily kerbed took it straight back to the hire company. Ifoot,- I have 2 daughters who drive and they often ask dad to check their cars out. Roger- I hope I know what a CV boot is as I sell them. My wife's car is 12 years old solely maintained by me & it's never failed an MOT & I'm only a confident DIY'er (only qualified in electronics). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickydripin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 When I heard that MOTs were going to be every two years I thought great but only because I have my car serviced every year and it has has never failed an MOT. What I would like being done is to completely stop MOTs but with a previso that every car should have a full service at a registered garage and not to leave the garage until work had been compleated. Instead we have to pay out for an MOT and also a service, Two hits for the garages. the MOT was brought in to make money and work for garages "and the goverment" and car dealers not for the health of the motorist. What we have now is people going to so called garages to get there car serviced on the cheep or not at all by so called mechanics that know bugger all who decide to set up a garage Like (Kane dingle in emerdale *-) and then relying on the MOT to tell them what is wrong with there car. But what do I know I am the mug that gets Mugged every time that I pop my head into a garage. O! and I would like to ask where do you have your car MOTd for £28 mine costs me £48 there you go mugged again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Every two years, fine by me, why would it make any differance except to save us all a bit of money. My vehicles are all serviced every year so why would I rely on an mot to spot problems. As for all the old bangers around, do not really see many now and people who run them probably do not bother with mot, insurance etc anyway. Since the police stopped taking an interest not having a tax disc seems not to be a big problem now either so many will risk it. I am against bringing anything in line with europe on principle but still do not see this as a reason,why not make it every three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickydripin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Rupert123 I agree with you 100% you put it better than I could have done Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave225 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 It should be done n a sliding scale with age. The 1st MOT is due when a car is 3 years old, and is 'hopefully' still in pretty good nick so a subsequent check at 2 yeasr would be fine. However after say 6 years of age a car will start to have some of the primamry components showing wear and then an annual check up should be required. There could also be a case for making garages be laible for approving a vehicle at the annual service. Some may suggest they will fudge this, but what difference between using the garage next door to do the actual test from the qualified mechanic in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.