Have you read this insane proposal

[RogerC]

 

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.

 

Roger- I hope I know what a CV boot is as I sell them.

 

My point still stands though......people just don't/can't check 'all' the items that could make a car, hire or otherwise, dangerous. Your hire car had an 'obvious' fault.....split CV boots/pads below limits etc are not obvious ....and how often do you check the CV boots? Remember it's only in good condition at the time it is checked.....damage can be sustained at any time. Ergo saying 1foots daughter is in the wrong is not on.

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2011-11-08 12:10 PM

 

It should be done on 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 years would be fine. However after say 6 years of age a car will start to have some of the primary components showing wear and then an annual check up should be required.

 

There could also be a case for making garages be liable 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?

 

Now this, I really agree with.

 

The main problem regarding mechanical condition is that vehicles get driven between services and tests, and that is where the wear/damage arises. So, anyone who services/tests a vehicle can only ever vouch for its condition at that time. What happens next, is and can only be, the responsibility of the owner/driver. However, verification that the vehicle is in fully roadworthy condition is surely an implied duty of any garage carrying out servicing, and is part of the reason a road test is, in my experience, carried out before the vehicle is handed back to the customer. Having said that, I would like to see compulsory servicing intervals not exceeding 12 months, whether or not oil etc is changed, and I would like to see headlamp alignment >:-( made a compulsory feature of all servicing, just as checking tyre pressures is.

 

As to whether two year or one year MoTs have a serious impact on accident data, I "has me doots"! Surely most, by which I mean the very great majority, of accidents are due, one way or another, to driver error and not to mechanical failure. I was struck by the number of motorway breakdowns we saw in a recent run up to the midlands, quite a few of which seemed to involve flat tyres. Don't know why so many seem to get flats, could be repeated kerbing (which seems a common habit for many drivers), or just unobservant parking. But, leaving tyre defects aside, and given that split circuit brakes are almost universal, and that ABS is very common, faulty brakes should not be a cause of accidents, leaving relatively little that might actually cause collisions. Sudden failures of items such as bearings, stub axles, springs etc might well cause accidents but they are a) rare and b) virtually impossible to predict.

 

I therefore doubt that changing MoT frequency would have any more than a marginal impact on vehicle reliability, an even lower impact on vehicle safety and, to all intents and purposes, no impact whatever on road safety overall.

 

I'd be quite happy to see the MoT reduced to no more than an inspection of the vehicle's service record. If it has been serviced by a competent person (meaning an authorised garage) at least annually, issue the certificate, leaving the servicing garage liable for their work, if it hasn't, do the full test.

[yeti]

What about this then? A minibus has to be MOTd the first year after registration,a motorhome on the same chassis three years. How long has the vehicle been standing before conversion to a bus or motorhome?

[pkc]

I think there is an argument to be made for both points of view on the subject, but as someone who does most of his own repairs and maintenance I would welcome the new proposal.

On extended trips abroad it is a pain to have to return to the UK for the MOT test.

What I would like to see is the ability to have the test carried out anywhere in the EEC.

 

[kelly58]

Dave Newell - 2011-11-08 10:34 AMI 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.

I whole heartily agree with Daves comment last April whilst waiting to board Eurotunnell the motorhome in front of us had a very soft nearside rear and the offside was also not fully inflated he like us was heading to France. I pointed his tyre problems to him and he was not aware they were a problem he said he had only brought it out of winter storage two days before and had not checked it over as he had been busy he then said I think there may be an airline at the filling station on the other side and would sort it there. As we all know garage airlines will only put air in up to 40psi which is not enough for a motorhome.

[Dave Newell]

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet :-S .

 

D.

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2011-11-08 12:57 PM

 

Dave225 - 2011-11-08 12:10 PM

 

It should be done on 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 years would be fine. However after say 6 years of age a car will start to have some of the primary components showing wear and then an annual check up should be required.

 

There could also be a case for making garages be liable 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?

 

Now this, I really agree with.

 

The main problem regarding mechanical condition is that vehicles get driven between services and tests, and that is where the wear/damage arises. So, anyone who services/tests a vehicle can only ever vouch for its condition at that time. What happens next, is and can only be, the responsibility of the owner/driver. However, verification that the vehicle is in fully roadworthy condition is surely an implied duty of any garage carrying out servicing, and is part of the reason a road test is, in my experience, carried out before the vehicle is handed back to the customer. Having said that, I would like to see compulsory servicing intervals not exceeding 12 months, whether or not oil etc is changed, and I would like to see headlamp alignment >:-( made a compulsory feature of all servicing, just as checking tyre pressures is.

 

As to whether two year or one year MoTs have a serious impact on accident data, I "has me doots"! Surely most, by which I mean the very great majority, of accidents are due, one way or another, to driver error and not to mechanical failure. I was struck by the number of motorway breakdowns we saw in a recent run up to the midlands, quite a few of which seemed to involve flat tyres. Don't know why so many seem to get flats, could be repeated kerbing (which seems a common habit for many drivers), or just unobservant parking. But, leaving tyre defects aside, and given that split circuit brakes are almost universal, and that ABS is very common, faulty brakes should not be a cause of accidents, leaving relatively little that might actually cause collisions. Sudden failures of items such as bearings, stub axles, springs etc might well cause accidents but they are a) rare and b) virtually impossible to predict.

 

I therefore doubt that changing MoT frequency would have any more than a marginal impact on vehicle reliability, an even lower impact on vehicle safety and, to all intents and purposes, no impact whatever on road safety overall.

 

I'd be quite happy to see the MoT reduced to no more than an inspection of the vehicle's service record. If it has been serviced by a competent person (meaning an authorised garage) at least annually, issue the certificate, leaving the servicing garage liable for their work, if it hasn't, do the full test.

 

....can't really follow your argument here, Brian. :-S

 

On one hand you appear to be saying that you have doubts about extending MOT intervals having much impact (on vehicle safety and reliability, and ultimately road safety), whilst on the other hand suggesting that to avoid the consequence of vehicle wear/damage it should be compulsory to have an annual service, (presumably from your text covering much if not all of the items that are mandatory in an MOT), and for the servicing garage to certify its own work.

 

Patently, for those people that have their cars serviced regularly (and don't either avoid it or do it themselves) this is effectively available already by having your servicing garage MOT your vehicle at the same time.

 

There are many things carried out for an MOT that aren't currently done during a standard service, however (headlamp alignment is one you have identified, and I would suggest rolling-road brake efficiency is another important one - I disagree with your views on brake issues, and brake problems figure very highly in the MOT failure statistics). Following your suggestion would therefore increase servicing costs, and IMO it will simply drive more people to avoid both service and (ersatz-)MOT (especially those that don't service but do MOT their vehicles currently).

 

Frankly, the current system looks largely OK to me - the one improvement I would like to see, however, is complete independence of the testing stations (from servicing garages) to avoid fraudulent work, and to ensure consistent standards.

(AFAIK testing is much more independent on some of the continent, and in NI, and this can only be a good thing).

 

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Dave225 - 2011-11-08 12:10 PM

 

It should be done on a sliding scale with age....

 

That sounds like a good idea..although I dare say a fair few on here would sweat a bit,if the same approach was extended to include the drivers' "roadworthyness"... (lol)

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25369&posts=4

 

;-)

[malc d]

I would be amazed if anyone should suggest that an annual service by a garage should be compulsory.

 

If ever there was a licence for garages to print money, that would be it !

 

 

 

;-)

[Derek Uzzell]

1footinthegrave - 2011-11-08 11:25 AM

 

I believe its based on bringing the UK into line with the EU...

 

There are EU-agreed 'rules' that govern vehicle safety testing, but individual EU countries can decide their own intervals as long as that decision does not conflict with the general rules.

 

It's worth looking at the following (2009) information:

 

http://www.motester.co.uk/CarOwnersGuidetoTheMOT/HistoryoftheMOTTest.aspx

 

http://www.motester.co.uk/CarOwnersGuidetoTheMOT/EuropeanComparisons.aspx

[RO8ERT]

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet .

 

D.

 

I do along with fluid levels when I wash the car - about once a week. Also have it serviced every six months or so. I though this was normal but reading this .... maybe it is not.

 

Robert..

[malc d]

Dave Newell - 2011-11-08 1:56 PM

 

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet :-S .

 

D.

 

 

I don't mind admitting that I check 'em before any long journey, together with ' fluid levels '

 

 

[lennyhb]

I check the Motorhome before a trip as it's sitting around for 3-4 weeks between trips but must own up to not doing the car very often.

[bolero boy]

RO8ERT - 2011-11-08 2:34 PM

 

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet .

 

D.

 

I do along with fluid levels when I wash the car - about once a week. Also have it serviced every six months or so. I though this was normal but reading this .... maybe it is not.

 

Robert..

Robert is not alone..................I do wash the car (and MH) on a regular basis and use this opportunity to go over all the visible and driver servicable bits (fluids, tyres etc).

[Rayjsj]

Personally I am 'Not Bothered' what they do in the rest of Europe, I believe that our 'Annual' MOT testing regime, works fairly well, it has cleared our roads of the worst of the 'Old bangers' that used to be around before it's introduction, AND keeps an eye (sort of) on the folk who never look under the bonnet from one year to the next (and there are a LOT of them around). When I see a 'One eyed Car' behind me or coming toward me, i can be reasonbly sure that within a year at most, someone (if not the driver) would have stuck a new bulb in. And that is to name just one item that IS covered.

for once, I agree with 'onefoot'. Itsa Crazeee ! Ray *-)

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2011-11-08 2:13 PM

 

I would be amazed if anyone should suggest that an annual service by a garage should be compulsory.

 

If ever there was a licence for garages to print money, that would be it !

 

;-)

 

No need to be amazed, because that is exactly what I am suggesting. :-) I have owned cars that needed servicing, according to the manufacturer, only every 18 months, or even two years - if the mileage limit is not first reached. Since such vehicles would by definition cover low annual mileages, IMO, that is far too long a time for any vehicle to be in use with no intermediate check. I think a minimum of 12 months is much preferable than these longer intervals. Sensibly staged, there is no reason for every item to be serviced/changed each time, but all safety critical items should be inspected at each visit.

[sandya]

 

''Just out of interest do either Sandya or Lennyhb know what a CV boot is?''

I think it a bit high handed of Roger to suggest that Lenny and I are ignorant of car mechanics, for my part spending half a lifetime working on motor vehicles also spending twenty years as an approved driving instructor teaching driving and safe vehicle ownership, maybe in the light of some comments about sons and daughters it should be the drivers who are tested every year

Sandy

[bigal]

kelly58 - 2011-11-08 1:48 PM

Dave Newell - 2011-11-08 10:34 AMI 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.

I whole heartily agree with Daves comment last April whilst waiting to board Eurotunnell the motorhome in front of us had a very soft nearside rear and the offside was also not fully inflated he like us was heading to France. I pointed his tyre problems to him and he was not aware they were a problem he said he had only brought it out of winter storage two days before and had not checked it over as he had been busy he then said I think there may be an airline at the filling station on the other side and would sort it there. As we all know garage airlines will only put air in up to 40psi which is not enough for a motorhome.

A yearly MOT Test is imperative IMO. I base this on 42 years experience in the motor trade working on everything from private cars to 40 tonne lorries and trailers and after being a qualified MOT tester from 1966 to 2000 when I retired. To answer Dave's question, I check the motorhome tyre pressures once a week when I am at home and do the car tyres at the same time using my own small compressor which operates at 250psi. I check the tyre pressures before each long run together with the engine oil and other levels under the bonnet but even with my long experience I am not clairvoyant so a regular check up of the mechanical parts is carried out by a local garage with heavy vehicle knowledge and capability. I also make it a condition that the engine oil and filter are changed every 6000 miles or six months because oil is hygroscopic and holds water which destroys its lubricating properties. I bear in mind that an MOT test is the result of one man's opinion on a particular day and perceived degree of wear is also open to the opinion of the tester. It's not rocket science is it? :-S B-)

[Basil]

Dave Newell - 2011-11-08 1:56 PM

 

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet :-S .

 

D.

 

Yes.

 

Personally I agree with the two year testing regime, I see no problem with it whatsoever. If there was to be a change I would make a change to be based on milage, a vehicle doing 40000mls a year needs far more maintenance than one covering 10000mls.

 

Bas

[Mel B]

Basil - 2011-11-08 5:45 PM

 

Dave Newell - 2011-11-08 1:56 PM

 

So does anyone check their tyres weekly or before a long journey? Nobody has admitted to it yet :-S .

 

D.

 

Yes.

 

Personally I agree with the two year testing regime, I see no problem with it whatsoever. If there was to be a change I would make a change to be based on milage, a vehicle doing 40000mls a year needs far more maintenance than one covering 10000mls.

 

Bas

 

... But a vehicle only doing 2,000 miles a year can still develop nasty faults too so how would that work? :-S

[Brian Kirby]

Sorry for the carve-up, but I seem to have cause some confusion, and this is probably the easiest way to try to clarify.

 

Robinhood - 2011-11-08 1:56 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-11-08 12:57 PM

 

Dave225 - 2011-11-08 12:10 PM

 

It should be done on 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 years would be fine. However after say 6 years of age a car will start to have some of the primary components showing wear and then an annual check up should be required.

 

There could also be a case for making garages be liable 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?

 

Now this, I really agree with.

 

The main problem regarding mechanical condition is that vehicles get driven between services and tests, and that is where the wear/damage arises. So, anyone who services/tests a vehicle can only ever vouch for its condition at that time. What happens next, is and can only be, the responsibility of the owner/driver. However, verification that the vehicle is in fully roadworthy condition is surely an implied duty of any garage carrying out servicing, and is part of the reason a road test is, in my experience, carried out before the vehicle is handed back to the customer. Having said that, I would like to see compulsory servicing intervals not exceeding 12 months, whether or not oil etc is changed, and I would like to see headlamp alignment >:-( made a compulsory feature of all servicing, just as checking tyre pressures is.

 

As to whether two year or one year MoTs have a serious impact on accident data, I "has me doots"! Surely most, by which I mean the very great majority, of accidents are due, one way or another, to driver error and not to mechanical failure. I was struck by the number of motorway breakdowns we saw in a recent run up to the midlands, quite a few of which seemed to involve flat tyres. Don't know why so many seem to get flats, could be repeated kerbing (which seems a common habit for many drivers), or just unobservant parking. But, leaving tyre defects aside, and given that split circuit brakes are almost universal, and that ABS is very common, faulty brakes should not be a cause of accidents, leaving relatively little that might actually cause collisions. Sudden failures of items such as bearings, stub axles, springs etc might well cause accidents but they are a) rare and b) virtually impossible to predict.

 

I therefore doubt that changing MoT frequency would have any more than a marginal impact on vehicle reliability, an even lower impact on vehicle safety and, to all intents and purposes, no impact whatever on road safety overall.

 

I'd be quite happy to see the MoT reduced to no more than an inspection of the vehicle's service record. If it has been serviced by a competent person (meaning an authorised garage) at least annually, issue the certificate, leaving the servicing garage liable for their work, if it hasn't, do the full test.

 

....can't really follow your argument here, Brian. :-S

 

On one hand you appear to be saying that you have doubts about extending MOT intervals having much impact (on vehicle safety and reliability, and ultimately road safety),

With the proviso that vehicles see the inside of a garage at least along the lines of Dave225's sliding scale, yes.

 

whilst on the other hand suggesting that to avoid the consequence of vehicle wear/damage it should be compulsory to have an annual service, (presumably from your text covering much if not all of the items that are mandatory in an MOT), and for the servicing garage to certify its own work.

Here I seem to have caused some fog! :-) I think that, vehicles should generally have to be checked and serviced annually (but subject to age related variations, as Dave 225 suggested), so that while being serviced the safety critical items that are checked under MoT rules would also be checked. All that is required is for the garage to complete the check list, and attach it to the service invoice. They already have a duty of care (apart from a contractual obligation) to carry out their work to a competent standard. A approved stamp in a service schedule, with the completed check list, should be all that is then required as evidence the test standard has been met. The standard cost of the test is £50, some carry them out for less, so incorporated into a service I can't see any reason why the cost of MoT combined within service, and service and MoT as separate items, should be any different.

 

Patently, for those people that have their cars serviced regularly (and don't either avoid it or do it themselves) this is effectively available already by having your servicing garage MOT your vehicle at the same time.

It is not so much regularity, as frequency, that I am trying to get at. It is this question of low mileage vehicles that bothers me. These should have to go for an annual service, and then be checked for the safety critical items. It seems many choose to let service intervals stretch out, and only visit garages if the vehicle fails its MoT, and then only for the minimum necessary repairs. Hardly a recipe for a properly road-worthy vehicle. Those who wish to DIY, or have unapproved service agents do the work, would just have to submit their vehicles, as at present, for an independent test, but should have to show evidence (receipted invoices or similar) that the service items have been completed.

 

There are many things carried out for an MOT that aren't currently done during a standard service, however (headlamp alignment is one you have identified, and I would suggest rolling-road brake efficiency is another important one - I disagree with your views on brake issues, and brake problems figure very highly in the MOT failure statistics). Following your suggestion would therefore increase servicing costs, and IMO it will simply drive more people to avoid both service and (ersatz-)MOT (especially those that don't service but do MOT their vehicles currently).

Agree about the rolling road test. Don't know what the common MoT fail stats show, but am happy to accept what you say. However, if the standard service were to be to Dave's scale, and had to test at least brakes and lights, and this was garage certified, the vehicles would not need the formal test. My quid pro quo is that if the vehicle service record does not show service by an approved service agent within the previous year, then it must have a valid test certificate.

 

Frankly, the current system looks largely OK to me - the one improvement I would like to see, however, is complete independence of the testing stations (from servicing garages) to avoid fraudulent work, and to ensure consistent standards.

(AFAIK testing is much more independent on some of the continent, and in NI, and this can only be a good thing).

I agree that the test centres should then be independent, because that would mean that any garage executed work could be challenged. There are, of course, two sides to this. It is possible for garages that also carry out tests, to look for faults that generate additional revenue. It is also possible for garages to carry out tests to gain servicing work, as some do, at a reduced charge if they so wish. What many do at present is a service combined with a pre-test inspection, to ensure a pass when the test record is completed. That avoids the faff of removing a fail from the test station to an alternative workshop for repair, which is still open to abuse since it is then a "fire sale", and then a re-submission for test. Given the alternatives, it seems to me that licensing garages to incorporate the safety critical MoT test items into a compulsory annual service, with an authorised stamp in the service record, should cover all bases. This would apply at all service intervals including the first, with the items to be checked becoming more stringent with age. Those who choose to shop elsewhere could still do so, but would have to submit to the age related MoT test intervals, at independent test stations.

 

Regarding road safety, the test in its present form keeps the worst of the "bangers" off the roads. It ensures a minimum level of vehicle safety is maintained, but it does little for vehicle reliability, and breakdowns can present safety risks. However, if the formal test interval were increased along Dave's lines, I can't really see how this would alter road safety. After all, vehicle defects cause less than 3% of all accidents (dud brakes contributing a little over 0.6%, and tyre defects just over 1%), with road conditions adding a further 10-15%, and driver error and/or impairment (inattention being the highest) contributing the balance. Of course, vehicles should not fail dangerously, but even if every vehicle on the road were in perfect condition, it seems our accident rate would still run at 97% of its present level. It ain't the cars, folks, it's us! :-D

[RogerC]

sandya - 2011-11-08 5:36 PM

 

 

''Just out of interest do either Sandya or Lennyhb know what a CV boot is?''

I think it a bit high handed of Roger to suggest that Lenny and I are ignorant of car mechanics, for my part spending half a lifetime working on motor vehicles also spending twenty years as an approved driving instructor teaching driving and safe vehicle ownership, maybe in the light of some comments about sons and daughters it should be the drivers who are tested every year

Sandy

 

Me high handed?....you two criticised 1foots daughter....Lennyhb said she was a 'danger'...!!!

 

Both you and Lennyhb obviously know what a CV boot is but my point was and still is....do you check your CV boots every week for damage? I bet you don't. Do you check your brake pads or better still shoes regularly? Do you check the 100 and 1 other things that could have failed on a weekly basis? No you probably do the same as most of us....what the military call a 'daily inspection'...though more than likely on a weekly or monthly basis.

 

My point being that to call 1foots daughter 'a danger' is out of order. I stand by my comment and support any call to keep our MoT at 12 monthly intervals for reasons of safety.

[colin]

I have given this great thought and have decided that if there are any changes to MOT then two options should be considered.

The first (which would have appealed to the last labour government) would be the banning of parking other than at an authrised MOT station, then if the vehicle is to be used it would only be allowed to make a journey if it has MOT for that day.

The second (which should appeal to the present lighter touch government) would be the scrapping of MOT altogether and making driver responcible for maintainance with the proviso that any driver of a car that causes an accident due to poor maintenance should be hung.

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Here's an idea, suggest at your next local pub quiz the question "what is a CV boot" I'll guess most will think it's a ladies fashion shoe, as would have probably been my daughters best guess. For those that get it right ask them if they know the potential implications if one is left split and undetected for any length of time. Now I'm not saying that a split CV boot could not happen the very day after an MOT, but I'm willing to bet many are picked up at MOT testing time. If this should be extended to two years I'm sure there will be consequences.

As for the collisions caused by or in part by mechanical failure, I have a friend who runs a recovery business, and I can tell you some of the vehicles, or what's left of them,that he brings in I doubt even many experts could determine say for example a failed track rod end, from one that was destroyed as a result of the impact.

I have only one interest in this matter, that is to keep family and loved ones as safe as possible, surely that should be all our aims.

[Guest peter]

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.

 

 

Or dare I say it.........Have it serviced on a regular basis. It's not rocket science.

As far as split c.v boots are concerned, it's not unknown for a tester to put a screwdriver through one if business is slack. Nice little earner, as they are a right pain and expensive to replace, it's not the part, but the labour. If one splits and water gets in, you will soon know about it, as the clicking on full lock will soon make you have a look.