Have you read this insane proposal

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

peter - 2011-11-08 9:43 PM

 

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.

 

Why am I surprised at your comments, have you read any of the well considered contributions, or is because it was me that posted the thread. Of course the average youngster will be alerted to a potential problem if they hear it clicking, that is if they can hear it above their ICE and 1000 watts of output, or their customised exhaust din More likely to end up on a mortuary slab before they take a look, let's just hope it's not you that they take with you, talk about head in the sand syndrome.Oh well.................

[George Collings]

As an ex Mot tester.( I was in the trade when it first started) and later traffic cop for nine year. I consider the proposal to extend the Mot interval to two years sheer lunacy.

 

Halving the freqency of tests halves the number of chances to detect dangerous faults.

 

The death sentence for near end of life vehicles is usually a a fail certificate. Repair is uneconomic or unafordable so its scrapped.

 

Number plate recognition technology should ensure most unroadworthy vehicles are kept of the road.

 

Due to EU legislation the Mot is going to be upgraded particularly with regard to exhaust emissions and guess who is going to foot the bill for that. I suspect the two year Mot test proposals are an effort to sweeten the pil.

 

As for forcing us into the waiting arms of the main dealers words fail me. I have been looking after my own vehicles for the last 50+ years.

 

P.S. for Daves info.

 

I check pressures about once in two months in winter and before every long trip. Much more importantly during driving breaks I walk around and check by hand tyre temperatures. Any major variotion tyre to tyre is cause for concern. If they are all hot slow down. Either your pressures are wrong or you are overloaded.

[Derek Uzzell]

Background to the review of the UK's MOT testing arrangements can be found on

 

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/04/government-wants-mots-every-two-years-250615/

 

While I tend to agree that changing our one-year interval to two years sounds unwise, moving from 3 years to 4 years before the first test seems less so.

 

There's no reason to assume that the UK's current arrangements will be changed just for political reasons, but there are EU countries (eg France) that do have a 4-year/2-year testing system and that will have statistics regarding that system's effectiveness regarding vehicle mechanical safety. If it turns out that France's vehicle's are no less safe than the UK's, despite the former's longer testing intervals, then it would be difficult to argue against the changes being considered by the review.

[Basil]

Mel B - 2011-11-08 6:08 PM

 

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

 

Exactly, so how does altering from one year to two years make any difference? As has already been said the MOT is only valid at the time of inspection therefore time basing a test is totally irrelevent IMO.

 

Bas

[Rayjsj]

A huge percentage of the population 'just drive' their cars, they NEVER check anything until it either, (A) it breaks down (they call their breakdown service to get them 'going again'), OR (B) It fails the MOT, if so they pay the minimum amount to get the vehicle 'through the MOT' and then they are Off again to (A) or (B), as Traffic Police are now almost non-existant, obvious faults like Blown Bulbs, Damaged bodywork, cracked Windscreens, non-working Wipers or washers ALL go unnoticed until (B) comes around. THATS why I think it crazy to change the present MOT annual regime. Ray

 

Not everyone drives vehicles that are 3 years old or under.in fact MOST don't, and a 2 year gap before cars belonging to the above mentioned peoples vehicles get checked is too long.

[timofleeds]

Hi I would be in support of the new 24 month period if it is in line with the rest europe as

I am sure that after ten years old the period reverts to every year which i think with the build quality

of modern cars is fine.

 

Tim

[mark hinde]

Having looked through the posts in this link, I am not sure if anyone realises or understands the difference between an "MOT" and a "Service". It is my understanding that the service will cover the maintenance points of the vehicle and checks on parts that wear, brakes etc. I don't believe that any service will check the whole car for signs of rust etc, so replacing an MOT with a compulsory service will just mean that the work in the service will have to be increased to cover all these items and why should people who are competant enough to service their vehicles be made to pay garage rates to have it done for them.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

timofleeds - 2011-11-09 1:36 PM

 

Hi I would be in support of the new 24 month period if it is in line with the rest europe as

I am sure that after ten years old the period reverts to every year which i think with the build quality

of modern cars is fine.

 

Tim

 

I'm sorry to be a gad fly on this, but whats Europe got to do with anything, may as well join the Euro on that logic.

As for the build quality of modern cars, of course they are light years different from years gone by, but here's the thing. To use my ( DANGEROUS) daughter yet again as an example. Her knowledge of vehicle mechanics is nil, that has got to be mirrored in the wider population ( she might be "dangerous" as some have described her for being ignorant of not knowing she had a split CV boot, but she is not a complete idiot).

And although it's not fool proof, at least annual testing gives me a degree of comfort knowing it will be thoroughly looked at annually, I'm just her nagging Dad, surely that has to be true for any parent. I do keep an eye on things as far as possible, but at my age crawling underneath really is no longer an option.

 

Ask yourself this simple question, how do you really feel about the boy racer flying round a bend coming towards you or one of your loved ones, who's car has seen 23 months of use since last looked at, more than likely by ANYONE if this is implemented. :-(

[malc d]

mark hinde - 2011-11-09 1:58 PM

 

Having looked through the posts in this link, I am not sure if anyone realises or understands the difference between an "MOT" and a "Service". It is my understanding that the service will cover the maintenance points of the vehicle and checks on parts that wear, brakes etc. I don't believe that any service will check the whole car for signs of rust etc, so replacing an MOT with a compulsory service will just mean that the work in the service will have to be increased to cover all these items and why should people who are competant enough to service their vehicles be made to pay garage rates to have it done for them.

 

 

I'd agree with that.

 

Why do people put so much faith in garage servicing anyway ?

 

The Consumers Association ( Which ) sent a number of cars into garages with a number of potentially dangerous faults ( in 2010 )

They reported that 90% of the garages missed at least one potentially dangerous fault on the cars which had been 'doctored' by Which.

(In addition, 39% of the garages charged for screenwash as part of a service when none had been supplied).

 

Better if you are able to keep checking for yourself, and submit the vehicle annually, or bi-annually to an MoT station for safety checks.

 

No doubt there are some very good garages but it should certainly NEVER be made compulsory ( i.e. a legal requirement ) to have your car serviced by a garage.

 

 

 

 

 

[euroserv]

Hello All,

 

I am jumping here a bit late, but I have read all of your comments and thought I should contribute something.

 

It's not just young people that are ignorant or irresponsible, and it is not my job as a garage owner to police them!

 

I am certain that Dave Newell would be able to confirm from his own experiences that there are a great many people out there that are not financially in a position to safely run a vehicle. I will explain.....

 

We see a lot of vans and to a lesser extent cars that are in very poor condition. There are some people that bring their vehicles to us for routine servicing but they are by far in the minority; most are only here because they need an MOT or if something has made the vehicle difficult or impossible to use.

 

When we have the MOT test carried out (we don't do this and don't want to) faults that we suspected along with faults that neither we nor the owner were aware of are identified and in most cases, if the vehicle is not completely beyond economic repair the work that is necessary to pass the test is carried out. Any other work that is listed as 'advisory' is normally dismissed as too expensive or inconvenient at that time and the vehicle is on it's way.

 

I know very well that none of those advisory items will be looked again for a year unless they actually render the vehicle un-driveable before the next MOT.

 

I wish people were more diligent, but they are not, and I have to respect the fact that it is their car/van, their money and I can only advise; not impound vehicles!

 

This is not a new phenomenon, people have always cut corners on vehicle maintenance, but it is getting worse. Money is tighter than ever and for this reason, and in spite of the fact that the majority of contributors on this site have impeccably maintained vehicles...... We must protect ourselves from those that are compromising our safety and that of themselves, their families and friends. If this in turn means that some people are effectively priced off the road; then so be it.

 

I am also deeply concerned that even fleet cars that have covered over 100,000 miles do not need a test until they are 3 years old. In my experience these are some of the worst maintained vehicles of all because the driver's do not care at all; the leasing companies are incredibly stingy with the garages that they (eventually) pay for service and repair work and they encourage drivers to eke out every possible mile from tyres and brakes. To extend the interval to 4 years would mean that for many of these vehicles they will spend their entire lifetimes with no audited maintenance or proper safety checks from anyone with an interest in maintaining standards.

 

I implore you to support the campaign to keep the current MOT test as an annual requirement. I believe it saves lives and protects us all from the misguided, ignorant or just plain stupid. I also suggest there is some sort of mandatory education for ALL drivers on what can go wrong with a vehicle, how to detect it and what the consequences could be. Perhaps our TV licence fee would be better invested in a 10 minute slot during every episode of Top Gear that educates drivers in an entertaining way? Perhaps they could also start calling middle lane hogs 'Knob heads' too. That would help.

 

Nick.

[Derek Uzzell]

1footinthegrave - 2011-11-09 2:03 PM

 

I'm sorry to be a gad fly on this, but whats Europe got to do with anything,...

 

'Europe' has everything to do with this, as the UK vehicle safety-testing procedures are governed by EU blanket regulations that this country agreed to years ago. If those regulations specified maximum intervals of 3-years before the first test and then annually (as is currently the case in the UK) then there would be no latitude to increase those intervals. But they don't and that's why there's the possibility of a review. Whether a 4-year/2-year regimen (as operated in France) is too dangerous to implement here needs careful consideration and this is what the review will set out to do.

[rupert123]

While I agree with a little of what Nick states here I strongly disagree about lease cars. In my experience of them, which is considerable as I bought and sold S/H cars for years, they are the best maintained around. Firms who lease fleets usually do it with a full service agreement and when you buy a lease car you get not only a stamped up service book but a full printout of everything that has been done to that vehicle for its life. Myself and a lot of dealers I know go out of their way to buy them as despite high milage they are pretty much always good. Their are no figures at all that suggest having a two year mot will increase accidents, although it will reduce garage profits.

[Dave Newell]

euroserv - 2011-11-09 2:24 PM

 

Hello All,

 

I am jumping here a bit late, but I have read all of your comments and thought I should contribute something.

 

It's not just young people that are ignorant or irresponsible, and it is not my job as a garage owner to police them!

 

I am certain that Dave Newell would be able to confirm from his own experiences that there are a great many people out there that are not financially in a position to safely run a vehicle. I will explain.....

 

We see a lot of vans and to a lesser extent cars that are in very poor condition. There are some people that bring their vehicles to us for routine servicing but they are by far in the minority; most are only here because they need an MOT or if something has made the vehicle difficult or impossible to use.

 

When we have the MOT test carried out (we don't do this and don't want to) faults that we suspected along with faults that neither we nor the owner were aware of are identified and in most cases, if the vehicle is not completely beyond economic repair the work that is necessary to pass the test is carried out. Any other work that is listed as 'advisory' is normally dismissed as too expensive or inconvenient at that time and the vehicle is on it's way.

 

I know very well that none of those advisory items will be looked again for a year unless they actually render the vehicle un-driveable before the next MOT.

 

I wish people were more diligent, but they are not, and I have to respect the fact that it is their car/van, their money and I can only advise; not impound vehicles!

 

This is not a new phenomenon, people have always cut corners on vehicle maintenance, but it is getting worse. Money is tighter than ever and for this reason, and in spite of the fact that the majority of contributors on this site have impeccably maintained vehicles...... We must protect ourselves from those that are compromising our safety and that of themselves, their families and friends. If this in turn means that some people are effectively priced off the road; then so be it.

 

I am also deeply concerned that even fleet cars that have covered over 100,000 miles do not need a test until they are 3 years old. In my experience these are some of the worst maintained vehicles of all because the driver's do not care at all; the leasing companies are incredibly stingy with the garages that they (eventually) pay for service and repair work and they encourage drivers to eke out every possible mile from tyres and brakes. To extend the interval to 4 years would mean that for many of these vehicles they will spend their entire lifetimes with no audited maintenance or proper safety checks from anyone with an interest in maintaining standards.

 

I implore you to support the campaign to keep the current MOT test as an annual requirement. I believe it saves lives and protects us all from the misguided, ignorant or just plain stupid. I also suggest there is some sort of mandatory education for ALL drivers on what can go wrong with a vehicle, how to detect it and what the consequences could be. Perhaps our TV licence fee would be better invested in a 10 minute slot during every episode of Top Gear that educates drivers in an entertaining way? Perhaps they could also start calling middle lane hogs 'Knob heads' too. That would help.

 

Nick.

 

Hear hear, 100% agreement from me Nick.

 

Here's a true story form a few months ago, my apologies if the motorhomer in question is a member here but I think this story illustrates Nick's and my feelings on this.

 

We had a motorhome in for a full service and during this I found the fro0nt brake pads were crumbling and both rear wheel cylinders were leaking. I phoned the customer to tell him along with the cost of repairs, his answer astounded me and I quote "will they last another couple of months as we only budgeted for the service not any additional work?"

 

My reply was along the lines of "well if you're going to trailer the motorhome away and park it for two months then yes they'll last but if you actually plan on driving the vehicle I can't guarantee they will last to the end of the road!"

 

Another one from a few years ago, this time an old 1970s American RV weighing in at 7 Tonnes. I reported to the customer that all 7 tyres were over fourteen years old and showing signs of sidewall cracking. His answer? "I'm going away this weekend to (wherever), if they don't fail this weekend I'll leave them as to replace 7 tyres on this thing is going to cost a fortune!" And he towed a car behind as well.

 

D.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Lets forget the debate on here, if you support keeping the annual test make your voice heard here, if it saves one life it's worth it, who knows it may be yours, or someone you love ! !

 

http://www.pro-mote.org.uk/take_action/

[pepe63xnotuse]

I don't know eh?..you lot "in the trade"..you've a license to print money... *-)

 

(..I am JOKING by the way... (lol) )

 

How some people can baulk at paying out to keep a vehicle safe,yet at the same time,probably pay-out loads more on superfluos,"must have" MH/ camping tat,beats me...

 

I like the idea of combining the annual mot,with a manatory(and extensive) "service"...

 

..as has been said it would price some off the road..but in this case,that isn't a bad thing.

 

Edit: yep..already posted my vote 1foot'... ;-)

[euroserv]

rupert123 - 2011-11-09 3:16 PM

 

While I agree with a little of what Nick states here I strongly disagree about lease cars. In my experience of them, which is considerable as I bought and sold S/H cars for years, they are the best maintained around. Firms who lease fleets usually do it with a full service agreement and when you buy a lease car you get not only a stamped up service book but a full printout of everything that has been done to that vehicle for its life. Myself and a lot of dealers I know go out of their way to buy them as despite high milage they are pretty much always good. Their are no figures at all that suggest having a two year mot will increase accidents, although it will reduce garage profits.

 

Hello Rupert123,

 

My opinion of lease cars has changed considerably over the years.

 

In the mid 90's I would have agreed that a 3 year old 60,000 mile car from a reputable lease firm would have been a better bet than a privately owned car with 20,000 miles on it.

 

Then Peugeot latched on to the fact that company cars were supplied either to a list price or to the 'Topcalc' cost per mile figure that was based on service costs, fuel consumption and depreciation. Their cars were poor performers on residual value and so were punished by high cost per mile figures. Their answer was to change their service requirement from 12,000 miles or 12 months to 20,000 miles or 24 months. This solved their problems regarding SMR costs but at a stroke (and without any engineering improvements to back it up) many of the cars on the road were now not being inspected for anything at all until they were 2 years old. Other manufacturers followed suit.

 

Add to this that the leasing firms have huge teams of personnel that make decisions on what can and cannot be replaced on a vehicle when it is in a garage without seeing any evidence and the battles that ensue between driver/dealer and leasing firm followed by the difficulty in getting paid for whatever work the garage does get authorisation to do it became clear to me that things were going wrong. Now that most fleet cars cover in excess of 100,000 miles in 3 years they are not such a tempting buy. These cars have been neglected and are more 'worn' than you would have previously expected them to be. 5 years further down the line and in the hands of a cash strapped 3rd owner they are a liability.

 

I also know of a few firms in Leicester that do not allow their staff to have any routine work done on their cars which are bought outright and typically kept for longer than the 3 or 4 year leases that we are used to. One of my friends had to refuse to drive a car that had no brakes!

 

The low mileage, one owner car has never been a more attractive proposition.

 

In any case; the issue here is about the annual MOT test. That is about safety. In my opinion the MOT test should be much more rigorous and any vehicle that does not return for a retest within the specified time after failing a test should automatically be SORN'd and the Police notified. If it is seen on the road afterwards it should be seized and crushed. This is law already but the Police are too busy making money by observing your speed to bother with that at the moment.

 

Nobody that maintains their vehicle properly has anything to fear from the MOT test.

 

How would you feel if the Busses and Coaches of this land suddenly had their MOT tests extended to every 2 years? What if mandatory inspections on aircraft were relaxed? Surely the firms responsible for these forms of transport are diligent enough to make sure they are in tip top condition?

 

When did you last travel in a taxi that was rattling and clunking as it went down the road? Would you feel more safe if you knew that those mechanical defects could have been present for up to 2 years?

 

You know it makes sense. For every honest, responsible individual in the UK there are a dozen that are not. The law and current MOT rules exist to protect you from them and believe me, you need protecting.

 

Nick

[Basil]

What Nick has just posted only strengthens my belief that the MOT should be milage rather than time related!

 

Bas

[euroserv]

Bas,

 

I am not so sure.

 

A vehicle that is used every day and gets fully up to temperature and probably drives on the motorway most of the time may experience less wear in 60,000 miles than a city bound shopping basket that does 10,000 miles in the same time. Brakes and exhausts are particularly vulnerable to rot and deterioration when infrequently used and these are the items that get picked up on MOT tests more than any other.

 

What you are inadvertantly suggesting is that some camper vans that only do 20,000 miles in their entire life span may only need to be MOT tested once! That can't be a good thing, and I don't think it will save you any money either because a fail on an MOT test may cost some money to fix but a breakdown or accident could be considerably more costly.

 

Nick

[John J Thompson]

I have my Hymer (1992) serviced twice a year at a local garage. I go there as they ran coaches based on my base vehicle and have the knowledge. I also ran a fleet of coaches at one time.

 

It did get peed off at the last MOT however when I left a list of problems and asked for the vehicle to be serviced then MOTd. It was submitted it for a test and then they gave me a list of advisories which was the same as I had told them about with the new MOT, This was recorded also on the DVLA database. Then I got the bill for the service and repairs of the items I had asked to be sorted.

 

My vehicle had done 8,200 k or 5,100 miles in the year. The recommended service interval is 6,000 miles so it is getting serviced and inspected at twice the recommend mileage.

 

I believe this was done just to show that they were finding faults with vehicles at MOT.

 

I now believe we should have independent of garage MOT system as they have in Spain. This also does not rely on one tester as the vehicle moves from bay to bay for each section of the test manned by a tester specialising in that point for the day. Only when you get all the boxes ticked do you get an ITV. A fail requires the vehicle to be transported to a garage for repair and then transported back to the test station according to my friend in Spain. Spain has the 4 then 2 up to a certain age then the intervals are reduced.

 

I know that the garages will complain about this as they have invested in testing equipment at their own expense, but this equipment is still required for them to ensure that the vehicle is up to scratch.

 

[Guest Tracker]

If it ain't broke why fix it?

 

The MOT test has worked well enough for 50 years since the early 60s (I think?) and it does nobody any favours to reduce it's effectiveness in any way.

[Colin9591]

From another perspective, apart from our 2 year old pvc that's done only 12k miles, well maintained too, and my car that also does only about 4 - 5k miles pa, also well serviced, I have 14 vintage motorcycles, each of which does (mostly) less than 1000 miles pa.

 

Now, I don't mind having my bikes examined. On occasion the examiner has found issues (with a new restoration) that I have missed or have been present on a "new" purchase but what really boils my piss is the threefold increase in the cost of the MOT over the last 3-4 years. For 20 odd minutes (dictated by the Big Brother 'puter) I have to fork out £30 for each bike. £90/hour is pretty good money up here in Cumbria. Who set these outrageous charges? Must have been BMW service charges in London?

 

It may be time for a mileage related MOT for "Historic" vehicles!

 

Regards

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Presumably you enjoy being able to go in to your garage where you keep your 14 vintage motorcycles, and going eeny meeny miny mo, on which bike shall I go, so that's your decision to have that flexibility. I think I'm correct in saying these vehicles will be on historic road taxation class,i.e, NIL so £30 as the only government imposed cost to comply with the MOT, does not seem such a bad deal. Sorry but from where I'm sitting I'm not sure why your are moaning about it, you do have a choice in this you know, perhaps rotate them, polish 7, ride 7 each year, there I've slashed your costs in half at a stroke

 

:D

[rupert123]

OK Nick we will disagree on the lease thing. As to the mot why would anyone think the people out there who are running these dangerous cars will bother with an mot anyway. If someone can come up with figures that prove, say France, have more accidents from component faliure than us then fine, the figures must be availible. Until then then two year mot will save a lot of us time and money. Nick asked when was the last time anyone travelled in a bad taxi, well I did last week going from Manchester Piccadilly to British Car Auctions at Belle Vue, beats me how it made it, driver talking into his mobile as well.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

rupert123 - 2011-11-10 10:26 AM

 

OK Nick we will disagree on the lease thing. As to the mot why would anyone think the people out there who are running these dangerous cars will bother with an mot anyway. If someone can come up with figures that prove, say France, have more accidents from component faliure than us then fine, the figures must be availible. Until then then two year mot will save a lot of us time and money. Nick asked when was the last time anyone travelled in a bad taxi, well I did last week going from Manchester Piccadilly to British Car Auctions at Belle Vue, beats me how it made it, driver talking into his mobile as well.

 

Was it a taxi, or a private hire car, (a lot of people don't know the difference) if the latter you'll be happy to know they are not subjected to the same kind of stringent tests that a Hackney carriage is subjected to. Extend the MOT to two years and you could well be travelling in a private hire car that has done 200,000 miles between tests, if that makes you feel safer your a braver man than me. Even if it was a Hackney, if it is double shifted it could easily cover 100,000 miles a year ( I used to operate one) so 200,000 miles a year between tests is ludicrous.

 

As for saving time and money, what 45 minutes out of your year, and a £1 a week, I still cannot believe anyone could consider that is a price worth paying for less safety on our roads.

[rupert123]

1footinthegrave - 2011-11-10 11:23 AM

 

rupert123 - 2011-11-10 10:26 AM

 

OK Nick we will disagree on the lease thing. As to the mot why would anyone think the people out there who are running these dangerous cars will bother with an mot anyway. If someone can come up with figures that prove, say France, have more accidents from component faliure than us then fine, the figures must be availible. Until then then two year mot will save a lot of us time and money. Nick asked when was the last time anyone travelled in a bad taxi, well I did last week going from Manchester Piccadilly to British Car Auctions at Belle Vue, beats me how it made it, driver talking into his mobile as well.

 

Was it a taxi, or a private hire car, (a lot of people don't know the difference) if the latter you'll be happy to know they are not subjected to the same kind of stringent tests that a Hackney carriage is subjected to. Extend the MOT to two years and you could well be travelling in a private hire car that has done 200,000 miles between tests, if that makes you feel safer your a braver man than me. Even if it was a Hackney, if it is double shifted it could easily cover 100,000 miles a year ( I used to operate one) so 200,000 miles a year between tests is ludicrous.

 

As for saving time and money, what 45 minutes out of your year, and a £1 a week, I still cannot believe anyone could consider that is a price worth paying for less safety on our roads.

 

It was in the official taxi rank at the station with a Manchester cab plate and number so assume a taxi. As to less safety I would be interested in how you know that and if what you say is true a new taxi could have 300,000 miles on it before its first test so what differance does it make? Since when were tests based on mileage anyway, at presant it is a twelve month thing so a vehicle could cover anything form a couple of thousand miles to 100,000,s of miles, time related tests make no sense.