Basil Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-11-10 11:23 AM 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. And there is the rub, not everyone agrees with you that there will be less safety on the roads, it has nothing to do with the cost IMO. Just because you and the business lobby say there will be, I for one am still not convinced, despite the scaremongering being used. It seems to me that most of those against these proposals have a vested financial interest and others are falling for the scaremongering put about by those with a veated interest. When the result of the consultation is known, then we will see whether those in control decide if they believe there will be any issues. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 euroserv - 2011-11-09 5:30 PM 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 But surely this is in direct contradiction with that which you stated in your earlier post, I quote you below .....................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. ...................... So maybe it should be milage or time based like the recommended service interval say 12000 miles or 2 years whichever is the sooner. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 mark hinde - 2011-11-09 1:58 PM.....................................why should people who are competant enough to service their vehicles be made to pay garage rates to have it done for them. Unfortunately, because there are more people who regard themselves competent to service their vehicles than actually are, and because even for those who are, very few have access to lifts that allow proper access to the underside of the vehicle, where a lot of the safety critical items reside. And no, in this respect, I do not regard a couple of ramps as generally adequate. They will suffice for some, but not for all. Besides which, a major driver for DIY servicing is cost, and he who services a vehicle on a shoestring is liable to be temped to cut corners. I certainly do not have infinite faith in the garage trade, either as to workmanship or honesty, but I still have rather greater faith that the average "professionally" serviced vehicle emerging from a main dealer's workshop will probably have been more thoroughly checked than the average DIY serviced vehicle with the work carried out of doors by the roadside. Cars etc are highly desirable commodities, but they are expensive to buy, and expensive to run, and that has to be faced by their owners, would-be, or actual. That desire to own one cannot be allowed to excuse bad judgements over whether the would-be owner can truly afford it. I accept this is an unyielding view that would condemn quite a few to life without a car but, IMO, better that than driving an unsafe car for want of the means to make it safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Bas, In response to your first comment I have to stress that my business has no vested interest in the frequency of MOT tests. The process of testing my 100+ fleet annually carries very considerable cost in fees and labour taking and collecting vehicles for their tests. I also am fully aware that while occasionally the test picks up something that we have missed, or could not check such as headlamp aim; there have also been many instances where items have passed the test that i did not think should have! I like that someone else is auditing our work as this helps to remove the 'human error' aspect of routine maintenance. I took the decision not to have our own MOT test bay when we started the business 15 years ago for that reason alone and with the changes that have taken place over the years and the costs that would have been incurred I don't regret this decision one bit. The second point that you raised suggests that I am contradicting myself, and this is not the case. My examples surely imply that a low mileage vehicle is just as likely to be neglected or in a delapidated condition as a high mileage one and that we (collectively) need the protection that comes from at least one mandatory inspection each year. Whether there is properly collated evidence of increased accident rates among countries that have longer intervals or not; common sense dictates that in a cash strapped society where maintenance is a secondary consideration such a move would not improve things. As far as garage owners having a vested interest goes; I would suggest that the likely beneficiaries of elongated MOT intervals would probably be recovery operators, and I don't do that either. Remember that the bill for an accident or component failure that happens away from a garage that you know and trust will always be considerably larger. An MOT does not completely protect you from this but it definitely helps. It is the motoring public that have a vested interest in this, whether they like it or not. So...... If it is not a financial issue, and you fastidiously maintain your own vehicle, what exactly is your beef with keeping things as they are? I suspect it would only take being rear-ended by a vehicle with worn out shock absorbers and ineffective brakes that has not seen a garage or MOT test for a couple of years to convince you. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Firstly Nick my post was not directed solely at you, I fully realise from your posts on numerous occarions thay you don't carry out your own MOT's and to what business you are involved in, I was referring to the many hysterical utterings by the vested interests away from this forum. I have usualy found you to hold a very balanced view but on this occasion I find myself partly confused by your posts and partly in disagreement. That does not mean to say I don't respect your right to hold your view any more than I have to hold mine. I hold my view simply by the fact that in all my years of owning and running vehicles, which I usually service and repair myself, and owning at present 7 road vehicles all taxed, insured and tested I have never had an MOT failure and that is over 45 years of vehicle ownership, indeed I would consider it a personal failure if one did. I have no beef with keeping things as they are, but I also have no beef with changing them to the European standard of two years either, on balance I would like to see it changed to two years but that doesn't mean I have any 'beef' with the present system but do believe in changing with the times and there is a lot of evidence that the improvements in modern vehicles make two year testing more sensible. As to being rear ended, that has happened to me on three occasion however the last occasion was by a vehicle that had just had its brakes overhauled and passed its MOT within the last month so again that has done nothing to convince me. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Bas, Thanks for that. I completely respect your right to an alternaive opinion also. I feel strangely compelled to help the undecided to think about the subject at hand though, and if I can change your mind too that would be a bonus! It is true that vehicles are much more complex these days and on the face of it there is every reason to believe that reliability and durability have improved. Perhaps first time pass rates at MOT are beter than they were 20 years ago, who knows; I don't. What I am sure of though is that the vehicles that fail are failing on pretty much the same things as they always did: Cv gaiters, suspension and steering components, tyres, brakes and corrosion in critical areas. These continue to be safety critical items that would probably be left unchecked and not repaired for that bit longer if it had not been for the MOT test. I am proud of our record on MOT pass rates and I have never in my driving career had a vehicle of my own fail a test but I know a lot of people for whom this is not a matter of honour but a bullet to be dodged. The same people, (my own girlfriend included) make decisions over the likely life span of a set of noisy brakes without any knowledge with which to make such assumptions. While these people use the same roads that I do I am happier with the annual test. You cant blame me for trying to pursuade you... Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Funny I've come full circle on this one after reading some of the contributions on here, there's me thinking there are millions of idiots out there driving with bald tyres and dodgy brakes,no Insurance, no MOT, no tax, driving with someone else's driving licence, got a dodgy relative to take their driving test for them, driving while disqualified, no everyone is beyond reproach, and no doubt fastidious with the maintenance of their vehicles, like I say I've come full circle, lets campaign to get rid of the MOT all together, think of the money we'll save, a few extra dead here and there is of little consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brians dad Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 British governments have been 'gold plating' EU regulations for years, until the present government came along and decided to cut some of the red tape that is gradually strangling us. There may have been some justification when MOTs started in the 1960s for annual tests, as we drove some real old rustbuckets then - many of us will remember driving the products of the old BMC - Austins, Morris etc, without much affection. Quality has vastly improved, even in the last 10 years, and we should reflect this by moving MOTs to a 2 yearly inspection. There is little I agree with on EU regulations, but at least this one is something that we could usefully follow with little risk. My own 9 year old Ducato has passed all its MOTs without needing work, and it only gets a mechanical service every 2 years. If even Fiats can be solidly built, we should not need to worry too much about unroadworthy vehicles. With all motoring costs going through the roof, we could at least be saving £55 every second year. I hope the government does not give in to the garage lobby on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Brians dad - 2011-11-10 11:22 PM............................... My own 9 year old Ducato has passed all its MOTs without needing work, and it only gets a mechanical service every 2 years. .................... Nick will know this better than me, but my Ducato service schedule said that in case of low mileage the vehicle should have an annual "low mileage" service. IMO at the very least engine oil and filter need to be changed annually, the fuel filter drained, and the door hinges lubricated. I'll assume the bi-annual service is carried out somewhere that also tests the moisture content of brake and hydraulic fluid, and checks the specific gravity of coolant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Brians dad - 2011-11-10 11:22 PM With all motoring costs going through the roof, we could at least be saving £55 every second year. I hope the government does not give in to the garage lobby on this one. Another contributor who has not read the very compelling reasons to keep the annual test, it is NOT all the garage lobby. You cite motoring costs "going through the roof" that in itself should ring alarm bells. Next time your out and about take a glance at some folks tyres for example, or make life easier and go to your local tyre dealer and take a look at some they have replaced, more often than not for a MOT fail, how much longer do you think they may have stopped on the vehicle but for the annual test. It is not all about "mechanical" durabilty of modern vehicles, its also about protecting us from idiots. As for saving £55 every second year I did not realise all us Motorhomers were so strapped. Mind you that's half a tank of diesel, I give up. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-11-11 7:05 AM.........................Another contributor who has not read the very compelling reasons to keep the annual test, it is NOT all the garage lobby. You cite motoring costs "going through the roof" that in itself should ring alarm bells. Next time your out and about take a glance at some folks tyres for example, or make life easier and go to your local tyre dealer and take a look at some they have replaced, more often than not for a MOT fail, how much longer do you think they may have stopped on the vehicle but for the annual test. It is not all about "mechanical" durabilty of modern vehicles, its also about protecting us from idiots............................ Which, in a roundabout way, takes me back to my original thoughts. If one has a vehicle professionally serviced annually, why should one need, in addition, a separate MoT test? The garage should be self-certifying that its work includes all the safety critical items that are required by the MoT, and that cost should be covered by the cost of the service. Those who choose DIY, or non-certified garages, should submit their vehicles for the MoT. Tyres that would not pass an MoT test would not then get out of a certified dealers workshop. If the garage is doing its job properly, they would not get out today without at least a written notification to the owner on the condition of the tyres. All my service records include tread depth statements. A garage that fails to do this risks liability if there is an accident in which defective tyres are held contributory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Talk about muddying the waters, we have trained MOT inspectors, in many cases that is all they do, isn't that a good idea. I'm also astonished that you seem unable to differentiate between a service, be in interim, or full, and the MOT test. Both completely different, or do they check or change your oil on an MOT these days. Conversely I have never seen a manufacturers service schedule that covers all testable MOT items in one service. If on the other hand you are proposing a completely different system put in Main Dealers hands we are all going to hell in a hand cart ( quite frankly I don't really know what your on about ) I can only say what others have said, if it aint broke why try to fix it. And by the way I have no connection with the motor trade............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-11-11 12:37 PM Talk about muddying the waters, we have trained MOT inspectors, in many cases that is all they do, isn't that a good idea. I'm also astonished that you seem unable to differentiate between a service, be in interim, or full, and the MOT test. Both completely different, or do they check or change your oil on an MOT these days. Conversely I have never seen a manufacturers service schedule that covers all testable MOT items in one service. If on the other hand you are proposing a completely different system put in Main Dealers hands we are all going to hell in a hand cart ( quite frankly I don't really know what your on about ) I can only say what others have said, if it aint broke why try to fix it. And by the way I have no connection with the motor trade............. I don't know whether the above was intended to be a reply to me, but assuming it was, you could always try being a little less rude and abrasive when you think you've read something you don't agree with. It might help to reduce the number abusive of "arguments" that follow you around. However, to try to reply without descending to the same level. To your first para: I have no problem with trained MoT inspectors, or with them carrying out MoT tests - nor, so far as I can see, have I suggested otherwise. If it was me you wished to reply to, it would help no end if you would please first read what I have actually written. :-) To your second para: I don't know what persuades you that I am unable to differentiate between interim services, full services, and MoT tests, but I can assure you that I am quite capable of that, so your astonishment is a product of your imagination, and not what I wrote. So, as above, I'm afraid, please read what I actually wrote. To your third para: the penny eventually drops, but not completely! So, I'll try again. I am suggesting that garages are encouraged to become self-certifying, so that where a car is serviced by a self-certifying garage, they can combine the MoT with the service, and record the result on the DVLA database accordingly. Independent MoT test stations would continue in use for DIY serviced vehicles, or where servicing is carried out by non self-certifying garages. My point is that vehicles should be properly checked and serviced at least annually, so it seems reasonable to combine both functions at one and the same time. Now, before you fly off into another fantasy rant, just pause and ask yourself what would actually change vis a vis taking your vehicle for its annual service and MoT to a garage that also does MoT tests. Same garage, same items to be covered, same trained staff, just a different, and simpler, procedure. Single stamp in service record by self-certifying garage as evidence of both service and test pass. How that gets us all to hell in a handcart you'll have to explain, because I can't see why. However, you do appear not to know what I'm on about. Mainly, it seems, this is because you read it with few of the "little grey cells" engaged - and replied with even less of them engaged. I would just add that if all you really can say is what others have said, you may be better advised to leave it to them to say it, because they generally say it better than you, and without stooping to your levels of rudeness in so doing. I'm sorry if this offends, but I finally feel obliged to reply in kind. I have no problem at all with reasoned discussion, reasonably expressed. This is about uncouth rudeness, not differences of opinion. I hope that is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-11-11 10:55 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-11-11 7:05 AM.........................Another contributor who has not read the very compelling reasons to keep the annual test, it is NOT all the garage lobby. You cite motoring costs "going through the roof" that in itself should ring alarm bells. Next time your out and about take a glance at some folks tyres for example, or make life easier and go to your local tyre dealer and take a look at some they have replaced, more often than not for a MOT fail, how much longer do you think they may have stopped on the vehicle but for the annual test. It is not all about "mechanical" durabilty of modern vehicles, its also about protecting us from idiots............................ Which, in a roundabout way, takes me back to my original thoughts. If one has a vehicle professionally serviced annually, why should one need, in addition, a separate MoT test? The garage should be self-certifying that its work includes all the safety critical items that are required by the MoT, and that cost should be covered by the cost of the service. Those who choose DIY, or non-certified garages, should submit their vehicles for the MoT. Tyres that would not pass an MoT test would not then get out of a certified dealers workshop. If the garage is doing its job properly, they would not get out today without at least a written notification to the owner on the condition of the tyres. All my service records include tread depth statements. A garage that fails to do this risks liability if there is an accident in which defective tyres are held contributory. Why should one need a separate MoT? Well because for one a service does not necessarily cover emissions or brake efficiency checks nor does it cover bodywork condition. However we agree 'sort of' on one point. For those having annual garage servicing carried out it is unnecessary to alter or amend the current system of servicing/MoT regimes. Simply do as I do and book your annual service and MoT to be carried out under the same booking. My garage has no problems with servicing my vehicle and looking for MoT fails. During this service the items found to be in need of attention outside of the service but within the scope of the MoT are rectified and my vehicle gets a 'no advisory' pass certificate unless it is emissions/braking efficiency or other item which requires checks which can not be carried out visually......simples. Regarding tyres I was led to understand that tyres in a dangerous/non legal condition would cause a MoT failure and this would be on the 'failure' certificate. Ergo a vehicle which has failed an MoT (under current legislation) can be driven to a chosen place of rectification only. If owners were forced to have their tyres replaced at the MoT station that would encourage 'some' test stations to inflate (no pun intended) their prices as they would have a captive audience. Additionally there are some people who would not have the necessary funds to have the tyres replaced there and then so the garage/test station ends up with 'failures' clogging' up their parking/service slots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 RogerC - 2011-11-11 5:33 PM.........................Why should one need a separate MoT? Well because for one a service does not necessarily cover emissions or brake efficiency checks nor does it cover bodywork condition. However we agree 'sort of' on one point. For those having annual garage servicing carried out it is unnecessary to alter or amend the current system of servicing/MoT regimes. Simply do as I do and book your annual service and MoT to be carried out under the same booking. My garage has no problems with servicing my vehicle and looking for MoT fails. During this service the items found to be in need of attention outside of the service but within the scope of the MoT are rectified and my vehicle gets a 'no advisory' pass certificate unless it is emissions/braking efficiency or other item which requires checks which can not be carried out visually......simples. But that is, pretty much, what I was suggesting, unless you would not place brake testing under "safety critical". So too, eventually, would body corrosion become safety critical, but most cars these days have corrosion guarantees for eight or more yeas, and this is to be inspected at each service, so why one inspection for the warranty and another for the MoT? Emissions? Why only every year after three? Besides which, part of most services is to stick an EGA up the exhaust, so why again for the MoT? Regarding tyres I was led to understand that tyres in a dangerous/non legal condition would cause a MoT failure and this would be on the 'failure' certificate. Ergo a vehicle which has failed an MoT (under current legislation) can be driven to a chosen place of rectification only. If owners were forced to have their tyres replaced at the MoT station that would encourage 'some' test stations to inflate (no pun intended) their prices as they would have a captive audience. Additionally there are some people who would not have the necessary funds to have the tyres replaced there and then so the garage/test station ends up with 'failures' clogging' up their parking/service slots. Hard, I know, but anyone who knowingly puts a car in for an MoT with duff tyres is a twit. Anyone who does this when they can't afford a new tyre probably should not own a car, because they cannot, in truth, afford it. No need to take the car away, there are plenty of mobile tyre fitters! A car can only be left with the test station with their agreement, if they don't agree, and it can't be driven away, it would have to be recovered by other means. Can't then be kept on the road, so a problem. However, that should not become an excuse for owning things that are potentially dangerous that owners cannot afford to keep in good order. I sympathise, but I would not relent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 All of this 'inter forum member' chit-chat, seems to ignore the fact that it will most probably NOT be 'OUR' vehicle that causes the accident we might be involved in. It will most likely be the 'Other' driver, who 'NEVER' looks under the bonnet, never checks his oil/tyres/lights etc., and drives around with only one Headlight on UNTIL MOT time, or he/she get stopped by a 'very rare' traffic cop. Their car will 'always' be a borderline MOT failure.and is probably 10 or more years old, Having them on the road, for an extra year is dangerous. A bad law change, even though it will save me money. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Possibly Ray, possibly. But did you know that under 3% of accidents are attributed to mechanical failure, and only about 10% to road conditions generally? Almost all accidents are actually held to be the responsibility of the driver (sometimes in conjunction with other factors), not the vehicle or the road. So, whereas I agree wholeheartedly that vehicles should be properly maintained and in good condition, it is far more likely you will be wiped out by the inattentive driver (probably young and inexperienced, and probably male) in a hurry of a vehicle in excellent condition, than of any poorly maintained rust bucket? I appreciate the reason for this is partially the MoT in its present form, but as I have already commented, it is us, the drivers, who present the greatest risk to each other, rather than the vehicles we drive. Sobering thought, eh? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-11-12 2:55 PM I appreciate the reason for this is partially the MoT in its present form, but as I have already commented, it is us, the drivers, who present the greatest risk to each other, rather than the vehicles we drive. Sobering thought, eh? :-) ....and therein lies the rub. It's not time to "looosen up" on the testing of vehicles, far better to extend the MOT to include the "nut behind the wheel". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Having provoked quite a bit of discussion on here, I note that the proposal to change the interval and timing of MOT testing will not now be progressed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16831793 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B. Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Robinhood - 2012-02-01 11:49 AM Having provoked quite a bit of discussion on here, I note that the proposal to change the interval and timing of MOT testing will not now be progressed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16831793 Oh Triffic! You mean I've just read 4 pages and it's not going to happen! Mike :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mike B. - 2012-02-01 2:04 PM Robinhood - 2012-02-01 11:49 AM Having provoked quite a bit of discussion on here, I note that the proposal to change the interval and timing of MOT testing will not now be progressed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16831793 Oh Triffic! You mean I've just read 4 pages and it's not going to happen! Mike :-S Just shows what a powerful influence this forum has. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheasantplucker Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If they bother with MOT, tax and insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Dave Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think that an annual Mot after three years has been of proven value over the years and should stay as it is. However i do think that there should be a DOT/MOT disk similar to a tax disk to display and prove the vehicle has been tested. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.