MOT - no longer required
Discussion
The sun is out, I'm off for a looooong drive. Just before I go, a quick question.
I assume everyone on here has a valid MOT. Can I ask why then please.
Most will agree that an MOT does not mean the car is safe. At best, it means it passed an arbitrary test on the date of the MOT. The greater the distance, the less likely it remains as tested.
I'm sure all the PH'ers will claim their car is safe. You look after it. It's your pride and joy. You spend thousands on making look good, but you also spend on quality tyres, servicing, brakes etc. Yet for some reason, you never complain about the MOT. You have let the state dictate to you that you must have an MOT, for some reason its every 12 months. Not only that , you take it to a garage that makes it's money working on cars, and they say we need to work on your car, and you trust 'em.
What I can't understand is why you all have a problem with the speed limits, but not the MOT. You spend hours attacking limits, but no-one mentions the MOT.
Ah ha (you say) a speed limit itself is not safe. Well neither is the MOT.
The speed limit is enforced by the state. So is the MOT.
Scuffers ignore limits, so only the innocent suffer. Same with the MOT.
Breaking a limit does not make you dangerous. Same as not having an MOT certificate.
50/60/70mph limits are arbitrary. Same as the 12 months renewal.
Cars have changed since the limits were introduced. Same as the MOT.
So, I can't see why the MOT is any different to speed limits, yet you all pay it. It seems without question. Yes, you need it for the insurance, well do you only break the laws (speed) where you think you won't get into too much trouble. If its so bad on principle, and you all stand up for your rights , then why not stop paying MOT and Insurance.
Or is it really that you only want to break the law that stops you acting so macho. The one that you take as questioning your skill levels. If you are truthfully against the nanny state, you would be against things like the MOT.
Go on, think about it with an open mind, and tell me why the MOT is so different to the limits.
Right, I'm off for a hoon.
I assume everyone on here has a valid MOT. Can I ask why then please.
Most will agree that an MOT does not mean the car is safe. At best, it means it passed an arbitrary test on the date of the MOT. The greater the distance, the less likely it remains as tested.
I'm sure all the PH'ers will claim their car is safe. You look after it. It's your pride and joy. You spend thousands on making look good, but you also spend on quality tyres, servicing, brakes etc. Yet for some reason, you never complain about the MOT. You have let the state dictate to you that you must have an MOT, for some reason its every 12 months. Not only that , you take it to a garage that makes it's money working on cars, and they say we need to work on your car, and you trust 'em.
What I can't understand is why you all have a problem with the speed limits, but not the MOT. You spend hours attacking limits, but no-one mentions the MOT.
Ah ha (you say) a speed limit itself is not safe. Well neither is the MOT.
The speed limit is enforced by the state. So is the MOT.
Scuffers ignore limits, so only the innocent suffer. Same with the MOT.
Breaking a limit does not make you dangerous. Same as not having an MOT certificate.
50/60/70mph limits are arbitrary. Same as the 12 months renewal.
Cars have changed since the limits were introduced. Same as the MOT.
So, I can't see why the MOT is any different to speed limits, yet you all pay it. It seems without question. Yes, you need it for the insurance, well do you only break the laws (speed) where you think you won't get into too much trouble. If its so bad on principle, and you all stand up for your rights , then why not stop paying MOT and Insurance.
Or is it really that you only want to break the law that stops you acting so macho. The one that you take as questioning your skill levels. If you are truthfully against the nanny state, you would be against things like the MOT.
Go on, think about it with an open mind, and tell me why the MOT is so different to the limits.
Right, I'm off for a hoon.
Deltafox said:
How many people do you know of who are capable of full maintainance of their vehicle, let alone inspection and repair of it?
Theres your answer.
With my devils advocate hat on, how many people (present company excepted) do you know who actually take interest and pride in their driving and can accurately assess the suitable speed to drive down a bit of road.
Big Fat F'er said:
Go on, think about it with an open mind, and tell me why the MOT is so different to the limits.
The important reason is that complying with MoT regulations does not require constant vigilence whenever you are driving.
Another important reason is that MoT requirements don't send false and potentially dangerous false safety messages.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with speed limits. I have a problem with the obsessive enforcement of speed limits.
Although the MoT can't guarantee that a car is roadworthy it does at least go some way towards it. Many cars will get scrapped every year too as they are not worth the repair bills. On the occasions that I my cars have had MoT failures I have actually been grateful for it. I still think the MoT serves a purpose. Now if you were to compare MoT with say Road Tax I might be tempted to whinge a bit.
I agree with SafeSpeed, I am not against speed limits just the way that they get enforced and the limit some get set to.
I agree with SafeSpeed, I am not against speed limits just the way that they get enforced and the limit some get set to.
Mr E said:
How many people do you know of who are capable of full maintainance of their vehicle, let alone inspection and repair of it?
Theres your answer.
With my devils advocate hat on, how many people (present company excepted) do you know who actually take interest and pride in their driving and can accurately assess the suitable speed to drive down a bit of road.
Good point...
There have been some on here asking for the speed limits to be scrapped. They say that as a responsible person they know what speed to do, without being told. Right then, you should be able to maintain your car safely, without being forced to do it. Remember the previous thread, where it talked about trusting people. So, why can't you be trusted to take you car in every year, without the State making it compulsory.
So I ask again. For those of you that want the speed limits scrapping, because you can be trusted to know what speed to drive at, why are you not campaining to have the mot scrapped. If you are happy with having speed limits (not the enforcement) then this isn't directed at you.
So I ask again. For those of you that want the speed limits scrapping, because you can be trusted to know what speed to drive at, why are you not campaining to have the mot scrapped. If you are happy with having speed limits (not the enforcement) then this isn't directed at you.
Its a good point and maybe one day it will be scrapped. An anology is........The annual Fire certificates, required by law, on factories, offices etc are in fact being scrapped. Leaving it up to the company to ensure their premises are safe or closure/fine will be enforced. This puts the onus on the owner to ensure their buildings are "safe" at all times not just when checked.
Big Fat F'er said:
Remember the previous thread, where it talked about trusting people. So, why can't you be trusted to take you car in every year, without the State making it compulsory.
You can trust some of the people some of the time but you cant trust all the people all the time. There are lots of people out there who given the choice would drive their car until it went bang, "oh are you supposed to put oil in it"
Well, I find the MOT useful. This year's advise from the tester is that the MGB will need new kingpins. Not urgent, not a failure (yet), but definately need doing before next year.
Now maybe I should notice the wear myself, but to be honest, I'm too close to the car to notice subtle changes like that. Now I know that I need to add that to the list of jobs to be done before next march.
So I definately think a yearly inspection is needed. I also hear about too many modern cars failing (when intuition would suggest that they shouldn't).
Now maybe I should notice the wear myself, but to be honest, I'm too close to the car to notice subtle changes like that. Now I know that I need to add that to the list of jobs to be done before next march.
So I definately think a yearly inspection is needed. I also hear about too many modern cars failing (when intuition would suggest that they shouldn't).
Guys, you are not getting it (it may be the way I'm explaining it).
I'm not saying scrap MOT. I'm asking why you accept being told by the State you HAVE to do it. Why can't you be trusted to make sure it is safe by organising regular checks yourself.
I'm not trying to trap anyone, it's just that a lot of people have said recently that they want speed limits scrapping because:
1) they can be trusted to set a safe speed.
2) they don't like the nanny state.
3) trust drivers and that trust is repaid.
So, I'm asking that if the above is true, why isn't it true for the MOT. As far as I can see, every reason that is given in support of scrapping speed limits, also aplies to scrapping the legal requirement to have an MOT.
You are told you have to have an MOT test, by law. However, if you have an MOT certificate and the car is later shown to be dangerous (unroadworthy), you can get done. If you don't have an MOT certificate and the car is then shown to be safe, you can also get done.
The reason I ask the above, is that when the suggestions are put forward to scrap the limits, folk have argued that they want it 'on principle'. But they don't seem to be applying those same principles to other road/car ownership issues.
I just wondered why, 'cos it comes across as folk hiding behind principles to get something to satisfy their macho self interest.
I'm not saying scrap MOT. I'm asking why you accept being told by the State you HAVE to do it. Why can't you be trusted to make sure it is safe by organising regular checks yourself.
I'm not trying to trap anyone, it's just that a lot of people have said recently that they want speed limits scrapping because:
1) they can be trusted to set a safe speed.
2) they don't like the nanny state.
3) trust drivers and that trust is repaid.
So, I'm asking that if the above is true, why isn't it true for the MOT. As far as I can see, every reason that is given in support of scrapping speed limits, also aplies to scrapping the legal requirement to have an MOT.
You are told you have to have an MOT test, by law. However, if you have an MOT certificate and the car is later shown to be dangerous (unroadworthy), you can get done. If you don't have an MOT certificate and the car is then shown to be safe, you can also get done.
The reason I ask the above, is that when the suggestions are put forward to scrap the limits, folk have argued that they want it 'on principle'. But they don't seem to be applying those same principles to other road/car ownership issues.
I just wondered why, 'cos it comes across as folk hiding behind principles to get something to satisfy their macho self interest.
Einion Yrth said:
Seems to me that you are making a very good case for the abolition of the compulsory MOT - keep it up.
Certainly mon brave....as long as those who are oh so principled stand up and refuse to do the nanny state MOT in the meantime. Taking the resultant bovver on the chin of course.
Hmmmm. What are the chances of that happening then.
Its slightly off topic but I can see a situation arising soon where the fee will have to increase by at least 50%. people might start moaning then. Getting an MOT appointment will be like getting a dentists appointment.
Due to the new computers, there is little to no profit in doing MOT's. You have to spend the alotted time pressing buttons on the computer, do it too quickly and the system thinks you are tring to fool it. Main dealers who used to do their own MOT's now out source because to them £45 for an hours work is commercial suicide when that same tester can be working on £110 per hour billable servicing. The smaller companies are at a point where the same applies to them. Where they used to get maybe 2 cars done in an hour and £70 was fair enough for an hour, 14 cars in a day, they are now lucky to get 7 done in a day!
Its even worse for those doing bike MOT's. They stand around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the computer to allow them to do the next part!
Abolish MOT's and just make the penalties more severe for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. Self regulation again please.
Due to the new computers, there is little to no profit in doing MOT's. You have to spend the alotted time pressing buttons on the computer, do it too quickly and the system thinks you are tring to fool it. Main dealers who used to do their own MOT's now out source because to them £45 for an hours work is commercial suicide when that same tester can be working on £110 per hour billable servicing. The smaller companies are at a point where the same applies to them. Where they used to get maybe 2 cars done in an hour and £70 was fair enough for an hour, 14 cars in a day, they are now lucky to get 7 done in a day!
Its even worse for those doing bike MOT's. They stand around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the computer to allow them to do the next part!
Abolish MOT's and just make the penalties more severe for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. Self regulation again please.
Big Fat F'er said:
So I ask again. For those of you that want the speed limits scrapping, because you can be trusted to know what speed to drive at, why are you not campaining to have the mot scrapped. If you are happy with having speed limits (not the enforcement) then this isn't directed at you.
You can't compare the two, they are different.
There is no requirement for a person to be a technically competant car mechanic. There is no requirement for a person, for example, to have a set of ramps which is the only way to properly examine things like brake pipes. It's not reasonable to expect a 50 year old maths teacher (for example) to understand what makes his car safe.
BUT it is perfectly reasonable to expect said 50 year old maths teacher to understand what speed he should be driving at because it directly affects his driving - driving is a skill that we should learn and continue improving - that's accepted even by the likes of BRAKE. An arbitary speed limit is just that, a number on a piece of metal that bears no relation to what you might see in front of you in 3 seconds time. Your experience, skill, judgement and training will help you keep a person alive, not a number on a metal sign.
Big Fat F'er said:
What I can't understand is why you all have a problem with the speed limits, but not the MOT. You spend hours attacking limits, but no-one mentions the MOT.
You're forgetting one thing...the MOT is a common sense, logical measure. No one is moaning about it because perhaps we see it as necessary.
On the other hand, many speed limits are not, by that I mean especially the ones being lowered to silly levels because that's the PC thing to do.
BTW, I'm not against speed limits as a guideline, but I strongly believe they should be enforced only with discretion.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff