New MOT changes to become law?

[Morningside]

Not that well reported on the news channels:

I found this article about changes to the MOT status in line with the EU. Being four years after first registration and every TWO years after that.
(OK it may NOT become law but interesting nevertheless).

It would (or course) save us a money every year for getting that dreaded MOT! But that means the Government would lose out on revenue and I cannot ever see that happening.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/A...

http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/pos...

[anonymous-user]

Interesting. Not sure it is a good thing though.

[jagracer]

It's quite old news, been going on for at least two or three years IIRC. Don't get too excited about it because with bi annual MOTs will come the much stricter and longer test which will also cost a lot more money. The govt doesn't get a lot of revenue from tests compared with the expenditure that computerisation has brought them.

[DrTre]

It currently is "in line" with EU rules.

[BrewsterBear]

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

[Targarama]

I think this would just put smaller garages out of business and result in more deathtraps on the road. Hopefully the decision will be to leave it as is.

[Mark-C]

The annual test seems to work quite well as a culling mechanism for some non roadworthy vehicles. I imagine a two year test period would see sales of gaffer tape going through the roof .....

[Dogwatch]

I know one bloke whose car's annual MOT is the nearest it gets to a service. Otherwise he just drives it until it expires or fails big time then scraps it.

[Torquey]

I'd rather they did 6 month MOT's and cut down on some of the st heaps on the roads. £30 every six months isnt too bad if you look after your car.

[MX7]

Morningside said:

It would (or course) save us a money every year for getting that dreaded MOT! But that means the Government would lose out on revenue and I cannot ever see that happening.

I guess they will double the price, and make it more stringent.

I don't think anything needs changing. How often do you hear about an accident because the car had a failure? Not very often in my opinion.

[jagracer]

MX7 said:

Morningside said:

It would (or course) save us a money every year for getting that dreaded MOT! But that means the Government would lose out on revenue and I cannot ever see that happening.

I guess they will double the price, and make it more stringent.

I don't think anything needs changing. How often do you hear about an accident because the car had a failure? Not very often in my opinion.

How much do you think/know the government get for each test, MOT testers don't answer.

[defblade]

BrewsterBear said:

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

I'd much rather be told I'm NOT driving a death trap and can keep that extra £300.

Mostly though it's the sheer hassle of getting the car repaired when you work in the week - either getting hold of parts or hoping the garage can do it all in one day so you can get home again at the end of the day.

[Mars]

BrewsterBear said:

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

Because not all MoT checks are safety related. The emissions test gets a few people.

[liner33]

jagracer said:

MX7 said:

Morningside said:

It would (or course) save us a money every year for getting that dreaded MOT! But that means the Government would lose out on revenue and I cannot ever see that happening.

I guess they will double the price, and make it more stringent.

I don't think anything needs changing. How often do you hear about an accident because the car had a failure? Not very often in my opinion.

How much do you think/know the government get for each test, MOT testers don't answer.

I understood the government get nothing apart from the tax element provided the car passes and the garage have to buy the equipment dont see a cash cow out there for them at all

[MX7]

jagracer said:

MX7 said:

Morningside said:

It would (or course) save us a money every year for getting that dreaded MOT! But that means the Government would lose out on revenue and I cannot ever see that happening.

I guess they will double the price, and make it more stringent.

I don't think anything needs changing. How often do you hear about an accident because the car had a failure? Not very often in my opinion.

How much do you think/know the government get for each test, MOT testers don't answer.

I'm not sure. I always presumed that there would be something paid to the government to use their system, but I may well be wrong.

[Craigyp79]

Mars said:

BrewsterBear said:

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

Because not all MoT checks are safety related. The emissions test gets a few people.

Plus I'd rather have my car pass the MOT and have the money in my pocket!

[jayfish]

As our current testing schedule exceeds the requirement there is surely no need to change it. This is to ensure a minimum standard across the EU not enforce a lowest common denominator.
Or is euro politics really that backwards...oh wait...

[RobM77]

BrewsterBear said:

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

The reason I don't like paying for MoTs is that both my cars have annual services, and I trust the dealership to tell me if my car has a problem - after all, it's in their interest to tell me if I need work doing. I do realise of course though that servicing is optional, and the MoT is a legal requirement.

[TuxRacer]

defblade said:

Mostly though it's the sheer hassle of getting the car repaired when you work in the week - either getting hold of parts or hoping the garage can do it all in one day so you can get home again at the end of the day.

Agreed. I find it a total pain, mostly because everything has the same attitude - inspections from rental agencies, banks, everything has to be done during the time I have to be at work, without which none of it would be relevant.

I might be more agreeable if an MOT usually, or ever, found something dangerous on one of my cars.

[Pigeon]

BrewsterBear said:

It really isn't a good thing extending the test period. I've never understood the dread some people face pre-MOT. I rather like the fact that there's a comprehensive test which highlights potentially dangerous aspects of a car's lack of maintenance. Maybe some people think that £300 is better in their wallets and to hell with the fact they're driving a death trap.

It is indeed useful as there are things that can be picked up with the car up on a lift under MoT conditions which are entirely obscure when crawling underneath it on the drive. For example, my car once failed on wear in a steering link. Even after having had it demonstrated to me by the MoT tester, I couldn't make it show up myself; under "at-home" conditions the link appeared to be completely fine until I had actually taken it completely off the car to put the new one on.

The "dread" arises from the possibility of such things being found, not in the unpressured manner in which most deterioration appears ie. becoming apparent while it is still not critical and there is plenty of time to do something about it, but with a time limit imposed on fixing it which is both strict and short. It is necessary to somehow get a lot of money together to pay for the parts, to locate a source of them (not always straightforward with an old car which was only produced in small numbers), order them, wait for them to be delivered, and fit them, all within a sufficiently short time to avoid being charged even more money for the retest. It's bad enough having to fork out fifty quid for the test in the first place, it's the possibility of having to scrape up possibly several times that out of nowhere with no warning and no time to do it in which gives rise to "dread".