Row erupts over MoT testing
Yearly tests must stay, say small garages, or bad things will happen
The Independent Garage Association (IGA) has taken umbrage at the Chancellor Gordon Brown's recent description of annual MoT testing as "little more than red tape" and his suggestion that it could be changed to once every two years. The IGA said this would be "seriously misguided and would be disastrous for MOT testing stations", arguing that it would cost motorists more in the long run, as well as being bad for the environment.
The Chancellor made his remarks in a speech to the CBI yesterday. It follows the publication of a report, Risk Responsibility and Regulation, by the Better Regulation Commission (see link below) which questioned whether, because today's cars are safer and more reliable, it would be sensible to push back the first year of testing to the fourth year.
IGA director Ray Holloway said: "So-called red tape aside, the case for change does not stack up in several crucial areas, namely safety, environmental and cost. The UK has one of the best road safety records in Europe, thanks to the annual MOT test for older vehicles.
"Newer vehicles require similar attention in order to maintain safe standards: in fact, Government figures state that around 18 per cent of them fail their first MOT test after three years. With the current annual test comfortably in place, the MOT failure rate is over 30 per cent: that’s almost eight million defective vehicles detected because they must go through this rigorous procedure. Imagine, around 50 per cent of all vehicles could be unfit for road use if only tested every two years.
"Another negative outcome will be a detrimental effect on environmental targets. Around 15 per cent of vehicles tested now fail a MOT because they do not meet emissions requirements: testing every two years can only lead to more seriously polluting vehicles staying longer on UK roads before being detected.
"Also, the Chancellor’s words seem worryingly premature; the Department for Transport (DFT) is to consult all interested parties during 2007 on whether roadworthiness testing of our vehicles should be done less frequently, with an assumption that this would save motorists money. We very much doubt this in the long-term. If older vehicles are not checked annually, this may lead to more expensive long-standing problems for owners.
"The Treasury may even pick up a sizeable cost as this two-year proposal would be utterly disastrous for technicians employed as MOT testers. The business owners at the sharp end -- many of them small or medium-sized in rural areas -- would lose vital income and may not survive. What supportive message is this sending out to a UK economy already groaning under Government interference?
"The IGA is in discussion with both the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and the DFT on the appalling implications for the vehicle owners - as well as the MOT testing sector - should the Government’s unrealistic plan be seriously considered."
Change the system so that new cars have an MOT test at 1 year old like Trucks, Minibuses etc.
The number of 1 and two year old cars driving around with lights out and defective tyres is considerable. Letting these cars go another year before the ticket is ludicrous.
I think there could be argued a case for a test every 6 months. An annual MOT followed 6 months later by a check of tyres, brakes, lights etc. People are too lazy / ignorant to do this themselves then maybe they should pay for it to be done.
Those people who are too lazy or plain stupid should not be the reason everyone else has to deal with the timewasting and cost of the MOT.
That kind of minority rule has brought Britain to its knees.
Those who keep their cars serviced and roadworthy deserve a break.
The police should get off their arses and gather in the rest. That is, in theory, their job.
Those people who are too lazy or plain stupid should not be the reason everyone else has to deal with the timewasting and cost of the MOT.
That kind of minority rule has brought Britain to its knees.
Those who keep their cars serviced and roadworthy deserve a break.
The police should get off their arses and gather in the rest. That is, in theory, their job.
I dare say that at any one time there are more unroadworthy cars than roadworthy on the roads. We need to toughen up and not slack off IMO.
The added bonus would be that it would encourage manufacturers a little more to offer the longest warranty that they dare - and that would benefit us all.
It's an hour or so and forty-odd quid once per year. Don't get me wrong, I don't look forward to it, but is that really such a hassle? If something is wrong with the car, even if it's just a split CV boot or something, then it was expense that was needed anyway whether or not it makes the car feel or handle/perform any different.
As for not caring about other people poorly maintaining cars, a chap I know used to run a garage with an MOT testing station and as an example has in the past seen a car come in for an MOT with nylon rope holding one of the lower ball joints on. When that, or other such idiotic bodge jobs fail and cause an accident with a pefectly maintained car and write it off (or worse hurt the occupants), I imagine that would be having to 'deal with the timewasting and cost of the MOT' in a significantly more unpleasant way.
I don't agree with having to pay out to cater for the lowest common denominator, as seems to be the way in so many other circumstances in the UK, but with driving skills as generally crap as they seem to be these days I think the least we should expect is for all vehicles to be 'roadworthy' to a measurable degree.
People who do keep their cars roadworthy should get a break, maybe with reducing charges for each consecutive year they keep the same vehicle up to scratch, but it should still be an annual test IMO.
I don't have a problem with paying my way on the road, if that money was actually put back into maintaining our roads. I like in Bedford and the quality of the road network here is dreadful, thank god I'm not driving my Elise any more on these roads!!
My Caterham only covered 800 miles between MOT's this year and is kept in a garage when not in use, seems a bit wrong having to pay £40 for an MOT when it was only done 800 miles ago! Same goes for Road TAX!
Also, to move the first MOT test to 4 years (as per Italy) would be annoying - I like to have a vehicle tested when it's just inside its 3 year warranty so the manufacturer sorts out any faults! (And I'd rather bite my arm off than drive a Hyundai with a 5 year warranty...)
If you want to junk anything make it the Road Fund Licence. Just display insurance and MOT on car and ditch the RFL, but of course they will never do that as it is a huge stealth tax.
Rob
Mileage cannot be used in this equation as 1) it is too easy to tamper with, 2) it is not accurately recorded anywhere at this point in time.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff