MoT changes

[fat richie]

I don't think this has been on here yet (awaits call from repost police), but the link takes you to an article in the Gaurdian about changing the MoT to every two years, rather than annually.

www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1959481,00.html

Somehow I expect the motorist is going to gets shafted again from this!

[Rob_the_Sparky]

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

[vonhosen]

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

That's what happens in Japan isn't it (stringent MOT) & why we get 2nd hand imports from them.

[bimsb6]

vonhosen said:

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

That's what happens in Japan isn't it (stringent MOT) & why we get 2nd hand imports from them.

and italy and switzerland

[Alice Cupra]

Hmmm. This brings a few thoughts to mind......

Once every 2 years, first one at 4 years. That immediately at least halves the amount of cars going through an MOT on an annual basis.

Which means the Government will then say "The garages will have more time to spare now the numbers are reduced."

Which means they'll make it more comprehensive and more strict.

Which means they'll bring in by the back door their stated aim of making sure cars over 10 years old are taken off the roads in favour of newer, more "fuel efficient" cars.

New cars which, by 2015, will have to have the Road-Pricing tracker black box fitted as standard.

And those cars over 10 years old which they are unable to fail for whatever reason, will use the time gained from doing less MOTs to have one retro-fitted.

Which will also become part of the MOT. Along with anti-tamper RFID number plates. And speed limiters.

Thin end of the wedge, methinks.

Or am I just paranoid........?

[Rob_the_Sparky]

bimsb6 said:

vonhosen said:

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

That's what happens in Japan isn't it (stringent MOT) & why we get 2nd hand imports from them.

and italy and switzerland

And (I think) France and Holland

[andmole]

Alice Cupra said:

Hmmm. This brings a few thoughts to mind......

Once every 2 years, first one at 4 years. That immediately at least halves the amount of cars going through an MOT on an annual basis.

Which means the Government will then say "The garages will have more time to spare now the numbers are reduced."

Which means they'll make it more comprehensive and more strict.

Which means they'll bring in by the back door their stated aim of making sure cars over 10 years old are taken off the roads in favour of newer, more "fuel efficient" cars.

New cars which, by 2015, will have to have the Road-Pricing tracker black box fitted as standard.

And those cars over 10 years old which they are unable to fail for whatever reason, will use the time gained from doing less MOTs to have one retro-fitted.

Which will also become part of the MOT. Along with anti-tamper RFID number plates. And speed limiters.

Thin end of the wedge, methinks.

Or am I just paranoid........?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you

[droopsnoot]

This is ridiculous. The number of things that can change a car from "roadworthy" to "dangerously unsafe" in a two year period means that a lot of cars, even relatively new, will be in a worse state than they are now. And far from being an emissions improvement, I would suggest that leaving cars for four years from new without having to be checked will make them more likely to exceed the permitted levels.

[james_j]

Yes, as above, I suspect a stealth tactic undercurrent. However, a tougher test which would cause more cars to go to the scrapyard more often would be damaging to the environment. Of course, the environment may not be the government's true priority.

[blueyes]

Alice Cupra said:

Once every 2 years, first one at 4 years.

This is what happens in Italy, (and 2005 accident figures showed only 2% were due to vehicle defects) so maybe they're trying to bring it in line with Europe?

[g_attrill]

If there are changes I imagine it would be for new vehicles only, otherwise (as mentioned) the MOT stations would see their busines halve overnight leading to job losses.

Gareth

[Richard C]

droopsnoot said:

This is ridiculous. The number of things that can change a car from "roadworthy" to "dangerously unsafe" in a two year period means that a lot of cars, even relatively new, will be in a worse state than they are now. And far from being an emissions improvement, I would suggest that leaving cars for four years from new without having to be checked will make them more likely to exceed the permitted levels.

Err yeah.....There are number of things that can change a car from "roadworthy" to "dangerously unsafe" in a two week period. So how many "dangerously unsafe" actually cause accidents ..... see previous poster .......2%

[corozin]

g_attrill said:

If there are changes I imagine it would be for new vehicles only, otherwise (as mentioned) the MOT stations would see their busines halve overnight leading to job losses.
Gareth

Well, I don't think it's any big secret that the car manufacturers would be happy to see all non-franchised garages put out of business, so that they could get a captive market. Sticking a knife in the MOT trade would be a good way to put a lot of small garages out of business.

Of course supporting any kind of initiative to remove older/classic cars off the road wouldn't exactly hurt thier trade either (so they think)

[Wacky Racer]

The VRT (Mot) in Malta is required every two years, but as long as your car has four wheels and a steering wheel it usually passes....

[CharlesW]

I think this comes from Brussels. It is just to bring us into line with the rest of Europe, where cars are tested every 2 years. As far as I know there has not been any directive to make it harder.

[Tafia]

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

Oeer. One of mine is 16 years old with 135 K up. Runs like a watch.

[Tafia]

vonhosen said:

Rob_the_Sparky said:

Probably along the lines of a "super test" every so often (e.g. 10 years), which is an absolute bitch to get your car through. Effectively making cars coming up to that age worthless..

That's what happens in Japan isn't it (stringent MOT) & why we get 2nd hand imports from them.

When they are 3 years old I think. £1000 for the test and as you say, very severe. So their cars are sent to Ireland and then on to us.

[aw51 121565]

The "Shaken". My figues may not be right, but the principal is a 'serious test' at 3 years and then wholesale replacement of many items (for example steering and suspension components) at 5 years. This second test, at 5 years of age, costs so much that it is cheaper to get a new car.

The argument is thus: Planes don't fall out of the sky as their safety-critical components are 'lifed' and replaced at specific (time or distance criteria) intervals. The Japanese follow the same policy.

This maintains their domestic car producers' sales, and ensures that cheap Jap Imports are available to us in the UK, as well as their engines...

Of course, Annual MoTs and replacement of parts as needed is perfectly safe. And looking at the state of French and Irish cars, for example, I'm not sure I want a 2 year MoT test!