MOT warning!!!
Discussion
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
Anyway, please check this website www.no2mot422.co.uk and add your name to the petition and/or send an email or letter to your local MP (all possible through the website) to register your concerns and stop this from happening!!
Thanks for reading guys.
www.no2mot422.co.uk
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
Anyway, please check this website www.no2mot422.co.uk and add your name to the petition and/or send an email or letter to your local MP (all possible through the website) to register your concerns and stop this from happening!!
Thanks for reading guys.
www.no2mot422.co.uk
I reckon every car should have an annual check even under 3 years old. Maybe an MOT light which would focus on tyres, brakes, steering components. If you do 30,000 a year you can easily get through a set of tyres and be well on the way to the 3rd set.
I find the whole thing with this uncomfortable as I don't want the government to do something to make my life a little cheaper and a little less hassle. Which is weird because they usually do things to make it more hassle and more expensive.
I find the whole thing with this uncomfortable as I don't want the government to do something to make my life a little cheaper and a little less hassle. Which is weird because they usually do things to make it more hassle and more expensive.
johnpunter said:
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
I can't see why. The MoT equivalent in other some other countries is every two years and I find their roads (France for example) no more dangerous than here.
What is the link with insurance premiums?
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
I can't see why. The MoT equivalent in other some other countries is every two years and I find their roads (France for example) no more dangerous than here.
What is the link with insurance premiums?
Safety tables apparently illustrate that across the EU the countries with the 2 year system have a higher rate of accidents due to car failures than those with annual MOT systems.
If there is an increased liklihood of accidents, supported by statistical evidence from other countries, then it is likely that the actuaries for insurance companies will whack up insurance premiums correspondingly...
johnpunter said:
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
I can't see why. The MoT equivalent in other some other countries is every two years and I find their roads (France for example) no more dangerous than here.
What is the link with insurance premiums?
Safety tables apparently illustrate that across the EU the countries with the 2 year system have a higher rate of accidents due to car failures than those with annual MOT systems.
If there is an increased liklihood of accidents, supported by statistical evidence from other countries, then it is likely that the actuaries for insurance companies will whack up insurance premiums correspondingly...
So no real evidence then?
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
I can't see why. The MoT equivalent in other some other countries is every two years and I find their roads (France for example) no more dangerous than here.
What is the link with insurance premiums?
Safety tables apparently illustrate that across the EU the countries with the 2 year system have a higher rate of accidents due to car failures than those with annual MOT systems.
If there is an increased liklihood of accidents, supported by statistical evidence from other countries, then it is likely that the actuaries for insurance companies will whack up insurance premiums correspondingly...
So no real evidence then?
I see your point PuffPuff. The 'apparently' is based on the fact that I have seen this table but do not remember where and don't have a copy myself so I couldn't be categoric!
As as for the comment on statistics and actuaries well I dunno whether you've studied economics or stats at all but, they are both based on 'ifs' and 'possibles'...using terms like 'likely' is entirely correct when discussing insurance premiums etc...
JP
johnpunter said:
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
puffpuff said:
johnpunter said:
Dear All,
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
You may remember this came up a few months ago that the Government was considering changing the MOT from every year to every other year. We all know how dangerous this will make the roads and also increase OUR insurance premiums!
I can't see why. The MoT equivalent in other some other countries is every two years and I find their roads (France for example) no more dangerous than here.
What is the link with insurance premiums?
Safety tables apparently illustrate that across the EU the countries with the 2 year system have a higher rate of accidents due to car failures than those with annual MOT systems.
If there is an increased liklihood of accidents, supported by statistical evidence from other countries, then it is likely that the actuaries for insurance companies will whack up insurance premiums correspondingly...
So no real evidence then?
I see your point PuffPuff. The 'apparently' is based on the fact that I have seen this table but do not remember where and don't have a copy myself so I couldn't be categoric!
As as for the comment on statistics and actuaries well I dunno whether you've studied economics or stats at all but, they are both based on 'ifs' and 'possibles'...using terms like 'likely' is entirely correct when discussing insurance premiums etc...
JP
JP - I'd be genuinely interested to see the information if possible.
No, I've never studied economics or statistics. Some of my work requires evidence without which strategies, policies and protocols can't be developed so my preference is for supporting facts rather than supposition.
The MOT even has written on it that it is worthless.
You can still get done as you leave the station and insurance companies always ignore the MOT and look for problems when you are involved in an accident - the more serious, the more they look.
2 years sounds fine to me, but I would also prefer the MOT testing stations to be publicly owned.
The only real argument I hear for keeping yearly checks is many people don't maintain their cars.
So sod them - let the police get off their backsides and haul 'em in.
We can't keep creating our laws around the thick in our society and treat all of us as thick - give those who DO look after their cars a break - there is no need for them to have a yearly MOT.
And remember, even with a 2 year mandatory test, you can still have the yearly one, if you wish. No garage will turn away your business.
You can still get done as you leave the station and insurance companies always ignore the MOT and look for problems when you are involved in an accident - the more serious, the more they look.
2 years sounds fine to me, but I would also prefer the MOT testing stations to be publicly owned.
The only real argument I hear for keeping yearly checks is many people don't maintain their cars.
So sod them - let the police get off their backsides and haul 'em in.
We can't keep creating our laws around the thick in our society and treat all of us as thick - give those who DO look after their cars a break - there is no need for them to have a yearly MOT.
And remember, even with a 2 year mandatory test, you can still have the yearly one, if you wish. No garage will turn away your business.
johnpunter said:
PuffPuff - Fair enough on your thoughts mate. I'm just highlighting what I think to be a concerning issue. If I do find that table showing the relative rates of accident with respect to MOT checks in EU countries I'll post it here.
Thanks for your views mate.
Thanks for your views mate.
It'll be interesting JP. I've a classic car ('54 Riley) that doesn't have half the MoT checks my modern cars have though brakes, suspension, lights are still included.
I've been out with the BiB when they've had VOSA inspectors carrying out vehicle checks. Some fairly new cars were found to have quite serious faults, also some that had recently been MoTd.
Good topic - thanks.
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302493]
[/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302491]
[/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302492]
[/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302494]
[/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302495]
[/URL]
i thought id post up a few picts of the codition of cars that come to me for a mot every year, this was just today and if these faults were left for even a few days more these could have caused a fatal accedent, im a tester and this is a stupid idea that will cost us all money in the long run. Notice the car with the cords showing on the inner edges and then see the pict of the baby seat not held in by the cars seat belt, if this wasent moted that week u could imagine what could have happend to her 6 month old baby let alone any one she crashes into, we rectified the problem and advised on the brake pads low which she also had done now again if this was not noticed she would have soon been replacing her brake discs too so this mot not only prevented a crash in my opinion but saved he money too, as for the pictures of the brake hoses u can all see what would have happend if one day he or she needed to brake sharply the pedal would have hit the floor and would have no brakes, i know we all hate taking our cars for a mot but sign this pretition and keep our roads safer, as for the baby seat we supported it correctly for the customer as she fault thats how they should be and the car was only serviced at a citroen main dealership a month ago and all the mentioned that the pad were low nothing about tyres and tracking, this was its first mot should this have been left for another year in this condition, same as the brake hoses?????? if u think so then dont sign the pretition if u agree with me please sign it.
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302491]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302492]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302494]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302495]
[/URL] i thought id post up a few picts of the codition of cars that come to me for a mot every year, this was just today and if these faults were left for even a few days more these could have caused a fatal accedent, im a tester and this is a stupid idea that will cost us all money in the long run. Notice the car with the cords showing on the inner edges and then see the pict of the baby seat not held in by the cars seat belt, if this wasent moted that week u could imagine what could have happend to her 6 month old baby let alone any one she crashes into, we rectified the problem and advised on the brake pads low which she also had done now again if this was not noticed she would have soon been replacing her brake discs too so this mot not only prevented a crash in my opinion but saved he money too, as for the pictures of the brake hoses u can all see what would have happend if one day he or she needed to brake sharply the pedal would have hit the floor and would have no brakes, i know we all hate taking our cars for a mot but sign this pretition and keep our roads safer, as for the baby seat we supported it correctly for the customer as she fault thats how they should be and the car was only serviced at a citroen main dealership a month ago and all the mentioned that the pad were low nothing about tyres and tracking, this was its first mot should this have been left for another year in this condition, same as the brake hoses?????? if u think so then dont sign the pretition if u agree with me please sign it.
Edited by azboy25 on Tuesday 24th April 21:59
Edited by azboy25 on Tuesday 24th April 22:02
jondude said:
The MOT even has written on it that it is worthless.
You can still get done as you leave the station and insurance companies always ignore the MOT and look for problems when you are involved in an accident - the more serious, the more they look.
2 years sounds fine to me, but I would also prefer the MOT testing stations to be publicly owned.
The only real argument I hear for keeping yearly checks is many people don't maintain their cars.
So sod them - let the police get off their backsides and haul 'em in.
We can't keep creating our laws around the thick in our society and treat all of us as thick - give those who DO look after their cars a break - there is no need for them to have a yearly MOT.
And remember, even with a 2 year mandatory test, you can still have the yearly one, if you wish. No garage will turn away your business.
You can still get done as you leave the station and insurance companies always ignore the MOT and look for problems when you are involved in an accident - the more serious, the more they look.
2 years sounds fine to me, but I would also prefer the MOT testing stations to be publicly owned.
The only real argument I hear for keeping yearly checks is many people don't maintain their cars.
So sod them - let the police get off their backsides and haul 'em in.
We can't keep creating our laws around the thick in our society and treat all of us as thick - give those who DO look after their cars a break - there is no need for them to have a yearly MOT.
And remember, even with a 2 year mandatory test, you can still have the yearly one, if you wish. No garage will turn away your business.
How about an 18 month test for all NEW cars, instead of waiting for the 36 months, then 18 months thereafter,
perhaps it would be more worth if it was based on miles traveled?
If I travel 5k per year, there isn't a great deal going to change for the worse, as if I travel 35k per year.
perhaps miles traveled is the way to do it.?
as for 1 of the post above as let the police get off there arse, its often too late then m8 as when they check the car its been involed in a serious accident, on the road side unless its vosa the police only check tyres, wipers and lights ect and how often do u see traffic police, ive only been pulled twice in ten years of driving and that includes the 5 years of driving with a prov licence, no tax and no insureance, yes this is wrong but i was young and got away with it and still have no points and never got caught, but for a mot ur car is checked by people who know what there doing for safety, not peole in a hat thinking they know what there talking about but have never ever fixed a car before in the life , just read books.
The MOT was a bit of european legislation that cars had to be tested every two years but the british government decided to change that to a year. All they would be doing is changing back to how it was supposed to be. In most european countries there equivalent is still every two years.
azboy25 said:
as for 1 of the post above as let the police get off there arse, its often too late then m8 as when they check the car its been involed in a serious accident, on the road side unless its vosa the police only check tyres, wipers and lights ect and how often do u see traffic police, ive only been pulled twice in ten years of driving and that includes the 5 years of driving with a prov licence, no tax and no insureance, yes this is wrong but i was young and got away with it and still have no points and never got caught, but for a mot ur car is checked by people who know what there doing for safety, not peole in a hat thinking they know what there talking about but have never ever fixed a car before in the life , just read books.
Further to this, it would be easy for the police to check tyres or bulbs at the side of the road, but how are they supposed to check suspension, brake lines, corrosion etc?
azboy25 said:
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302493][/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302491][/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302492][/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302494][/URL]
[URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302495][/URL]
i thought id post up a few picts of the codition of cars that come to me for a mot every year, this was just today and if these faults were left for even a few days more these could have caused a fatal accedent, im a tester and this is a stupid idea that will cost us all money in the long run. Notice the car with the cords showing on the inner edges and then see the pict of the baby seat not held in by the cars seat belt, if this wasent moted that week u could imagine what could have happend to her 6 month old baby let alone any one she crashes into, we rectified the problem and advised on the brake pads low which she also had done now again if this was not noticed she would have soon been replacing her brake discs too so this mot not only prevented a crash in my opinion but saved he money too, as for the pictures of the brake hoses u can all see what would have happend if one day he or she needed to brake sharply the pedal would have hit the floor and would have no brakes, i know we all hate taking our cars for a mot but sign this pretition and keep our roads safer, as for the baby seat we supported it correctly for the customer as she fault thats how they should be and the car was only serviced at a citroen main dealership a month ago and all the mentioned that the pad were low nothing about tyres and tracking, this was its first mot should this have been left for another year in this condition, same as the brake hoses?????? if u think so then dont sign the pretition if u agree with me please sign it.
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302491]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302492]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302494]
[/URL] [URL=www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5302495]
[/URL] i thought id post up a few picts of the codition of cars that come to me for a mot every year, this was just today and if these faults were left for even a few days more these could have caused a fatal accedent, im a tester and this is a stupid idea that will cost us all money in the long run. Notice the car with the cords showing on the inner edges and then see the pict of the baby seat not held in by the cars seat belt, if this wasent moted that week u could imagine what could have happend to her 6 month old baby let alone any one she crashes into, we rectified the problem and advised on the brake pads low which she also had done now again if this was not noticed she would have soon been replacing her brake discs too so this mot not only prevented a crash in my opinion but saved he money too, as for the pictures of the brake hoses u can all see what would have happend if one day he or she needed to brake sharply the pedal would have hit the floor and would have no brakes, i know we all hate taking our cars for a mot but sign this pretition and keep our roads safer, as for the baby seat we supported it correctly for the customer as she fault thats how they should be and the car was only serviced at a citroen main dealership a month ago and all the mentioned that the pad were low nothing about tyres and tracking, this was its first mot should this have been left for another year in this condition, same as the brake hoses?????? if u think so then dont sign the pretition if u agree with me please sign it.
...KING H£LL!! that shocking but I know not rare. On another point do anyone knows if Renault Clio's past their first MOT know a days when i was a mechanic owners had a lest a £300 bill with the back wheel cylinders licking and the most of the front suspension needing replacing at there first MOT!!
I think ALL cars should be tested every year.
Take my wifes (ex) Saxo VTR, (I am a time served tech and have worked on many cars, cars are my passion, always have been) as well as the dealers servicing it I went through it almost monthly, within the first year it was sent back for three, yes three new front legs, one windscreen which cracked due to the sealer having a gap on the lower edge which raised a stress point and new wheels.
As for cutting folk who maintain the car well, while I see the point, can most of you/them check emmissions on a regular basis? do you check joint wear often? how about brake flexi's and fuel pipes? rust? there are a huge number of checks done, all of which are valid for YOUR safety as well as others.
I know it is costly to have the annual check, but choose the correct MOT centre and once a year your car will have a health check which can only be a good thing, worst case outcome..the car needs a bit of work to make it safe, best case, a clean bill of health and piece of mind.
Just my two cents.
Roady
Take my wifes (ex) Saxo VTR, (I am a time served tech and have worked on many cars, cars are my passion, always have been) as well as the dealers servicing it I went through it almost monthly, within the first year it was sent back for three, yes three new front legs, one windscreen which cracked due to the sealer having a gap on the lower edge which raised a stress point and new wheels.
As for cutting folk who maintain the car well, while I see the point, can most of you/them check emmissions on a regular basis? do you check joint wear often? how about brake flexi's and fuel pipes? rust? there are a huge number of checks done, all of which are valid for YOUR safety as well as others.
I know it is costly to have the annual check, but choose the correct MOT centre and once a year your car will have a health check which can only be a good thing, worst case outcome..the car needs a bit of work to make it safe, best case, a clean bill of health and piece of mind.
Just my two cents.
Roady
The Prime Minister's Office has just responded to the petition:
The proposal to reduce MOT frequency was initiated by the Davidson Review Team and the Better Regulation Commission whose purpose is to look at the implementation of EU law in the UK, and the legislative burden on UK businesses.
The Department for Transport will shortly launch a public consultation on whether the UK should move away from its current pattern of testing. Those with an interest will be able to comment on whether or not the EC minimum frequency of testing would be more appropriate for the UK, and provide any evidence to support their views. One area for close consideration is that of road safety, which will be addressed in the consultation process.
No decisions will be taken on the issue of the frequency of MOT testing until we have had the opportunity to fully consider all the responses to the consultation later in the year.
can't believe they need to even think about this.
The proposal to reduce MOT frequency was initiated by the Davidson Review Team and the Better Regulation Commission whose purpose is to look at the implementation of EU law in the UK, and the legislative burden on UK businesses.
The Department for Transport will shortly launch a public consultation on whether the UK should move away from its current pattern of testing. Those with an interest will be able to comment on whether or not the EC minimum frequency of testing would be more appropriate for the UK, and provide any evidence to support their views. One area for close consideration is that of road safety, which will be addressed in the consultation process.
No decisions will be taken on the issue of the frequency of MOT testing until we have had the opportunity to fully consider all the responses to the consultation later in the year.
can't believe they need to even think about this.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff