Annual MOTs Could be Scrapped?
Discussion
Really?
One every two years; new cars won't need one until four years.
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/11042011/36/mot-changes-s...
One every two years; new cars won't need one until four years.
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/11042011/36/mot-changes-s...
Good to see they're looking at it. Modern cars especially don't really need looking after 3 yrs - except for consumables which would be picked up at service time anyway.
However, this little gem from the articla frustrated me;
However, this little gem from the articla frustrated me;
article said:
and analysts have suggested any reduction could increase road deaths by 30 per year
Blimey. How unsubtantiated and totally made up.TonyHetherington said:
Good to see they're looking at it. Modern cars especially don't really need looking after 3 yrs - except for consumables which would be picked up at service time anyway.
They do, and I'd say they're more likely to fail at 3 years than a car would have been 20-30 years ago.There are many cars on variable service intervals and / or cars serviced on mileage rather than time, which could possibly never have been serviced - or not been serviced for a couple of years.
Given that a huge majority of people rely on servicing and MOTs to tell them they need to replace consumables, I can see this causing lots of issues.
Stupid idea, I would rather we went the other way and had 2 inspections per year because frankly I have seen many a car that has 6 months or so MOT that would stand NO chance of passing a test.
You can just imagine how many people who will turn up to MOTs with tyres on 2mm pass an then not look at them for 2 years, same for brakes nearly on the wear limit but strong enough to pass the test, this could be disastrous.
dave
You can just imagine how many people who will turn up to MOTs with tyres on 2mm pass an then not look at them for 2 years, same for brakes nearly on the wear limit but strong enough to pass the test, this could be disastrous.
dave
VeeFour said:
TonyHetherington said:
Good to see they're looking at it. Modern cars especially don't really need looking after 3 yrs - except for consumables which would be picked up at service time anyway.
They do, and I'd say they're more likely to fail at 3 years than a car would have been 20-30 years ago.TonyHetherington said:
What goes wrong on cars <3yrs old that didn't 20-30yrs ago? More so, what goes wrong on cars <3yrs old full stop?
Worn out brake discs and / or pads, bald tyres, blown and badly aligned bulbs, worn out suspension bushes, knackered catalytic converters, non-functional airbag and ABS systems.I've seen all these on pool cars at work, all of which were under 3 years old and at least 10k miles from their next service.
There's only so far we can legislate for idiots.
Half of those things would produce warning lights on modern cars, the other half is service items.
I agree we'd probably end up with more people driving with bald tyres and low brakes, but that's their responsibility and their service plan's; garages will say "your pads won't last until the next service" if it's necessary.
Half of those things would produce warning lights on modern cars, the other half is service items.
I agree we'd probably end up with more people driving with bald tyres and low brakes, but that's their responsibility and their service plan's; garages will say "your pads won't last until the next service" if it's necessary.
I can understand perhaps the first interval being two years, so the first MOT is on the third anniversary of registration as now, and the 2nd MOT would be on the 5th anniversary of registration but after that it should stay as annual surely.
This option works because the great majority of new purchase cars are on 3 or 4 year leases and subjected to regular servicing I would guess.
How this can be peddled as money saving for the motorist ? The test is £55 (ish), its the remedial (and usually safety based) work that costs the motorist........... What on earth is the gubberment thinking of
Is it to distract us from the nurses getting shirty with the Health minister ?
This option works because the great majority of new purchase cars are on 3 or 4 year leases and subjected to regular servicing I would guess.
How this can be peddled as money saving for the motorist ? The test is £55 (ish), its the remedial (and usually safety based) work that costs the motorist........... What on earth is the gubberment thinking of
Is it to distract us from the nurses getting shirty with the Health minister ?
to be honest the mot is a load of boxxox anyway.
in the last few years cars ive had mot'd included a rover Vitesse 800 model,which passed with flying colours,only for less than a week later the lower ball joint failed and the front wheel fell off,luckily i was only doing around 20mph when it happened. sorry,and im aware that the mot test only really equates to the condition of the car on the day of the test,but you dont mean to tell me that it wasnt noticable on the test?
recently my mondeo st200 went through the mot ok but the stupid thing is,and even the mot tester said the same thing,that they are not allowed to check under any coverings covering things like brake lines or skirts covering sills,so why is the question?
personally i can see cars over say 7 or 8 years old needing a yearly test but surely nowadays modern cars dont rust or fall apart like they used too.
just another 'tax'
in the last few years cars ive had mot'd included a rover Vitesse 800 model,which passed with flying colours,only for less than a week later the lower ball joint failed and the front wheel fell off,luckily i was only doing around 20mph when it happened. sorry,and im aware that the mot test only really equates to the condition of the car on the day of the test,but you dont mean to tell me that it wasnt noticable on the test?
recently my mondeo st200 went through the mot ok but the stupid thing is,and even the mot tester said the same thing,that they are not allowed to check under any coverings covering things like brake lines or skirts covering sills,so why is the question?
personally i can see cars over say 7 or 8 years old needing a yearly test but surely nowadays modern cars dont rust or fall apart like they used too.
just another 'tax'
refoman2 said:
personally i can see cars over say 7 or 8 years old needing a yearly test but surely nowadays modern cars dont rust or fall apart like they used too.
just another 'tax'
The problem as I see it is the drivers more than the car. It is still a mechanical beasty and bits will break. eg I would not want someone who only does tyres when the MOT says they are low around me in the rain. just another 'tax'
Hmmm not sure I would feel comfortable with that. I drive an old car and I carry out weekly checks on it, but I can't personally see everyone doing that. A lot can happen in a year especially with the state of the roads! As much as I hate MOT time it's one of the motoring laws that I agree with!
Yeah, as others have said, many cars are fairly dangerous anyway despite having an M.O.T., so this idea will just make things worse. You should have seen the state of my fully M.O.T.d old Polo when it finally went to the scrappy. 
TonyHetherington said:
All cars over 10yrs old will still have to have annual test.
This wil only affect cars 3 - 9 yrs old.
And there's the answer!! I'm probably never going to own a car newer than that anyway anytime soon.....This wil only affect cars 3 - 9 yrs old.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff