Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

End Of Road For Annual Mots: Tests Could Be Less Frequent To Reduce Costs For Motorists

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375428/MOT-tests-frequent-minister-seek-reduce-financial-burden-motorists.html

Ministers are considering lifting the requirement that cars have an annual MOT test, despite warnings that it could lead to dozens more deaths on our roads.

Under new plans, drivers may be required to get their vehicles checked only once every two years.

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the proposal, which would save motorists hundreds of pounds at a time of high petrol prices, was sensible because modern-day cars were a lot safer.

Has he really said that? Big time facepalm here. If it's saving motorists hundreds of pounds by not having a MOT done it's because the car is unsafe and needs work!!!!

What a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375428/MOT-tests-frequent-minister-seek-reduce-financial-burden-motorists.html

Has he really said that? Big time facepalm here. If it's saving motorists hundreds of pounds by not having a MOT done it's because the car is unsafe and needs work!!!!

What a moron.

I read this yesterday, stupid idea. I don't mind paying £40 a year for what amounts to an annual safety check. Cutting car tax would be a far better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind paying for the annual safety check, but I do mind the system whereby that check is carried out by the same people who then repair the faults. That gives them an incentive to invent faults that don't exist and exaggerate the ones that do. IMO MOT tests should only be carried out by government-run testing centres, which do not do any servicing or repair work, and it should be a criminal offence for anyone working as an MOT tester to carry out any car maintenance and repair work for payment. If you put a firewall between servicing and MOT testing, the system would be a lot fairer. I've lost count of the number of incidents I've heard of when cars - usually belonging to women -have been failed on spurious grounds. A friend being told that an entire headlight unit needed to be replaced at a cost of £160, whereas in reality all that was needed was a £10 bulb, sticks in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind paying for the annual safety check, but I do mind the system whereby that check is carried out by the same people who then repair the faults. That gives them an incentive to invent faults that don't exist and exaggerate the ones that do. A friend being told that an entire headlight unit needed to be replaced at a cost of £160, whereas in reality all that was needed was a £10 bulb, sticks in my mind.

Exactly. It will definately save motorists money and the garages will be complaining. I was told a complete rear light circuit needed replacing. it didnt, just the contacts needed cleaning.

It`s always been in garages interests to generate custom by finding a few faults real or imaginary. The big dealerships are the worst offenders with their huge overheads. "Dont repair just replace" many garages are the opposite to eco friendly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It will definately save motorists money and the garages will be complaining. I was told a complete rear light circuit needed replacing. it didnt, just the contacts needed cleaning.

It`s always been in garages interests to generate custom by finding a few faults real or imaginary. The big dealerships are the worst offenders with their huge overheads. "Dont repair just replace" many garages are the opposite to eco friendly...

Never go to any MOT place which has workshop facilities.

And never go to an MOT place on the last day of yor present MOT.

Problem resolved.

I made this mistake 2 weeks ago with my motorbike, last day of the MOT, they said the steering bearings were notchy and asked for £200 to replace them. I put the bike on the centre stand and moved the steering bearings smoothly and asked him to show me where the notch happened to be. He quickly made a **** and bull story about it being notchy when he tested it. He said the bearings were old.

Really?

Yeah its an old bike the grease has solidified over time.

Sure.

They need replacement

No they don't

Yes they do.

Well I replaced them last week with parts bought from here, cue a VERY red face.At which he asked me to come back in half an hour and it passed no problem. Never use them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also looks like they are going to make the MOT guidelines stricter from next year.

Here is an article about it and a link to the EU directive

Article

EU Directive

I think the MOT is fine as a safety check. Unfortunately, it already goes way beyond what is needed for the safe operation of the vehicle and if this new directive comes into force it will then check even more things.

As for having it every two years, i don't think its a good idea. A problem which effects the safe operation of a car can occur at any time regardless of the age of the car so the longer the period between the checks the more chance of a serious problem going unnoticed. I notice from the Daily Mail article that they are thinking of extending the grace period for new cars to 4 years which is just another subsidy to encourage people to buy new cars but could cause problems with serious issues going unnoticed for long periods of time especially if the car doesn't get serviced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good idea to me. Modern cars are far more reliable than when the annual MOT was introduced. The saving comes from not paying for tests to tell you nothing needs doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be an MOT tester in my younger days and was the quality controller at a large dealership. I can tell you that the MOT test , when carried out as intended, is a very thorough test of a vehicles safety related systems. However, the standard for component failure is very low, meaning that a component must be absolutely knackered to fail.

In my opinion, the main problem with the current system is the individuals that are licenced to test. There's too much "self interpretation" of the test criteria. When done properly, as intended, the test is very lenient.

Edit to say:

If they go ahead with this the underlying motivation will be revenue collection from increased on the spot fines. When I was a tester we would pay £1 for each test certificate, the rest of the MOT fee would go to the garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be an MOT tester in my younger days and was the quality controller at a large dealership. I can tell you that the MOT test , when carried out as intended, is a very thorough test of a vehicles safety related systems. However, the standard for component failure is very low, meaning that a component must be absolutely knackered to fail.

In my opinion, the main problem with the current system is the individuals that are licenced to test. There's too much "self interpretation" of the test criteria. When done properly, as intended, the test is very lenient.

Edit to say:

If they go ahead with this the underlying motivation will be revenue collection from increased on the spot fines. When I was a tester we would pay £1 for each test certificate, the rest of the MOT fee would go to the garage.

Thanks for the first-hand perspective.

I think this is a dumb idea as proposed, if the Government wanted to really save motorists 'hundreds of pounds a year' they could drop fuel duty or regulate the insurance premiums market.

I do worry about the many pieces of sh*t present on the road, and although what you state about component failure standards is noted, people often drive about on seriously bald tyres/blown lights without even being aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a dumb idea as proposed, if the Government wanted to really save motorists 'hundreds of pounds a year' they could drop fuel duty or regulate the insurance premiums market.

I think the government wants to save the public money without it costing them anything. Extending the MOT interval is win-win except for the garages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government wants to save the public money without it costing them anything. Extending the MOT interval is win-win except for the garages.

yes, although I'm not sure about extending the MOT- an average motorist will have covered ~25k miles in that time, easily enough to wear out some tyres, or take some brake pads/discs well over the line.

FWIW, my two motors have, in 5 MOTs between them, only cost the MOT fee, some £220 or so. Pi$$ing in the wind compared to all other car costs. Their combined age is 29. It's not as if looking after them is a massive job, but it does require that money is spent on things other than petrol now and again. Some folk will simply put petrol in their car until someone else tells them they have to do something else too.

I was once driving in the States only to find myself becoming aware of a car crossing the wide(~20m) grassy divider between two sides of a dual carrigeway section of a national highway, heading in my direction, a near miss ensued and it turned out its steering column had failed. Those sort of problems are extremely rare in the UK, rare enough that I will likely never see it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the reliability of modern cars, this is entirely sensible. The other point is that a modern car can easily pass the test, but still be badly compromised in the handling department as the tolerances for the MOT (can I wiggle it with a prybar) are so huge. Mrs rxe's car passed its MOT a few months ago with a couple of advisories on suspension wear - the bloody thing was a menace to drive, and we were simply waiting for the parts to be delivered (italian cars etc).

Remember also that the MOT is simply a point in time check. Your brakes can be wafer thin, but as long as they work on the day, they'll pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the general thrust of this, but I think that the fewer tests earlier in a car's life, but still annual if it's been on the road for several years approach is the right one to go for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once driving in the States only to find myself becoming aware of a car crossing the wide(~20m) grassy divider between two sides of a dual carrigeway section of a national highway, heading in my direction, a near miss ensued and it turned out its steering column had failed. Those sort of problems are extremely rare in the UK, rare enough that I will likely never see it here.

The US has different construction laws for cars. In the States they have "power steering", in the UK we have "power assisted steering", this mean that if hydraulic pressure to the steering rack/box fails there is still a mechanical link to control the car. The US system doesn't require this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has different construction laws for cars. In the States they have "power steering", in the UK we have "power assisted steering", this mean that if hydraulic pressure to the steering rack/box fails there is still a mechanical link to control the car. The US system doesn't require this.

Ah, excellent info, thanks. Having never heard of this failure in the UK, that would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has different construction laws for cars. In the States they have "power steering", in the UK we have "power assisted steering", this mean that if hydraulic pressure to the steering rack/box fails there is still a mechanical link to control the car. The US system doesn't require this.

Funny story of Marc's sister the other day about this... the pins at the end of the rack or something sheared out. She didn't think anything of it. Marc did when he came to park the car, he had to turn the wheel about ten times so that the rack would press against the wheel itself!

It took him ages to park her car as he was turning the wheel like mad :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the reliability of modern cars, this is entirely sensible. The other point is that a modern car can easily pass the test, but still be badly compromised in the handling department as the tolerances for the MOT (can I wiggle it with a prybar) are so huge. Mrs rxe's car passed its MOT a few months ago with a couple of advisories on suspension wear - the bloody thing was a menace to drive, and we were simply waiting for the parts to be delivered (italian cars etc).

Remember also that the MOT is simply a point in time check. Your brakes can be wafer thin, but as long as they work on the day, they'll pass.

Not so. I used to have a Volvo estate, which I drove very gently. That meant the rear discs were never used. I was failed twice (at different centres) for corroded rear discs, ALTHOUGH the car was perfectly OK on the rolling road brake efficiency test. The first time, I took the car away, drove it about ten miles with heavy braking, went straight back to the test centre with shiny rear discs, and they still refused to pass it, on the grounds I couldn't have fixed the problem that quickly.

Every subsequent test, I removed the discs, cleaned them up with emery, refitted, "polished" them by braking hard, and never failed again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... many garages are the opposite to eco friendly...

They're no the only ones. Being eco-friendly isn't about saving the planet. It's about being seen to be saving the planet.

I'd guess that 90% of businesses boasting any kind of green credentials only do so because they feel obliged to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. I used to have a Volvo estate, which I drove very gently. That meant the rear discs were never used. I was failed twice (at different centres) for corroded rear discs, ALTHOUGH the car was perfectly OK on the rolling road brake efficiency test. The first time, I took the car away, drove it about ten miles with heavy braking, went straight back to the test centre with shiny rear discs, and they still refused to pass it, on the grounds I couldn't have fixed the problem that quickly.

You should always drive at least 10-20 miles before you go for an MOT test, a blast on the motorway is enough to heat up the cat to pass the emissions tests and remove any glean from the disc brakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so. I used to have a Volvo estate, which I drove very gently. That meant the rear discs were never used. I was failed twice (at different centres) for corroded rear discs, ALTHOUGH the car was perfectly OK on the rolling road brake efficiency test. The first time, I took the car away, drove it about ten miles with heavy braking, went straight back to the test centre with shiny rear discs, and they still refused to pass it, on the grounds I couldn't have fixed the problem that quickly.

Corroded disks are not the same as worn down pads. If you manage to drive the car without touching the rear disks, it means the calipers are sticky and they are correct to fail. It should not be possible to brake the car and not use the rears at all - the pads should still wipe the disks. I would be surprised if the rears managed to pass balance and effort tests when corroded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mym, on 11 April 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

Use the council test place: http://www.moneysavi...ravel/cheap-mot

Wow. Good tip, thanks!

Yep, never knew that, very good tip. Sometimes we knock sites like msm but they do have some gems outside the "shop around/switch!" variety.

edit: of course probably cheaper/safer but less convenient. You take car to Council Test Centre, CTC fails car, you book car in with garage armed with failed MOT, have to wait a day to be booked in, leave car for another day or two with garage, bring back to CTC for a re-test (as retest after a fail is free within a certain time period right?) and it could take almost a week to get done? Not too good if you're working for a living and rely on car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. I used to have a Volvo estate, which I drove very gently. That meant the rear discs were never used. I was failed twice (at different centres) for corroded rear discs, ALTHOUGH the car was perfectly OK on the rolling road brake efficiency test. The first time, I took the car away, drove it about ten miles with heavy braking, went straight back to the test centre with shiny rear discs, and they still refused to pass it, on the grounds I couldn't have fixed the problem that quickly.

Every subsequent test, I removed the discs, cleaned them up with emery, refitted, "polished" them by braking hard, and never failed again.

Corroded disks are not the same as worn down pads. If you manage to drive the car without touching the rear disks, it means the calipers are sticky and they are correct to fail. It should not be possible to brake the car and not use the rears at all - the pads should still wipe the disks. I would be surprised if the rears managed to pass balance and effort tests when corroded.

There's no imbalance limits on rear brakes. They can only fail if they are clearly not working on either side. If the rear brakes were seen to work on the brake tester and on inspection the discs were not cracked or corroded to such a severe degree that the disc may shatter, then it's a pass.

If the calipers are "sticky" and binding then this would show on the brake tester and would be a reason to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.