Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

interestrateripoff

An Mot Test Every Two Years: Government Plans To Relax Yearly Check Regime

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028509/Government-set-relax-MOT-rules-despite-safety-concerns.html

Newer cars may only have to have MOT tests every other year in plans to relax the regime that would save drivers hundreds of pounds, it has emerged.

Annual checks would be replaced by one every two years for cars under 10 years old as part of the Government plans.

They are set to be implemented despite fears the move could increase the number of deaths and injuries on the roads.

More to the point what does this mean for all those garages who rely on the test income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather keep the yearly MOT!

It will show whether bits have dropped off or not!

Many bits fal off my car! It may be French? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pointless test anyway. If you car passes the MOT it doesn't mean its road worthy for 12 months. Legally it's the drivers responsibility to make sure it is roadworthy every day, not just test day. Yet I see so many vehicles that aren't, with worn down tyres, dodgy exhausts, broken lights etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pointless test anyway. If you car passes the MOT it doesn't mean its road worthy for 12 months. Legally it's the drivers responsibility to make sure it is roadworthy every day, not just test day. Yet I see so many vehicles that aren't, with worn down tyres, dodgy exhausts, broken lights etc.

Oh absolutley! I have to make sure I don't have the baldie tyres once a year!! I

I think I like proper tyres best! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...y-concerns.html

More to the point what does this mean for all those garages who rely on the test income?

If I understand the situation correctly, garages don't make any money on the actual test: in fact, the official test fee barely covers their outgoings. What they make their money on are the repairs necesssary to pass the test. Presumably in the new scenario the repair bill would be much larger every two years than it would be annually, and so the loss of income to garages won't be too great.

This proposal could work, as long as it is accompanied by meaningful enforcement of vehicle safety standards in between tests. Given that you can see visually if a light bulb is out, I'd have thought that speed cameras could be adapted pretty easily to catch people with defective lights. I'd do this, and impose a minimum £1,000 fine for driving with a defective running light. I'd also carry out regular checks in which vehicles are stopped by the police at random and checked for brake, steering system and tyre defects, again for a £1,000 minimum and mandatory fine (which can be increased substantially according to how bad the problem is) for any defect that would cause an MOT failure.

The basic principle I'd like to see is light touch regulation for those who can be bothered to maintain their cars in a roadworthy condition, and coming down like a ton of bricks on those who can't. That is the way it works where I am now (Alaska) - the only annual check required by law is an emissions check (or 'smog test' as they call it here), but if you're pulled over with a safety-critical defect, the penalty ranges from a fine in the hundreds to, in the most extreme cases, a jail sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't this being received positively?

Cars these days are usually reliable and fit for purpose for years after they're first bought. An MOT is a formailty for a 3 year old car and it's good common sense for the government to relax the rules. My thoughts:- Well done, carry on.

There doesn't need to be a hidden agenda, a glaring error or a thinly veiled hypocrisy in everything our government does. :rolleyes:

Edit: Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do the insurance companies say about this? They obviously pay out on incidents caused by unroadworthiness but I would guess not very many. I doubt very much that we couldn't do a lot more good with a shift of focus away from the MOT and more of a focus on the A-hole drivers that are out there.

I think the idea is very worthy of hearing more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the way it works where I am now (Alaska) - the only annual check required by law is an emissions check (or 'smog test' as they call it here), but if you're pulled over with a safety-critical defect, the penalty ranges from a fine in the hundreds to, in the most extreme cases, a jail sentence.

Christ Almighty! Alaska! Make sure your tires are good, and don't go back! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I'd do this, and impose a minimum £1,000 fine for driving with a defective running light. I'd also carry out regular checks in which vehicles are stopped by the police at random and checked for brake, steering system and tyre defects, again for a £1,000 minimum and mandatory fine (which can be increased substantially according to how bad the problem is) for any defect that would cause an MOT failure.

The basic principle I'd like to see is light touch regulation for those who can be bothered to maintain their cars in a roadworthy condition, and coming down like a ton of bricks on those who can't.

I know why you're saying that, but to me it sounds like another tax on the motorist and a penalty to those who try to do the right thing. What happens if I get stopped for a failed brake light hours after it has failed? £1000 fine. What happens when some chav in a beat up Nova (no insurance, no licence, no tax, no MOT) gets stopped with multiple failings? Not a lot, he gets points on his licence (lol!) but no fine 'cos he can't pay it and effectively no consequence. Maybe you crush his car, he's "obtained" another one the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't this being received positively?

Cars these days are usually reliable and fit for purpose for years after they're first bought. An MOT is a formailty for a 3 year old car and it's good common sense for the government to relax the rules. My thoughts:- Well done, carry on.

There doesn't need to be a hidden agenda, a glaring error or a thinly veiled hypocrisy in everything our government does. :rolleyes:

Edit: Spelling

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know the percentage of cars over ten years old compared to those that are under?

Most people are "mechanically illiterate"...gone are the days that most people fix their cars...The MOT is usually the only time where problems are flagged up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twice yearly MOTs £50

Annual drivers licence retest and photo renewal £99

Full annual medical compulsory for all drivers £75

Full annual CRB checks for all (in case you pick up other peoples children) £45

New annual additional motorway licence, annual retesting required £25

5 yearly compulsory renewal of number plates £20

Fuel handling licence annual renewal and test £15 (required when refuelling at the garage)

Cultural diversity outreach annual licence £75 (knowledge about driving outside the UK, but within the EU)

*NEW* Driving for the future module - optional £25 (knowledge about green cars)

All charges increase in line with annual CPI +8%

Rubs hands, Excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather keep the yearly MOT!

Isn't the change to MoTs (or equivalent) every two years a new EU regulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twice yearly MOTs £50

Annual drivers licence retest and photo renewal £99

Full annual medical compulsory for all drivers £75

Full annual CRB checks for all (in case you pick up other peoples children) £45

New annual additional motorway licence, annual retesting required £25

5 yearly compulsory renewal of number plates £20

Fuel handling licence annual renewal and test £15 (required when refuelling at the garage)

Cultural diversity outreach annual licence £75 (knowledge about driving outside the UK, but within the EU)

*NEW* Driving for the future module - optional £25 (knowledge about green cars)

All charges increase in line with annual CPI +8%

Rubs hands, Excellent.

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you need to know is that this absolutely will not happen. It is something that most car owners would welcome and therefore there is no chance that this will be introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand the situation correctly, garages don't make any money on the actual test: in fact, the official test fee barely covers their outgoings.

It's possible to. I use a place that does just MOTs, and specifically does not do any servicing whatsoever. That way they are motivated to pass the car rather than fail it.

a £1,000 minimum and mandatory fine (which can be increased substantially according to how bad the problem is) for any defect that would cause an MOT failure.

The whole point of the MOT is that it checks for non-obvious defects. Perhaps more importantly, it applies arbitrary criteria. My car has deteriorated bushings (whatever they are), and it took the MOT people a bit of discussion among themselves to decide it would still pass. A revenue-driven policeman could easily come to a different conclusion. The previous year it failed on emissions and needed a new cat. The garage fixing it had no way of checking if the fix worked, except MOTing it again. Just how would it be fair to fine someone £1000 for not checking something that some garages cannot verify at all, never mind cheaply (and that's before you consider that some cars pass emissions with a hot engine and fail them with a cold one).

The basic principle I'd like to see is light touch regulation for those who can be bothered to maintain their cars in a roadworthy condition, and coming down like a ton of bricks on those who can't. That is the way it works where I am now (Alaska) - the only annual check required by law is an emissions check (or 'smog test' as they call it here), but if you're pulled over with a safety-critical defect, the penalty ranges from a fine in the hundreds to, in the most extreme cases, a jail sentence.

I would be happy enough with the police enforcing the requirement that cars be insured and have an MOT. It is trivial to do, and I don't see we need enormous additional fines that would not doubt be arbitrarily enforced before that is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you need to know is that this absolutely will not happen. It is something that most car owners would welcome and therefore there is no chance that this will be introduced.

Haha this will happen for exactly the opposite reasons - this is great for the taxman and really bad for the motorist.

This has already happened in many parts of Europe and its always for the same reason - to destroy the used car market. By moving to the 2 year MOT test they alter the test criteria and instead of looking at what is wrong with the car at time of test they look at what could go wrong with the car in the next 2 years to the next test. This basically means any part that is getting old needs replacing, thus making maintaining used cars a lot more expensive and making new cars seem of better value. Its all just a tax exercise that is very cleverly disguised and one that should be fought by everyone as it will end up costing most people far more than any other tax increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has already happened in many parts of Europe and its always for the same reason - to destroy the used car market. By moving to the 2 year MOT test they alter the test criteria and instead of looking at what is wrong with the car at time of test they look at what could go wrong with the car in the next 2 years to the next test. This basically means any part that is getting old needs replacing, thus making maintaining used cars a lot more expensive and making new cars seem of better value. Its all just a tax exercise that is very cleverly disguised and one that should be fought by everyone as it will end up costing most people far more than any other tax increase.

This is what I first thought...

I personally don't see the problem with the annual check, ok it's £50 or so, but it's always done at the same time of a service so any faults would be fixed anyway. The only thing they don't check on a service is the emissions. Brakes etc are also tested on a test drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea! Modern cars are of such a superior build quality to those of yester year that this just makes sense. Gone are the days of 'new' British Leyland cars sat in showrooms with oil drip pans underneath them :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you insult my 1978 Brown Marina GT :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In new Zealand it is twice yearly

In OZ you only get them when a copper pulls you over and gives you a yellow sticker , so very rarely.

Twice yearly? lol it's just another tax really isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 333 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.