Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Sat 4 May 2013 03:16
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - 1litregolfeater

I've got a few older cars that I want to keep on the road but the MOT is a pain in the a***.

It seems to me like it's become a license for the manufacturers, the whole of the motor industry, to swindle the poor consumer.

So while they sizzle in golden baths with gilded taps, and radox, our poor sons and daughters cant afford a cheap motor.

The MOT is supposed to be a safety test, that is why we suffer it.

So wheels brakes and steering, no major rust... ok

But we have windscreen, abs, crash bags, leaky linkages, you name it, anything that Dave Cameron's mates in the motor industry want to suck our blood for.

Let's roll back the MOT certificate to a safety certifificate, not a licence for dodgy garages to print money!

Edited by Avant on 04/05/2013 at 12:11

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 07:30
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - madf

"But we have windscreen, abs, crash bags, leaky linkages, you name it, anything that Dave Cameron's mates in the motor industry want to suck our blood for.

Let's roll back the MOT certificate to a safety certifificate, not a licence for dodgy garages to print money!"

The irony in the above: is deliecious:-)

"windscreen, abs, crash bags, leaky linkages," presumably have nothing to do with safety? !!!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 10:38
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - alastairq

car drivers want the technology, so ultimately they must pay for it.

The trick is, IMHO, these days, for reduced costs in motoring, to avoid -the-toys.

If personal safety is such an issue for an individual, then either bite the bullet, pay and pay again.....or perhaps, make an effort to acquire improved driving skills, and a better understanding of vehicels, roads, and other road users?

For the cheapest motoring..ie reducing the potential for expense...chose a car that doesn't have power steering, doesn't have masses of electric stuff [windows,etc?]....and where, when one opens the bonnet, one can insert one's arm down all sides of the engine without receiving massive lascerations?

I get the sense we, as the buying public, are actually heading that way.....example being, the popularity of the Dacia Sandero?

The MoT is fine as it is.......the only bugbear being, the increasing loss of skill & ability when it comes to examining much older technology cars?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 13:54
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - Hamsafar

I've never had problems with or worried about the MOT, it is just ~£39 to pay every year which in the grand scheme of things isn't too much.

I hardly use garages and don't spend a great deal of time or money on maintaining cars.

They have it about right as it is.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 14:55
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - Bromptonaut

Surely, the only bit that's not safety related is smoke/emissions and relared warninig lights. The rest tests bits that are safety related (ie malfunction may endanger) even if we managed without abs, airbags etc for decades.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 19:08
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - daveyK_UK

Simple answer?

Buy a Dacia Sandero access 1.2 or £5999

or

a Dacia Duster access 1.6 or £8999

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 19:49
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - madf

As many MOT failures are down to brakes and tyres- both owner controlled- there is generally little wrong with cars that preventative maintenance will not cure BEFORE an MOT...

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 21:59
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - focussed

I think that there is a case that could be made for a mileage-based roadworthiness inspection. Obviously a driver that is doing 5000 miles per year or less is not going to warrant a full annual inspection, while a driver doing 30-50000 will.

The one flaw in the mot system as it exists in the UK is that MOT garages are authorised to to carry out work. Some are straight and honest, some are not.

I am resident in France, the system over here is fairer and cheaper. MOTs start when the vehicle is four years old from first registration, not three as in the UK, and for cars are carried out every two years after that, not every year as in the UK.

The cost per inspection is about comparable to the UK MOT.

Also,all inspection stations are specifically prohibited from carrying out any remedial work whatsoever.

Oh and we have no inspection on motorcycles at all!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 22:27
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - Bromptonaut

I think that there is a case that could be made for a mileage-based roadworthiness inspection. Obviously a driver that is doing 5000 miles per year or less is not going to warrant a full annual inspection, while a driver doing 30-50000 will.

I seriously doubt that's justified. The main causes of MoT failure are relatively simple; bulbs, windscreen chips, brakes, gaiters and bushings etc. Arguably more likley on a low mileage car than one doing 30-50k/pa that's likely to see a workshop every 10k.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 4 May 2013 22:39
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - daveyK_UK

My only failures have been down to rust.

The joy of owning rover 213 and 214s.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 5 May 2013 11:12
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - alastairq

Perhaps Honest John could provide an accurate breakdown on the most common failure points?

I am in two minds about extended period testing?

Whilst the onus for maintaining a vehicle in roadworthy condition is down to the driver......, this aspect would need far greater enforcement than at present.

Would the cost of that increased enforcement be outweighed by the current [high?] administrative costs of the MoT?

Plus, historically, there have been noted instances where manufacturers have 'got it wrong'....and cars aged around 3 or 4 years have displayed suspension or steering wear sufficient to fail the test.

[Audi's, a decade or so ago? Much fun watching Audi owner's face drop from smug .....his car alongside my 1950's'banger',,,,which passed as usual, no faults.... to dismay when Audi fails on steering/suspension wear?]

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 5 May 2013 13:09
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - Engineer Andy

I don't think there's ever going to be a fully-foolproofed system that ensures all cars are safe to drive, not unfairly penalise the less wealthy motorist and cut out fraud on both sides of the equation.

Whilst having MOT testing centres that do not offer any other services, this wouldn't stop them entering into "agreements" (even if a VOSA/council centre - corrupt civil servants wanting some cash on side does happen [probably more so in the gallic/southern EU countries]) with local garages/mechanics to "get" business. It would likely reduce the number of cases though.

As regards when to start MOTs and their frequency thereafter, as has been said there are a lot of factors, including type of usage and mileage covered per year - 20k motorway miles is a lot less strenuous on a car than short in-town journeys or belting around pothole-ridden, muddy country lanes.

Given the dangerous lack of maintenance that many cars have, I would not be in favour of biannual tests on a blanket basis - maybe for cars under 10 years old and that have not failed on serious issues such as badly worn tyres, brakes or other obvious and serious issue. Maybe owners could be put on "probabtion" if they failed on such issues and would have to have annual, maybe even six-monthly tests in some very serious cases until they demonstrated they could look after their car properly (even taking the car away/scrapping them [at the owner's cost]/revoking their licence for serial/serious offenders), and would transfer with the person, not the car.

Similarly, MOT testing centres, garages and their staff/owners should also be seriously held to account for corrupt/illegal behaviour in this regard, with stiff penaties for serious/repeat offenders, including banning from working as a tester/mechanic (having all such people get certified qualifications with penalty clauses for poor behaviou would be useful) and owning such establishments (even closing them down as well) would be good. A confidential helpline, similar to that operating in the contruction and rail indutries could help whistle-blowers bring such people and their activities to the attention of the authorities, who should take these things more seriously (as often they lead to high levels of criminality as people involved get used to "getting away with it").

Its a shame that more car manuafcturers don't offer more "basic" cars without most of the toys, and the EU bothered to check which so-called "safety features" on cars are just gimics (e.g. tyre pressure monitoring, which are unlikely to prevent a blowout, stability control [to a degree], which in some cars [e.g. the Ford Fusion, according to people I know who own them] where its used to reverse very poor handling [how much difference would it make if the car had been properly designed in the first place to handle well?], etc). IMHO, too many "safety features" thesedays are used to cover up poor car maintenance (keeping your tyres correctly inflated) or driving skill (automatic lights, wipers, stability control, ABS [to a degree]), which often leads to people taking less care of their vehicles and driving faster and more recklessly.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 5 May 2013 21:14
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - doubleg_uk

Simple answer?

Buy a Dacia Sandero access 1.2 or £5999

or

a Dacia Duster access 1.6 or £8999

Errr... have you seen under the bonnet of a Sandero? Renault based and as complex as any modern Renault so no joy there in the quest for simplicity. Only the base models lack the driver luxuries but all have the ECUs etc. under the hood.

You could do what I have done for the last twenty years and that is drive a 1971 long wheelbase series 3 Land Rover as my only transport but golly, the hairs on the inside of that shirt are getting stiffer by the year!

Gus.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 5 May 2013 22:37
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - daveyK_UK

But Gus,

the 1.2 petrol is tried and tested and proven reliable.

The rest of the car does not have all the latest gizmos to go wrong AND the parts lists prices are the chepaest around.

I got a insurance quote for insurance on one of these basic Sanderos and it was increadibly cheap..

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 6 May 2013 11:52
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - doubleg_uk

That is true of course Davey and I admit that I have only seen the 0.9 3-cylinder model that a friend has just bought. His does have most of the toys internally too.

What I meant to say is that other than the basic home servicing that any of us tinkerers can do, in depth analysis of ECU problems, sensor problems etc. probably will still be difficult should they become necessary.

What a car for the money though. Well built, solid and nicely finished. It deserves to do well but here in the UK it will have brand snobbery to defeat. Not from me I hasten to add, I would love one of these.

Gus.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 12 May 2013 16:14
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - Andrew-T

car drivers want the technology, so ultimately they must pay for it.

Hmmm. The real reason is that when demand for Model A runs down because everyone who wants one has one, makers have to find a way to sell Model B - usually by adding the gismos other makers are fitting to their Model B. Doesn't necessarily mean the public demands the gismos. So now cars have detectors for underinflated tyres, which if they fail also mean a MoT fail and a hefty bill to fix. So cars are scrapped with even higher residual values than they were.

The MoT is fine if cars are fairly simple. Overcomplexity in gadgetry is a very mixed blessing.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 12 May 2013 18:28
Rolling back the MOT while preserving safety - RT

car drivers want the technology, so ultimately they must pay for it.

Hmmm. The real reason is that when demand for Model A runs down because everyone who wants one has one, makers have to find a way to sell Model B - usually by adding the gismos other makers are fitting to their Model B. Doesn't necessarily mean the public demands the gismos. So now cars have detectors for underinflated tyres, which if they fail also mean a MoT fail and a hefty bill to fix. So cars are scrapped with even higher residual values than they were.

The MoT is fine if cars are fairly simple. Overcomplexity in gadgetry is a very mixed blessing.

But the public doesn't have to buy Model B - if they don't want the extra gizmos that B has over A then they just need to keep model A longer.

It's public demand that thinks you need to replace cars frequently.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Looking for a garage you can trust? Honest John's Good Garage Guide has thousands of reader recommended garages, plus how-to guides and tips on servicing.

The Good Garage Guide

Will you have to pay the low emissions charge?

Use our ULEZ checker to find out if your vehicle is subject to ULEZ charges. Simply enter your number plate into the Honest John ULEZ checker to see if you will have to pay to enter the London Ultra Low Emission Zone.

Check your vehicle