|
I bet this is more about the loss in revenue that HiQ will suffer if these changes go ahead and nothing at all to do with safety.
As to their "chamber of horrors", what are they going to compare it too? They don't have data from the current MOT system so it'll be meaningless.
Edited by Andy P on 12/08/2011 at 10:14
|
|
Well thats what i was thinking, this idea of the Government being responsible for YOUR car being in full working order is nonsense. If you need new tyres, you should be expected to check it out and replace them if required, not wait for a garage to tell you otherwise (a garage you'd only go to if the Govt told you to).
If implimented though i dont think it'll save consumers money as such, whats to stop them doubling the test fee to make up for the 50% drop in business? It may slow the rate of used car depreciation if they need MOT's less regularly etc and most cars pass their first MOT after three years anyway. Unless its done heavy mileage (in which case the driver or fleet manager should be responsible for maintaining it throughout that, whether its MOT is 3 or 4 years) theres no real reason why a typical family car should fail its first MOT.
We could conduct our own, albiet unscientific research here. How many people here have had a car pass an MOT two years in a row? Raise hands!
|
|
"We could conduct our own, albiet unscientific research here. How many people here have had a car pass an MOT two years in a row?"
All my cars have passed MOTs every year becuase they have to. So your poll as stated is meaningless.
|
|
Thats not what i meant and you know it you pedantic..........
Ok, i'll phrase it differently. How many people have had the same car pass two MOT's in a row without a failure or retest required?
Happy now?
WARNING NUMBER 2, Please STOP swearing! Boris
Edited by BorisTheSpider on 12/08/2011 at 14:56
|
Thats not what i meant and you know it you pedantic..........
Ok, i'll phrase it differently. How many people have had the same car pass two MOT's in a row without a failure or retest required?
Happy now?
Er, me? But then I always checked the things myself and fixed anything that needed fixing as and when rather than letting the MOT bloke find it once a year. The exception was when emissions testing came in, easier to let them tell you it's out and then tweak the carb with a screwdriver while it's still got their probe shoved up its tailpipe.
This is a meaningless gripe. You are just as dead when that worn steering joint fails and you career into the front of an oncoming truck whether your car has two months' remaining MOT or 18. If you're dumb enough to drive around without investigating why it is that your vehicle 'ain't steering right'[1], or requires three bootfulls of right foot to stop then the problem is not a mechanical one.
[1] Quote from the girl my sister roomed with at Uni about her Mini. Turned out (come MOT time) that the reason was that the only thing connecting the steering column to the rack was the piece of floor carpet trapped in the detached joint and wrapped around the drive splines......!
|
|
*Rolls on floor in fit of laughter*
Taking peoples ignorance into account i suppose one thing the Govt do have to consider is that if a car has an MOT, too much of the general public will assume its fine and wont bother getting anything checked because it has a certificate so ANPR's wont go off, and thats enough for most people, so long as it has the ticket alot of people dont care. Its not until they're forced to get it fixed that they care.
But why should the rest of us test our cars more frequently due to other peoples idiocy, people who quite frankly we could do without :) Honestly i once dated a girl who described her punctured tyre as 'only flat at the bottom' its beyond belief.
@ Boris. How many chances do i get? Is it like a rolling thing i can use x amount of swear words per month then it gets refilled?
PS Who is Boris anyway? Phantom Mod.
|
|
"Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond has said he wants to "
I was lead to believe this was the result of EU harmonisation, not Phil Hammond's big idea.
|
|
My cars have always passed first time, for 12 years. I think they should allow 2 years before next test if your car passes with no advisories and 1 year if it fails or has advisories.
|
|
Well it may be the result of EU harmonisation, doesnt mean Mr Hammond doesnt agree with it or doesnt want to introduce it does it? Does everything always have to be either or?
Something nobodies discussed yet is the effect on independant MOT centres and garages, would they be more likely or encouraged to, shall we say 'invent' work which needs doing more frequently as they'll only get cars in once every two years.
In response to the above if putting advisories on it means it needs another MOT in 12 months wont they be more likely to put an advisory on it, in the hope of seeing you in 12 rather than 24 months?
|
|
In France MOT's are required every 2 years. MOT testing stations do not do repairs. You have 2 monhs to get faults fixed and the vehicle retested
An MOT costs about 65 euros,
|
|
And do French cars have this 'chamber of horrors?'
* Any Peugeot/Renault related jokes, keep them to yourselves.
|
* Any Peugeot/Renault related jokes, keep them to yourselves.
You know you just opened up the floor with that one....!
|
|
It might raise the price of second hand cars. Used car prices in the US are much higher than in the UK chiefly because there is no annual safety test.*
*Some states have an annual emissions test.
|
|
The Californian emissions tests specifically are quite strict, some of the strictest in the World i believe. In fact didnt some piece of research a few years ago conclude that using an efficient car with a really good catalytic converter in Los Angeles meant the air going in the front of the car was more toxic than what it put out the back? Meaning using your car was actually providing an air cleaning service to the public. Very much so.
|
|
You're right Jamie. But if you live in a state that doesn't require annual testing, you can drive the car with impunity until it collapses. That's the only reason I can think of for the difference in prices. With an older car, the first thing you look at in the ad is the length of the MOT.
|
|
Alfas should be on a 6 month test regime with the following advisory on each certificate:
"CUSTOMER ADVISED TO CHANGE MARQUE AT THE FIRST CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY"
|
|
I'd rather that motorists were retested every 5 years rather than cars.
Many drivers are far miore dangerous than old bangers (using mobiles etc)
|
|
|
I thought they'd already ditched this idea.
Unfortunately many drivers don't seem to be very conscientious about the condition of their vehicles and just rely on the MoT to pick up faults. If the MoT was extended to two years it might mean an extra 800,000 dangerous cars on the road for another twelve months. This from MoT Testing:-
More dangerous vehicles on the roads than previously thought.
In the last edition of MOT Testing magazine it was revealed that well over 800,000 cars examined by MOT Testers are found to have defects which render the vehicles dangerous to drive – every year. That’s over 2,200 cars every day of the week!
Further investigation, however, has revealed that this is a low estimate because, owing to an administrative glitch, it does not take into account all vehicles which have failed the MOT Test.
About a third of all MOT failures discovered during an MOT examination are repaired then and there, and whilst an MOT failure is recorded, following immediate rectification, a pass certificate is issued to the customer. For these so called, ‘PRS’ MOT Tests which VOSA simultaneously record as a failure and a re-test, if the defect, before correction, would have rendered the vehicle ‘dangerous to drive on the roads’ the MOT Tester has no way of recording that on the computer.
A rule of thumb calculation indicates that these uncounted ‘Danger box’ entries onto the computer could mean that between 100,000 to 200,000 vehicles found by MOT Testers to have dangerous defects - in addition to those already counted - have not been recorded onto the MOT Computer.
This means that every year Testers discover between 900,000 to 1M vehicles which have been driven to the Testing Station with defects that would render those vehicles dangerous to drive on the roads. It can be reasonably concluded that most people driving these vehicles to the Testing Stations were unaware of the defects detected by MOT Testers.
Evidently with two yearly MOTs, included in the prospective review of the MOT Scheme by the Government, that would mean a significant increase in these already appalling numbers.
Jim Punter
Editor MOT Testing Magazine
|
|
Our 3 year old KA passed it's first MOT with a free test from Kwik-Fit. (it only applied to cars approaching their first MOT)
I've never owned a car that didn't pass it's first test, so, 4 years seems a reasonable period.
|
|
I know someone who in a previous job, did 135,000 miles by the end of a van's first year. Doubt if the van continued to put miles on at that rate it would make 4 years.
|
I know someone who in a previous job, did 135,000 miles by the end of a van's first year. Doubt if the van continued to put miles on at that rate it would make 4 years.
I doubt it'd make the current three years either. If you're doing 135,000 miles a year then surely the person driving it or in charge of it for the business etc should be taking responsibility of maintaining that vehicle correctly, not doing 13 times the average mileage and waiting three years for an MOT tester to tell you whats wrong?
This all comes down to taking responsibility for maintaining your own vehicle. And if you're doing that sort of mileage you have no excuses not to.
|
|
|
|
that's a scarcely credible 370 miles per day-every day.
|
|
As I said, I know the chap. His milage was huge and his hours were long.
|
|
You'd think doing 370 miles in a day you wouldnt have any time left in a day to do any work at the other end would you?
|
|
At 60mph average, but bet he was faster, it's 6.16667 hours driving. From what I recal, a typical day started at 0700 and he was not home before 1900 most days. Job was a glorified truck parts distributor so deliveries took most of the work and miles.
He was young at the time and has long since given up that line of work.
|
|
Not a tachograph job then!
|
|
People who drive cars with no insurance are usually a lot more dangerous than faulty cars...like 1 million of them...
|
|
Well when you look at accident statistics, those uninsured, drunk or unlicenced are involved in a very heavy amount of accidents and in my opinion should be discounted from any data or evidence for if a speed camera should be on that road or not. If you're drunk, disqualified with no insurance, a speed camera isnt going to save anybody. Nor is a £60 fine going to discourage you.
|
|
As a motor dealer you would not believe how many px cars we get in from "Mr & Mrs Respectable" with lethal brakes, tyres through to the cords, dangerous steering etc.
People who read motoring forums do not represent the usual motorist. A huge number of cars only see the inside of a workshop come MOT time and the vast majority of drivers completely fail to notice that their car has awful brakes or bald tryres and just keep on driving them. We're not talking old bangers here - most owners of 4-5+ year old cars simply never, ever service with them and only spend on them if they stop or fail an MOT.
Many cars do 80k-120k or even more in their first 3 years and many fail their first MOT on suspension, tyres, brakes, lights etc. Give it a couple of months ansd it will be darker and you'll see how many cars are on one dipped beam. You think these people check their brake linings every 5000 miles?
Two year MOT's are bonkers and fly in the face of improved road safety. Anyone who deals with cars day in and day out in the real world finds the thought frightening.
|
|
I was a motor trader for four years im fully aware of how people treat their cars, which in too many cases is very badly. Tyres, suspension and brakes are the main ones. So long as it goes and stops most people will say 'thats alright!' and as for lights im sorry but if your MOT fails on bulbs being out then you are a total idiot, takes 2 minutes to check yourself but still alot of people dont.
The question is, should peoples ignorance and stupidity effect the way the rest of us go about our lives? Its all well and good saying 2 year MOT's fly in the face of road safety but thats an argument you could use for or against anything. In that case why dont we do it every 6 months? Or do an MOT every day before every journey? Unless you wanted an MOT each day there will always be an element of risk in any system. I dont agree with such basic one-size-fits-all policies. I think with the new Government keen to establish and encourage 'personal responsibility' this is part of that. Personally i'd keep the 12 month MOT but extend it to 4 years for new cars. If you've got enough money to buy a new car you should be expected to be able to maintain it.
Edited by jamie745 on 14/08/2011 at 23:44
|
|
I've heard a quite sensible person reply to 'did you know one of your lights is out?' say, 'the MOT's not due for 'x' months'.
I've a couple of daughters, a wife and numerous relatives who own car keys. That's to say they've absolutely no interest in the safety of what they drive.
Some of them think an MOT's a service!
|
|
Yeah, because so long as they have the certificate thats all that matters. If we abolished the MOT system entirely some people might start to take more initiative and interest in maintaining their vehicle, especially if penalties for not doing so were harsher. Or of course more people might then not bother and have even more wrecks out there. Having been in the motor trade and had a surprise visit from Vosa inspectors who have every right to ban any car from the road if it doesnt meet requirements, im wary about such a thing! Maybe if more people had a shock like that they'd take more care of their car.
But with people like that you can see why alot of MOT testers are very strict, they have to be.
|
|
that's a scarcely credible 370 miles per day-every day.
Given holidays and weekends etc, I dont see how this is humanly possible ?
Also, I'd like to know the business case for spending this much on delivery of truck parts..
|
|
|
|
|
|
We could conduct our own, albiet unscientific research here. How many people here have had a car pass an MOT two years in a row? Raise hands!
None of my vehicles has ever failed an MOT, or required work in order to meet the test's standards. I keep them properly maintained.
|
|
|
|
|
