|
Hardy surprising really, but nice for it be pointed out that there are some benefits in the whole mess of a system. Never paid £44 for an MOT test anyway (usually £35) so its unlikely i'll be paying £50 when it comes into being.
|
"........For them, big increases like this are really bad news."
By my calculations the increase is less than 2p a day , 15p a week.
|
|
...and anyway, you can easily avoid this charge by simply buying a newer car.
|
>...and anyway, you can easily avoid this charge by simply buying a newer car. <
Speak for yourself.There are a lot of older people on fixed incomes who are dependant on their cars,and others.With the price of petrol combined with
Electricity,Gas,Council tax hikes plus the extra VAT.It's becoming too much of a strain on many.
Obviously you are not in that league,YET.
|
Its the old 'uns that have got the money (I gather that the majority of the wealth of the country is in the hands of the over-50's). Younger people with children, (especially those in the low-paid 'non-professional' jobs) are the ones really feeling the pinch because most of their motoring is non-discretionary.
The MoT itself is actually very good value for 45 minutes of a trained inspector's time to do a very comprehensive safety check. There are not many garages that will do you an oil and filter change for £50. And of course you can pay much less than £50 - I normally pay £30 at my mates place. The Telegraph article contains a bit of predictable points-scoring from a the Tory transport spokesman - the fact is that computerisation is actually working rather well (as the AA Trust point out). The tie-up of MoT, insurance and road tax is excellent.
|
|
I was a 'Low paid 'non-proffesional'.I also brought up a family,but it didn't leave me in the wealthy bracket of 'old uns'.Quit the contrary.
|
I was a 'Low paid 'non-proffesional'.I also brought up a family,but it didn't leave me in the wealthy bracket of 'old uns'.Quit the contrary.
Don't take it personally. I was just pointing out that it is wrong to connect older age with lower levels of affluence. Most of the better-off people I know are older rather than younger.
|
Sorry for the rant,I didn't take it personally.I was speaking for people who genuinely can't afford all these increases imposed on them,MOT's included
Perhaps I should chang e my signature to 'Grumpy old man' ;-o
|
|
i thought the whole idea of mot"s was to get everyone into a new car anyway
|
when mot computerisation was justified, it was on the basis that it would save costs and make the whole process more efficient, and lead to a reduction in the cost of mots as weell as the time per mot.
(similar arguments are being put forward for the nhs computerisation now).
the telegraph article says that the mots "which should have taken 52.2 minutes, will now run for 58.37 minutes."
recently, i had my tyres fitted at a small family owned garage. the father (who is retired but keeps his mot licence active so that he can take over when his son needs a break) was on duty and while chatting to me said:
1. with his experience, he could do most mots in 20 minutes because he knows what to look out for on which make of car. but he has to artificially drag it out to 50 minutes.
2. he does not make any money on mot tests, but only on any work that results from failed mots. this is because in surrey, his costs (rates, wages, insurance, etc.) are so high. he thought that the mot fees should have a "london-weighting-allowance".
3. the computerised system is too rigid, and it is already out of date in many respects, both software & hardware - eg. hardware is tied to dial up modems.
i do agree and accept that there have been great side-benefits from computeristion, but the promised reduction in time and costs have not been realised.
:: advance notice :: this is not a dig at aprilia:
re. wealth of older populations & mots
www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=...3
The proportion of pensioners in poverty rose between 1981 and 1991 from 16 to 29 per cent but fell back to about 20 per cent by 1996 and since then has remained at roughly this level. The poverty rate for the whole UK population is 17 per cent.
|
As I understand things the average time taken for a test was arrived at by timing actual tests at a sample of VTS's. It is not in VOSA's interests to artifically increase the length of time taken to do a test, but they are trying to ensure that tests are done properly. I very much doubt a full test could be done in 20 minutes. My father was the MoT tester in our garage and even 15 years ago, when the test was a lot simpler, he'd have struggled to do a proper full test in 20 minutes - and he didn't hang about. Just moving the car about (between ramp and RR etc) used up a fair bit of time - then there is warm up for the emissions tests, wheeling in headlamp aligner etc. There's quite a lot to it. Some cars do have 'peculiarities' that need to be taken account of - but 90% of the test is common to all cars and you can't just look for the typical fail points. There used to be (and probably still are) some VTS's who do dodgy tests for 'regular customers'. Computerisation doesn't stop this - VOSA have compliance people checking up on this.
We have something that actually works pretty well, giving the motorist a good service at a fair price, but still there is a desire to knock and moan.
|
