The true agenda is to catch criminals who may be guilty of other more significant crimes. There is a well established correlation between a lack of correct vehicle documentation and an increased likelihood of generalised law-breaking.
659.
|
>>There is a well established correlation between a lack of correct vehicle documentation
>>and an increased likelihood of generalised law-breaking.
Does that then make it right to stop people randomly, impede their journeys, and demand this information?
|
|
|
|
How many accidents are actually caused by faulty cars?
My wife was involved in an accident with a faulty car. It was a citroen, the brakes failed due to a rusty pipe bursting and it crashed into her car, fortunately at low speed. It was 4 months overdue for an mot and the driver was prosecuted. If it had its mot on time the accident probably wouldn't have happened.
The fellow who does my mot told me that every now and again he gets one in that has a potentially lethal fault.
|
But there is no requirement to have a windscreen!
True my windscreenless car has aero screens. but I often and quite legally fold the passenger one flat, with the inside being the top.
(Tax disc is on the side, in a holder, can easily be read from the pavement, and is as near as I can get it, exactly in the same place they were before WW2)
Sidingpillar in awkward mode!
|
At one time, after an MOT, the examiner used to put a small blue sign on the inside of the windscreen (showing the three triangles) with the expiry date on the reverse as a reminder.
|
>>How many accidents are actually caused by faulty cars?
A faulty car is one of the first defences of a bounder, so, I would say that the true number of accidents caused by faulty cars will, if anything, be lower than the official figures.
But, I suspect that the proportion of accidents so caused is almost vanishingly small.<<
I am surprised at you NC !
Approx 1 in 3 cars (across the country) fail the mot according to vosa inspector I was talking to at mot station. Now I agree some of those failures will be for things like number plate illumination, fog light indicator not working, split cv gaiter etc. However there are also lots of failures for things like unbalanced (or unworking) brakes, worn/split wipers, bald or worse tyres, failed wheel bearings etc. Any 1 of these could cause an aciident; whether or not it is identified as the fault . These faults can still be there with an mot; but are far more likely on a car without 1. These faults can also be there on virtually brand new cars; hence the trade not wanting to move to 2 year mot intervals too. I thought you would have known better ?
Personally I would like to see ved abolished and a mot disc and an insurance disc displayed on the windscreen of every car. Wouldnt even need the hitec systems to spot a dodgy car then would it ?
|
>>I am surprised at you NC !
>>I thought you would have known better ?
Why?
My view is that the MOT as it stands is a reasonable compromise, that keeps truly dangerous old sheds off the road and is not too burdensome. Like you, I've seen some lethal cars being presented for MOT, but I'm strongly of the view that the most dangerous part of the car, i.e., the driver is not subject to an appropriate inspection regime!
There's a long way between a vehicle with a potentially dangerous fault and a serious accident. There's a further set of circumstances which must also come together. Now, I'm not advocating that people should drive around in dangerous vehicles - far from it!, but, not every dangerous vehicle causes an accident. Again, I would argue that the single biggest indicator of accident likeliehood is the attitude, alertness, and ability of the driver.
Some states in the USA have no MOT equivalent at all. When the litigious nature of the US is considered, either it's an amazing anomally, or, they've found that left to their own devices, a sufficient proportion of the population do take an appropriate view of vehicle safety with the compunction of a mandatory inspection.
The danger I see if too any addenda are made to the MOT is that we will approach an almost Japanese situation where the cost of the inspection is sufficiently high to scrap cars automatically. At each step along the way, the mission creep can be justified by appealing to "as low as reasonably possible" safety type arguments that each sound reasonable individually, but, the totality is undesirable.
In short, I'm arguing for a more balanced view of MOTs, rather than further pandering to the 'elf and safety culture that stangles and delays many activities.
|
>strongly of the view that the most dangerous part of the car, i.e., the driver is not subject to
>an appropriate inspection regime!
Which in my view would be a very minimum of Eyesight Test , Re-action responses , Hearing.
Something better than the current pathetic "read number plate at 25yards" .
Annually would be a good start .and not by drivers own medical attendant.
Phil I
|
|
|
>>with the compunction of a mandatory inspection.
Sorry, that should read "without the compunction....."
|
NC
I think without a mandatory MoT there would be rise in accidents. I know there are cars that only get looked at during the MoT. They don't even get basic servicing and tyre checks for the rest of the year. So long as it starts and moves its OK in the eyes of the owner. I bet the MoT keeps a lot of death traps off the road. Look at the 'MoT failures' being sold for spares or repair in your local free paper. If it weren't for the MoT those would still be providing family transport for someone!
|
>>I think without a mandatory MoT there would be rise in accidents.
I fully agree. How large that rise would be is, however, debateable.
The point I'm singularly failing to put well is this, where do you draw the line?
Having no inspections at all is currently working in some places, and having draconian inspections which scrap virtually all cars above a certain age is also in force elsewhere in the world.
I support the MOT as is stands, I've no wish to see it done away with, or made into a once every 2 years event, but, on the other hand, I've no desire to see any further mission creep towards a more time consuming, difficult, and expensive MOT; the MOT, remains OK just as it is.
|
I agree with the comment about not wanting the test to be too severe and forcing sensible cars off the road, but a test (around the level where it is currently) is needed to keep deathtraps off the road; which oitherwise still would be.
But that is a seperate argument, and the op's point about a valid mot disc to be displayed on the screen surely tends to agree with the point that a test of some sort is needed, and the result should be on view.
I for one, support that view.
|
I understand the need for the test, but not to display the result on the windscreen.
Are those in favour of more rigorous driver health tests also advocating displaying those results too?
"70 year tested" stickers perhaps?
|
>>I for one, support that view.
I'm in the opposite camp I'm afraid. The MOT is currently computerised, and a car's status is available to anyone who needs it with negligible delay. You need a valid MOT to tax the car, so that visible device enables you to see at a glance that the vehicle at least had an MOT when the tax was taken out.
The sticker is actually a case of the type of spam which illustrates my point about mission creep perfectly. It's a small, incremental addition to the MOT, which will take a huge effort to be meaningful and enforceable, but will actually deliver a truly negligible increase in actual vehicle safety.
|
And although I understand your point of view.
Despite all the systems in place to detect and remove from the roads, any vehicle that is not taxed and insured, there are still countless numbers of these on the roads. A simple mot and insurance sticker on the windscreen would be a highly visible deterrent to those that consider flouting the system. I agree, some still will!
I dont think the idea is to improve vehicle safety (but Im not arguing against that), just proof that it has been tested at least once a year.
A legitimate motorist has to have mot, tax and insurance in place; whats so difficult about having a sticker on the screen to prove it is ok? Other countries use this idea all ready!
Now, whether the mot test should include more or less testing than what it does now is totally a seperate argument; just compulsion to display a sticker is what I support.
Edited by yorkiebar on 30/04/2008 at 11:50
|
Re the OP comment, we have had a requirement to display a Warrant of fitness [ equal your MoT ] sticker since the year dot. It is about 2 in X 1.5 in, and shows to the outside the month and year of expiry, with the actual date of expiry written on the inside. As we don't have ANPR here, checks have to be manual, so the sticker is necessary for plod to make checks. Not sure what the fine for failing to display is, but not 200 pounds. Testing stations enter the passing of the WoF into the ministry's computer so that we can get the tax cert.
In Victoria, Australia, in the 1990's when I was there, no testing of cars was required until sale, when it then had to be certified roadworthy by a ministry testing station. It was up to owners to keep them roadworthy in the interim, and it was quite heavily policed. The incentive to owners was that, if caught, the police would put a yellow sticker [ known as a canary ] on the windscreen just saying "Unroadworthy vehicle". It was effectively a blank cheque to a garage and therefore usually very expensive. Not sure if that is still the rule there.
|
|
|
|
|
