Bi-Annual MOTs?

[CitroJim]

According to The Sun (tabloid sensationalist newspaper for our non-UK friends ) yesterday those who must be obeyed are considering the introduction of MOT tests at two yearly intervals to bring us into line with Europe.

This will not happen until garages apparantly have been consulted as to the risks to their business this will bring. On the face of it, it sounds good but I'm not so sure

Being a cynical type, I really wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye and if it is really a good idea given that a lot can go wrong in a year if a car is not carefully maintained. Two years allows a lot more to potentially go wrong.

Nothing has been said but can we expect, should this be brought in, much tougher MOT tests such as in Japan which make it more than likely that a car will fail unless virtually perfect and lead to much more scrapping and achieving, by the back door, the removal of all cars from the road as soon as they reach a certain age in the interests of the environment and safety.

It's worring. Personally I'd like to see an annual test retained but performed by VOSA or a similar body who have no vested interest in failing a vehicle and reaping the benefit of repairs following a fail.

[citronut]

oh and theres me bin thinking the japps way was to fill there pockets with no regards to the enviroment,as they have to fit a new engine at 25,000 miles,and replace the complete brake system every year for the MOT,just to make it look like there facyorys are doing well
regards malcolm

[OwenP]

A friend of mine recently had his car failed, despite virtually doing the test himself the day before and it passing, (he has failed his own car before now!)

When another garage looked at it they couldn't find any of the problems the first one had picked up.

Friend of mine got on the phone to the DVLA? or whoever and the garage was inspected and subsequently shut down within hours for poor work and will have to reapply for its MOT licence.

Problem would be anyone who doesn't know as much about car will accept the findings and end up getting stung. If the test are reduced in frequency, the less honest garages will think oh we can add more problems on now, its been two years since this was last checked.

However I must admit to being sceptical of anything in the Sun, but you never know.....

[Ross_K]

If it's in the Sun it must be true I wonder if it has anything to do with the computer system not being able to cope:

MANY MOT test stations are currently unable to perform tests because of problems with a new computerised system, the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF) said today.

MOT centres have become computerised to enable drivers to renew their car tax online and to improve record-keeping and combat crime.

But the RMIF said there had been two partial collapses of the computer system this month, which had left many of the 19,500 test stations unable to operate.

But as you say, a lot can go wrong in two years. I'm all for yearly tests.

Here in Ireland, the first test isn't done until the car is four years old, and every two years thereafter.

A four year old car could easily clock up 100,000 or 150,000 miles and be spewing out more pollution than Sellafield before anybody checks how roadworthy it is.

After all the money spent by VOSA in the last few years kitting out garages with the new equipment, I'd find it hard to believe they'd move to a two-yearly test situation anyway. Add to that the fact that disgruntled garage owners would probably say "**** that" and tell VOSA to take their computer back if the testing side of their business slumped. Either that or they would find some other way to get money out of the punters like increased labour charges or whatever.

[andmcit]

THIS REPORT HAS MADE IT INTO ALL THE MAJOR DAILIES. Most lost it in a
'this isn't really important, nobody really cares' kinda way...

I'm actually amazed it hasn't been suggested the test should be every
6 MONTHS at £50 a pop!!

I do believe this is a big deal - although I may moan about the ever rising
cost and the "nuisance", it actually makes me address those piddly little
"I'll get round to that when I can be bothered and I've got the time" jobs...

Now if it were every 2 years a whole deal of change can happen to key
important aspects of the car, such a chaffing of fuel pipes, exhaust gasses
leaking into the car etc...

Frankly, I can't see why this government feels it has to meddle with things.
What we all know and love/hate is something we all work with and don't
really have issues with, which begs the neurotic question; what's the
agenda - they're up to something!

The more unroadworthy cars then found bumbling about on the roads as a
result of the bigger interval in testing will prompt the attitude that ALL cars
over 4 years old must be death traps and MUST BE LEGISLATED OFF THE
ROAD...

And never mind reinstating a yearly test as that bridge will have been
burnt and the Government wont want to be seen to going back on a policy...

AHA


Andrew

[jeremy]

The problem is the nice responsible citizens who never maintain their cars and rely on the MOT inspection to pick up any faults that may have developed.

But in reality - how many accidents really are caused by mechanical defects. Many drivers involved in accidents blame the car - after all its like a computer and won't answer back - but in reality - how many? After all if you've just run up the back of another car its easy to say that the brakes didn't work - rather than to say you didn't put them on in time.

[CitroJim]

But in reality - how many accidents really are caused by mechanical defects. Many drivers involved in accidents blame the car - after all its like a computer and won't answer back - but in reality - how many? After all if you've just run up the back of another car its easy to say that the brakes didn't work - rather than to say you didn't put them on in time.

It is a good and valid point Jeremy and could be extended to beg the question of "Why have an MOT at all in this day and age?"

I know by my own personal experiences that things, especially brakes, deteriorate slowly over time and you as daily driver do not notice. The MOT spots this. Bad brakes, poor steering, worn tyres and suspension components can all contribute to cause an accident if they are in poor condition. They may seem Ok in normal use but when called upon to do something drastic in an emergency situation, they are not up to the job and a disaster results.

It is the same with corrosion. A rusty body or suspension component may be OK in average daily use but what about it's integrity in an accident or an emergency stop or swerve. Xantia Strut Tops are a prime example.

[FrenchLeave]

Why have MOTs done based on the calendar anyway? Surely most wear in mechanical bits is mileage related?

Derek

[Stewart(oily)]

If some of my customers cars are anything to go by then the 12 monthly test might be a minimum, no engine oil in sump, bald tyres, blown bulbs, empty washers, wiper blades falling to bits the list of simple defects which people leave to be caught on the MOT gets longer every time, very few people seem capable of changing a bulb these days and the apparent lack of traffic police means that the national fleet is generally in pretty poor and deteriorating condition, changing a wheel is considered a technical task, lets all get a new chevy matiz every year
Stewart

[alan s]

I think the biggest problem you guys have over there is lack of resale value, hence there's no incentive for people to look after their cars.
As a comparison, my BX16V is insured via a company who specialise in "enthusiasts" cars and post inspection value was A$10,000. I have just put back into service a 1985 Ford Spectron XLT (people mover) that has been in the family for over 10 years but has been surplus to requirements for the past 4 or 5. It was insured for TPFT with a value of $4000+ sight unseen. Now before you get all excited and say "Let's buy a heap of 50 quid BXs, send them to Oz and make a fortune" chances are that your low priced cars would pull the same price over here due to the fact our cars overall are minters in comparison to your "good" cars.
Due to drought conditions that have prevailed for the past 10 years, there's practically no underbody rust and where I am, the only time the car needs to be roadworthied is when you sell it, but think about this. Am I about to let a car fall into disrepair and drive it that way given the risk that a copper can pull me up randomly and if the car is deemed to be unroadworthy, put me off the road on the spot, but worse still, when I go to sell my $10,000 car, if it's a bucket of bolts, am I going to get (like a car for sale out here at present) $500 for it? Whereas, you guys buy a car for say 500, use it a couple of years and sell it for 400 so where's the incentive to spend money on maintenance? If it comes to a worst case scenario, sell it for 50 quid for parts, still cheaper than keeping it maintained and IMO there in lies the problem.
From what I have read about that dodgy European Union, I think any advantages given my them have to be viewed with scepticism. Their prime concern seems to be towards their bottom line and you or anything/anyone else never rate a mention.

Alan S

[_kid_]

I ALWAYS use a government approved MOT station, as this are 100% neutral and as they don’t do repairs they have no motivation to make up unnecessary work. Ive always found them fair and accurate.
My local one costs £40, this includes a full free retest within 7 days, i.e. enough time to get you car fixed, non of this silly 24 hour free retest nonsense. How can you get the car fixed in a day if you need an obscure part?


Re to 2 yearly tests, i think the current system is pretty good. What needs to change are no mots for cars within 3 years. Many company cars do 150,000 miles in three years and in this time brakes, emissions and all other safety critical systems may have gone pearshaped or indeed dangerous., and yet have no official testing required.

[OwenP]

I must admit I seem to have found a very good garage on anglesey, first MOT no worked needed, second one needed a bush changing, asked him when can you do it? his reply well if you can go and get the part from pug (5 miles) I'll do it when you get back.

This was duly done and the car passed with no hassle at all.

The only problem is the guy is retiring farily soon and selling up the garage.

[uhn113x]

... and lead to much more scrapping and achieving, by the back door, the removal of all cars from the road as soon as they reach a certain age in the interests of the environment and safety.

Could be, Jim. Scary So, as the gubmint have shot themselves in the foot with the scrapyard legislation, we'll have more burnt-out wrecks in laybys and fields.
More new cars will be made, contributing to the ozone hole.

I am sure it is in someone's interests, but for sure, t'aint the environment!

[James.UK]

Not bovvered me.. Does this face look bovvered? nah.. My ZX is still brand-new.. ok for another 250.000 yet!

The MOT tickets will be piled 4ft high before the ole ZX turns up its toes.. lmho...

[Clogzz]

the gubmint have shot themselves in the foot with the scrapyard legislation

What’s this about ?
I can see from this distance that they’re up to no good, but what did they do ?

No MOT here in Queensland, as per Alan’s post above, unless the car is brought in from another legislation or changes ownership.
Even then, it’s a joke compared to UK rules.
I’ve just replaced a 14 inch Michelin tyre on the Zant, because after about 35,000 miles, the steel belting was showing.