DorsetStrider
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 07:44 PM |
|
|
The End Of Annual MOT's?
Have just been reading THIS article.
Thoughts? Comments?
Who the f**K tightened this up!
|
|
|
|
|
viatron
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
yeah like the government are going to give up the revenue that mots generate, i think NOT!
|
|
|
garage19
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 08:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaLviNx
Hi
As an ex UK VOSA tester i agree with the reduction.
Cyprus has just recently intoduced the MOT test for the first time,and according to the local garage guy who is carrying out the tests in the vlillage
where im moving to. New cars are tested after four and then every two years after that, and they are saying it seem on balance to be a very good
system, as they are in power to at times impound really dangerous vehicles., thus weeding out the older vehicles off the road.
But as said in the report in this day and age cars are generally of a higher spec, while I would personally say with car designs now being so
"throwaway", after a car is 10 to 12 years old it should automatically be either scrapped or recycled. 
Mark,
Just out of interest, when are you thinking of moving to cyprus??
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 09:45 PM |
|
|
Perhaps just my warped view of all goverments but looking into my crystal ball I think it really is is a covert move to close MOT stations and bring
MOTs to goverment run testing stations. The new tests will cost £500-1000 with no reduction for a retest, after a few years the test agency will be
privatised, the sell earning big bucks for the goverment and perhaps some individuals and donations/loans to parties.
On top of that all vehicles will be subject to a twice yearly smog check that will cost the same as todays MOT.
[Edited on 29/11/06 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
jimmyjoebob
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
I agree with britishtrident - if MOTs are every two years then at the least the price will rocket to three times the current cost to increase
return.
The same with all this crap about the benefits of road charging - initial cost per mile will appear attractive then they will gradually increase after
car use fails to fall.
If at first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 09:58 PM |
|
|
i think two yearly MOTs are a diabolical idea. Loads of people on the road only replace bulbs etc when they fail the mot, plus all the other more
important things that dont tend to get serviced. Tragic idea IMHO.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i think two yearly MOTs are a diabolical idea. Loads of people on the road only replace bulbs etc when they fail the mot, plus all the other more
important things that dont tend to get serviced. Tragic idea IMHO.
Is that opinion based on facts or your own predudice? The article states that there is scant evidence to show that 2 yearly MOTs are any worse than 1
year.
The MOT test doesn't prove that a car is road worthy on the other 364 days of the year.
I would guess that most 3 year old cars pass their 1st MOT without problem as most 3 year old cars are still serviced through the dealer networks. An
MOT starting in year 4 wouldn't worry me. Bi-anually? I'd make it bi-anually upto maybe 8 years old then anually after that.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 10:25 PM |
|
|
A friend of mines father had an Astra which he used to commute to London in. This car was withheld by the (servicing)garage after 40,000 miles (about
2 years old!!!).
It was deemed unroadworthy and scrapped. I had a lift in a ONE year old Sierra when I was at college. This had nearly 100,000 miles on the clock, and
it felt every bit as knackered.
It's another Euro imposition on our way of doing things!
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 29/11/06 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
Having worked in the trade and seen the cars that came in for servicing and MoT's, I think the two yearly is a bad idea. If anything, a twice
yearly test would be better but test things that need testing! So two sorts of test with two different prices!
If the govmt got their act together and introduced some incentive for cars to get an MoT, then there may be less piles of craps driving around! Hows
about a smiley sticker for the driver when the car passes just like the dentist used to give out??
All just MHO!
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 30/11/06 at 08:10 AM |
|
|
My family ran an MOT testing station right back at the start 45 years ago.
In the early days some real horrors came in, but these days 99% of cars won't develop a potentially dangerous fault (other than a blown bulb)
until 4 years of average use. Indeed many manufactureres have 30,000 mile service intervals, with only oil changes at 15,000 miles.
Many of the serious faults that the original MOT test clamped down on ---- corroded brake pipes, ineffective brakes, brakes pulling to the side, worn
track rod ends, chassis corrosion now only appear much later in a vehicles life. The introduction of LED lighting will also reduce the number of
lighting deffects seen on cars on the road.
Of vehicles been driven that are in an illegal & dangerous condition many are put that way by deliberate act by the owners --- blacked out rear
lamps, dim blue side lights.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 30/11/06 at 08:24 AM |
|
|
Regarding blown bulbs - when I were a lad (too long ago!), if I drove around with a blown bulb there was a fairly high chance of getting pulled over
by the police within a few days.
This is a pet peeve, 'cos in the winter I often drive to and from work in the dark, and often see the same cars week in, week out, each with
only one headlight. The owners don't fix them because they know the police can't be bothered.
Grumpy of Suffolk
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 30/11/06 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
its..easy
increment the police on the road...
and turn down the MOT interval.
The goverment will earn more when writeing bills (blown bulb, plate not readable, licencer to loud,worn tires etc. etc.
then with mot testing. Also MOT testing only should be needed for the things wich are described by britishtri... not for blowed bulbs those guys/woman
should be given a fine straight away! IMHO also given by the mot tester.
Its every ones responsibility to make sure the vehicle you use on the public road anno 2006 is up to state!! and thats it..
You can only drive what you can pay!
Sow where lies the problem??By all the people wich don't give nothing about their cars, bulbs, tires etc. etc...
Anno 2006 yearly mot is bullchit...
and about that Astra that must be a one off!!
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
Kook
|
| posted on 1/12/06 at 07:56 AM |
|
|
While living in New Zealand ( and also think it also Appies to oz ) you have to have a wof ( Warrant of fitness ) every 6 months.
I think every 2 years would be ok if in the uk we was driving round in newer cars but as there is so many bangers running about i think they should
keep it at a year
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 1/12/06 at 08:24 AM |
|
|
The Canadians did the change from 1 year to 2 years (only for new cars) at least in BC. The test stations complained so they doubled the price of the
2 year test to compensate. Same test, better cars so fewer fails but double the price. Mad.
|
|
|
froggy
|
| posted on 1/12/06 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
what isnt said is that if this comes in then the whole mot scheme will come out of legislative control and garages will be able to charge whatever
they like PLUS vat which is a nice little earner for gordon. its still years away as it is strongly opposed by all concerned in the trade, especially
me as ive just spanked 38k on a new class 7 atl lane
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/06 at 05:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i think two yearly MOTs are a diabolical idea. Loads of people on the road only replace bulbs etc when they fail the mot, plus all the other more
important things that dont tend to get serviced. Tragic idea IMHO.
Is that opinion based on facts or your own predudice? The article states that there is scant evidence to show that 2 yearly MOTs are any worse than 1
year.
Just an opinion. Is that ok with you?
quote:
The MOT test doesn't prove that a car is road worthy on the other 364 days of the year.
Whilst i never said anything about this, i can assure you that a car is more likely to be safe on the day after it passed an MOT than it is on the day
before it, after 364 days of use, and that in turn will more likely be safe than a car approaching 729 days with no one competent looking at it. Some
people ignore clunks, bangs and grinds you know.
quote:
I would guess that most 3 year old cars pass their 1st MOT without problem as most 3 year old cars are still serviced through the dealer networks. An
MOT starting in year 4 wouldn't worry me. Bi-anually? I'd make it bi-anually upto maybe 8 years old then anually after that.
Quite agree.
|
|
|
