The MOT test

[Meteor mark 4B]

I note in my local newspaper a letter about the changing of the MOT test. An EU directive for 2012. Possibly I might have missed this news somewhere, but:

 

Under the Directive, the test will be every two years. Sounds good. However, it will be at Government run test centres. I quote the letter: " The tests are much more expensive, and Draconian to the point of obsessive. No leeway is granted, no free re-tests, and no allowances are made".

 

As I understand it, a vehicle which leaks a bit of oil will not pass in Germany. Is this what we can expect in the future?

[Meteor mark 4B]

Having looked around the Direct Gov site, I can't find anything about this. Anyone else seen or heard anything?

[Meteor mark 4B]

Me again. I've heard from an MOT vehicle examiner this business has been put off. In his opinion it will result in a lot of unroadworthy vehicles especially if the vehicle does a high annual milieage.

[exrock]

To look at some vehicles on the road some are in poor condition with the yearly test, bad idea a bi annual test, even more poor vehicles on the road:-(

[Tony B]

Not to mention unroadworthy drivers ! A five or ten year driving retest would be more use.

[N.O.S.]

I took the Jeep for test today - my examiner who I've known for many years says this was debated over a 2 year period by the previous government, who concluded that the system of MOTs we had was the best of the lot, and that no useful purpose would be served by changing it. Case closed.

 

Now someone in the new government has raised the issue again, perhaps thinking it would be a vote-catcher? (with the view that motorists might think it will save them some money - think harder please), and so we may well start the exercise all over again.

 

No doubt there are sound arguments for both systems, but if anyone thinks a 2 year MOT would be better, ponder over just the one example he gave me of a certain breed of modern car and van-derivative thereof which has steering/suspension ball joints which consistently last only 25,000 miles before they are ready to pop off. How many of them would fail between extended tests?

 

Whatever happened to that motto 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'? Makes you wonder :yawn:

Edited May 5, 2011 by N.O.S.
speeling

[Tony B]

That's why you have MOT's! To find worn before brocken!

[Meteor mark 4B]

Further news from a vehicle tester.

 

I don't think it will effect vehicles of a certain age as it is impossible to make them comform to regs which are for modern vehicles like smoke meters etc Brake rollers can not cope with older vehicles and the regs would have to go before parliament to change them and that would mean years of consultations which would cost money and thats a no no anyway.

[Essex5]

I seem to remember a reference to this in the FBHVC newsletter, the 2-year interval would only apply up to 10 years old, then the test would revert to annual - it's only a proposal for consultation at the moment anyway, and the consultation has not officially started yet.

 

John

[Meteor mark 4B]

Obviously the guy who wrote the newspaper letter was jumping the gun a bit.....

[paulob1]

cant help but think that an annual MOT is a pointless exercise, for high mileage cars/trucks parts will fail in the year and will need to be fixed. Full stop.

for low mileage cars parts may fail, and so a check cant be bad but is it really needed.

 

Servicing records seem to be the way heavy trucks are going, think cars should ultimately be the same...

[N.O.S.]

cant help but think that an annual MOT is a pointless exercise, for high mileage cars/trucks parts will fail in the year and will need to be fixed. Full stop.

for low mileage cars parts may fail, and so a check cant be bad but is it really needed.

 

Servicing records seem to be the way heavy trucks are going, think cars should ultimately be the same...

 

Well thankfully and with the safety and wallet of all road users in mind, the authorities see it differently.

 

The two separate systems of condition monitoring for cars / HGVs have remained relatively unchanged for at least 40 years now, and seem to work quite resaonably given the constraints of maintaining an affordable cost of monitoring, both to vehicle owners and the government.

 

Several others have commented on how pointless an MOT test is, on the basis that something might break the next day etc. That is inherent in any periodic inspection - comes down to a trade-off between practicality, affordability and risk, doesn't it?

 

Can anyone suggest a better alternative which will not entail me taking my car for what is effectively a 'MOT without the brake rollers' every 6 to 8 weeks (assuming the suggestion of adopting the HGV system of servicing records means the regular statutory safety inspections in between annual MOT)?

[mike65]

Personally I think the yearly test works OK, the only change I would like to see is the removal of the 3 year rule for new cars. They can be just as unroadworthy after a year as an older car.

 

Using a service record for roadworthyness is problematic as how do differebtiate between an car that is serviced, in accordance with manufacturers schedule< which could be several years apart by some dubious garage and those lovingly cared for by their owner on their driveway?

 

Mike

[gritineye]

for low mileage cars parts may fail, and so a check cant be bad but is it really needed.

 

Not needed at all, just a lot of interfering jobsworths ,:stop: why can't they leave the poor motorist alone? :box: ............:whistle:

 

[ferrettkitt]

My Mini before it was re shelled by me had a similar problem to some of those vehicles the top hinge on the drivers door rusted through causing the door to hang from the bottom hinge. It still had four months MOT so it was used till the MOT ran out, so an MOT isn't proof that a vehicle is roadworthy it just says that its been tested and at the point of MOT was roadworthy. Wouldn't mind it was a cracking car in its original form

[Tony B]

Yeah! We can all tell stories of coming home from MOT tests. I took a firms Sherpa van, passed MOT drove about three miles back turned into yard, brake pipe poped. The best one I've seen was an Alfa, the owner had advertised it in Clasic Car magazine for about £8000. The car came up to the slope that led to the MOT bay. As it turned there was a horrendous squealimg and clanging. I'd just taken my vehicle out and was taliking to the inspector. We both looked down as the car tried again, and the whole back axle was moving about.

 

When the boot was lifted the suspension turret on one side had completly sheared all the way round.

[nz2]

Further to the posting from Gritineye covering the rust buckets in NZ. This is an old news clip from about 12-15 years ago at least. The island concerned was granted exemption from vehicle testing due to the small and scattered population along with basic shingle roads.The salt laden air also ensured vehicles did not last long. I understand vehicles are now required

to be inspected there every 6 months as per in the rest of NZ.

Doug:)

[gritineye]

Further to the posting from Gritineye covering the rust buckets in NZ. This is an old news clip from about 12-15 years ago at least. The island concerned was granted exemption from vehicle testing due to the small and scattered population along with basic shingle roads.The salt laden air also ensured vehicles did not last long. I understand vehicles are now required

to be inspected there every 6 months as per in the rest of NZ.

Doug:)

 

Thanks for the info Doug, I suppose the cars kept going because oily internal parts where still good, dunno what the answer is, even fibreglass cars have metal hinges..

[paulob1]

The current system for sure works..to a degree. One can go over it again and again, there isn't much point.

 

However If we had an a mileage based service check, which covered all important items then this would suffice and likely be a better solution than the annual isolated MOT.

 

6 weekly checks are obviously not necessary for a domestic car. Perhaps one has to spell these things out in words of one syllable.

 

If cars were tested as part of a service program then we would see many more cars serviced properly and maintained properly...this would make older un-roadworthy cars less economic to keep on the road and we would see a higher turn around of old and new vehicles...

 

This would benefit the economy the world and promote greater recycling...so reducing waste and would continue to fuel industry. Something sorely needed..

 

hence why the MOT is an outdated unneeded and unworthy element of motoring, there are better options.

[N.O.S.]

The current system for sure works..to a degree. One can go over it again and again, there isn't much point.

 

However If we had an a mileage based service check, which covered all important items then this would suffice and likely be a better solution than the annual isolated MOT. Some drivers get 100,000 miles out of a set of brake pads. Some knock them out after 2,000.

 

6 weekly checks are obviously not necessary for a domestic car. Perhaps one has to spell these things out in words of one syllable. Some cars do 40 miles a year, some do 40,000.

 

If cars were tested as part of a service program then we would see many more cars serviced properly and maintained properly... So long as thbere is proper regulation of the 'servicers' this would make older un-roadworthy cars less economic to keep on the road and we would see a higher turn around of old and new vehicles...Inevitably it would also take out a lot of perfectly roadworthy cars as the owners would be unable to afford the 'regulated' service regime

 

This would benefit the economy the world and promote greater recycling...so reducing waste and would continue to fuel industry. Something sorely needed..Not sure how

 

hence why the MOT is an outdated unneeded and unworthy element of motoring, there are better options.

There could well be good sense in what you advocate Paul, but I for one would like to see a much more detailed proposal before I was convinced there was any mileage in it, and that it would be affordable to the majority of car owners.

 

I guess all us drivers are heading towards becoming dinosaurs - maybe the oil will run out before they declare a new geological era.

 

Jack - can we keep the clubhouse bar open 24/7 for a while? It's going to be a long night :cool2:

[N.O.S.]

In fact what you're proposing is quite possibly the way of the future, but just a bit ahead of time - maybe when manufacturers retain lifetime ownership of cars, as Ford's vision is/was, then this might be the best way forward. But that would (entail) probably go hand in hand with a massive change in the way we live/work/travel, and so not particularly relevant to considering whether the MOT system as it stands is doing its job?

Edited May 17, 2011 by N.O.S.
context

[ArtistsRifles]

In fact what you're proposing is quite possibly the way of the future, but just a bit ahead of time - maybe when manufacturers retain lifetime ownership of cars, as Ford's vision is/was, then this might be the best way forward. But that would (entail) probably go hand in hand with a massive change in the way we live/work/travel, and so not particularly relevant to considering whether the MOT system as it stands is doing its job?

 

What you describe is, in essence, what is proposed for the current and next gen crop of Electric Vehicles (EV's). The battery technology means they need replacing at regular intervals an the manufacturer proposal is that the public will not own such a car per se but merely lease it from the manufacturer.. The bit we are discussing is a positive thing - the negative (and there is always one) is that anyone leasing will be tied to pay the manufacturer whatever they see fit to charge (and remember this country is not known as "Rip-Off Britain" for nothing) for system upgrades, replacement batteries etc. - or pay a horrendous amount to cancel the lease.

[paulob1]

I didnt say the current MOT system does not work but I felt it was a waste of time effort and not really doing what it is meant to do, it is better than nothing and any change would be a fundamental process.

 

Those who are anti change I can understand...however I do believe in our over regulated world we have come to the point where more regulation is just antagonistic rather than helpful.

 

There was a clamp down done recently by one of the police forces on dangerous vehicles...I think they found 2 out of hundreds stopped. They had bald tyres with the bare threads showing on one....amazingly dangerous...NOT. I think it was a waste of police effort and proof positive that cars today are not generally dangerous, the owners on the other hand may well be......

Edited May 18, 2011 by paulob1
spelling

[Tony B]

As to unroadworthy vehicles, depends where you are. Every sweep round here ends up with a line of them. That's in addition to no tax , inxurabce or MOT.

[ArtistsRifles]

As to unroadworthy vehicles, depends where you are. Every sweep round here ends up with a line of them. That's in addition to no tax , inxurabce or MOT.

 

Or UK number plates even?? :cool2: :cool2: