More madness from the idiots in charge.
There was an interesting, independent study done some years ago that looked at the amount of vehicle issues across countries with different rules. Having a annual test didn’t make much difference at all, which suggests it’s a waste of time and money.
With the possible exception of the emission test, the MoT is pretty rudimentary and appears to hark back to a time when vehicle manufacture, parts and quality control required that level vigilance. Most people are perfectly capable of checking whether their seats are affixed properly, the lights are working, and if their number plates are secure. Tyres can, and should, be checked for wear throughout the year, and brakes can be checked at service or visually on a bike. Most cars have warning lights these days as well. I can’t remember the last time I heard of someone’s engine coming loose!
The MoT is outdated and should be reviewed based on evidence, not unfounded fears.
I can’t help thinking that moving away from the three year MOT would have a detrimental impact on new vehicle safety. If older vehicles are not MOT’d annually the same applies. IMO any changes to the existing rules will have any a real impact on safety.
PS: self regulation does’t work
The evidence doesn’t support that assumption. Why pay for something you can demonstrate is not helping?
I wasn’t suggesting self-regulation as an alternative to the 'risk; of not having an annual test. It should be billed as self-preservation, anyway, when it comes to things like brakes and tyres.
I would have thought the recall cost, bad publicity, and litigation risk would be enough to keep vehicle manufacturers from skimping too much on quality with regard to safety. Can’t imagine the cursory MOT test factors into this.
Also, manufacturers supply global markets. There are safety tests in most, if not all, countries and they’ll develop vehicles with those tests represented in their quality design decisions. Our MoT is unlikely to figure much in Ford’s development plans.
If they could make an everlasting number plate light I’d never have an issue
An LED should do the trick, no?
Maybe the answer is a 2 tier system (to avoid self regulation)
Level 1 - a mandatory 2x a year, £10 a pop, drive-thru basic check. (Lights, tyres, brakes/hand-brake)
Level 2 - full MOT including emissions every 2 years (4 years from new)
All the level 1 checks could be carried out at an annual service.
I’d be interested to know how emissions can change over time in modern engines.
I’ve just had my cars first MOT completed and whilst it past no problems, it did highlight an issue with the rear brake disc’s.
Not a major problem at this time, but will need attention before the next twelve months. If the MOT is moved to four years this is likely to have deteriorated to a safety issue. So my gut feeling is that most new cars do start to develop issues as they reach three years old. I’m sure my experience is not an isolated one.
It could well be that a three year limit for first tests would be beneficial. I don’t recall whether the study I mentioned earlier had data to support when testing should start. It doesn’t seem to follow that an annual test after three years has a significant effect on safety.
Guy who does the car mot’s always puts one in.
Perhaps go to annuals when the vehicle reaches 10 years old?
To me it’s too inflexible at the moment. If they really wanted to address this then it would IMO be a case of a trade off between Age and Milage. My car is 4 years old but done under 20k so an mot is largely just a money spinner, so it would make sense to have a sliding scale with your next MOT date determined by how old your car is, how many miles it’s done in the last 12 months and it’s total milage. There must be enough data on the DVLA database to identify how often cars need checking based on the failures but I guess that’s just too logical a solution for the powers that be.
It has always been 4 years in Northern Ireland and doesn’t seem to do any harm over there
Can someone help me out here am I being thick do the proposals only delay a new vehicles MOT by one year ie only people who can afford new or nearly new may benefit by the sum of £30-50 being delayed by that period? It doesnt seem to suggest extending the yearly rolling period.
Then I read the below, which sounds like a crack down wonder if vehicles with a CAT removed could fall foul?
“Potential new measures include introducing testing of pollutants such as particulate number (PN) and NOx to ensure diesel, petrol and hybrid cars always meet emissions requirements throughout their lifespan.”
The proposal is the 1st MOT moves from 3 years after the initial registration to 4 years, then after that the MOT only needs to be done ever 2 years instead of every 12 months so everyone gains to some degree
At the end of the day it comes down to money. There are many road users without insurance because they either think they can get away with it or more likely cannot afford it. The current mot timescales ensure that cars are inspected regularly, so this has to ensure improved safety in my mind and ensure essential maintenance is done.