I think that;s the issue. Do we go with what feels right, or with what evidence demonstrates. I’d rather not waste my time and money on something that is demonstrably not helping.
Yes the evidence needs to be compelling. But we know that stats can be manipulated to suit a specific need. At the end of the day the government won’t be looking to save the public money.
Not all new/nearly new cars are safe for the road, in fact some can be death traps. My wifes last new car, a Honda Civic, needed new tyres within two years because they were disintergrating. They were part of a cheap/faulty batch of Michelins and were not covered by the warranty. They had probably done only 12,000 miles.
That’s why independent research is necessary. The study I heard discussed by the authors and other interested parties (someone senior from the AA, I can’t remember who else) was quite compelling. There was opinion against but it needs to be assessed properly to make sure people aren’t seeing causation where there’s only correlation. Policy should be informed by facts, whichiever way they lead.
One big reservation for the 2 yearly MOT for me is that there are already far too many vehicles on the road with defective lights, indicators, brake lights etc that only ever get rectified once a year pre MOT.
This should be much less of a problem as LEDs become the norm for vehicle lighting.
Only in about 30 years once all the bulbed vehicles are off the road
At the end of the day in the UK we live in a blame culture. The longer the period between an MOT the more ambiguity is introduced.
From my perspective £30-50 a year is a small price to pay. 2 years appears to reduce the risk on those testing vehicles and transfer it onto the unsuspecting vehicle owner.
I feel actual MOT may need overhauling otherwise there is a risk of some advisories becoming failures in a 2 year period.
Yes i think it should be sorted out. I can take my bike to mot after removing a noisy can pass go home and put it back on. As led bulbs they are the worst thing fitted to cars. Time and time again i have had to pull over when a car coming towards me and on a slight hill completely blinds me. Its a nightmare.
Test is a load of old bollox anyway, seems too often to be a convenient stick for garages to beat the tech ignorant over the head. I’ve had two failures in recent years accompanied by large (£300+) quotes. One I took elsewhere and they passed it outright after replacing the front number plate, the other, upon close inspection of their “quote” revealed one actual failure-front anti rollbar drop links. £15 and an hour’s work and they had to pass it. I’m all for a two year test, personally. A test every six months wouldn’t stop a shithead being a shithead. Faulty lights don’t pull out in front of you…
Do you mean aftermarket LED’s where a car has been adapted or LED’s in general?
Have to admit there is a hump back bridge i go over daily at night and newer headlights blind you going over it.
Not to sure which but boy do they blind you in the dark hours.