MOT changes planned
- Thread starter onebob
- Start date
Currently reading:
MOT changes planned
I agree. if a car is unfit to be on the road then it shouldnt be. older cars are all young drivers can afford, these tend to break easily and a 2 year gap between MOT's is just daft.
yeah theres been posts on this before.
for example the vectra i bought as a tide me over after getting my car stolen had 5 months MOT.
the brakes were a bit dodgy
it had a worn rear bush
faulty cam sensor
poor earth on the rear light
corroded brake lines
this is 7 months after the MOT,imagine what it would after 19 months!
for example the vectra i bought as a tide me over after getting my car stolen had 5 months MOT.
the brakes were a bit dodgy
it had a worn rear bush
faulty cam sensor
poor earth on the rear light
corroded brake lines
this is 7 months after the MOT,imagine what it would after 19 months!
Really depends am sure it wouldnt be all cars wouldnt need a yearly MOT. Without further info on the structure and how this would be worked i couldnt say.
Presumably though the sub text of this will be that the test itself gets made more stringent. Stuff like rust on brake lines, wear in bushes, wear on brake disks is open to interpretation by the examiner on whether in the light of likely mileage covered in the next year it will move outside acceptable parrameters.
Another great idea from our bloody government 
several reasons this is a stupid idea:
1) Massive increase in the number of unroadworthy cars on the road. There are lots of knackered old wrecks still on the road that don't get any maintenance or checks at all unless they break down of fail the MoT; do we really want these bangers going 2 years without anyone looking at the brakes?
2) MoT price will go up AGAIN; MoT stations will be doing half as many tests as before, hence more than likely will double prices to make up lost revenue.
3) With half the number of tests to do, garages will understandably be trying hard to keep their staff busy so may well fail cars on minor things that previously would have been glossed over in order to generate a bit more work.
So it'll be bad for road safety, bad for business and bad for customers. Probably get glowing approval from Blair, Brown and Prescott, then.
several reasons this is a stupid idea:1) Massive increase in the number of unroadworthy cars on the road. There are lots of knackered old wrecks still on the road that don't get any maintenance or checks at all unless they break down of fail the MoT; do we really want these bangers going 2 years without anyone looking at the brakes?
2) MoT price will go up AGAIN; MoT stations will be doing half as many tests as before, hence more than likely will double prices to make up lost revenue.
3) With half the number of tests to do, garages will understandably be trying hard to keep their staff busy so may well fail cars on minor things that previously would have been glossed over in order to generate a bit more work.
So it'll be bad for road safety, bad for business and bad for customers. Probably get glowing approval from Blair, Brown and Prescott, then.
Last edited:
new cars aren't nessacerily immune from breaking like.
for example, 3 years ago now we bought a merc e320cdi tourer, from a dealer, and it was *just* under the 3yr mark, had its rust inspection when we bought it. and when it got to its *first* mot, the thing was failed HORRENDOUSLY on rear suspension corrotion.
basically the inner wheel arch's where the turrets mount and the left side pickup for the diff cradle was completly rotten out. so rotten infact that no one would weld it even if they were allowed.
took months of arguing with merc (who then said the corrotion test done by the dealer was void for various reasons), eventually we got the money back, and bought a spankers new A6 company car with it:yum:
and not had any problems with that, even though its 5yrs and 120k old
for example, 3 years ago now we bought a merc e320cdi tourer, from a dealer, and it was *just* under the 3yr mark, had its rust inspection when we bought it. and when it got to its *first* mot, the thing was failed HORRENDOUSLY on rear suspension corrotion.
basically the inner wheel arch's where the turrets mount and the left side pickup for the diff cradle was completly rotten out. so rotten infact that no one would weld it even if they were allowed.
took months of arguing with merc (who then said the corrotion test done by the dealer was void for various reasons), eventually we got the money back, and bought a spankers new A6 company car with it:yum:
and not had any problems with that, even though its 5yrs and 120k old
After a recent MoT VOSA seminar I can tell you that,,
a.They are planning a Bi annual MOT examination.
b.They are planning 4 year MOT examination on new cars.
c.Automated test lanes are on the way/here at some garages.
d.VOSA dictate the price of the MOT.
e.The MOT will be less vigorous than it is now, in order to come into line with the rest of Europe.
I personally feel that,,
a.The MOT is not tough enough.
b.Scrap the 3year new car MOT. After some of the stuff I've seen come for it first MOT.
c.Europe come into line with OUR MoT examination.
d.Combine the road traffic act with MoT where applicible, for example, I could have a number plate on my car made from cardboardwith letters in pink lipstick, but as long as they are the right shape and dimensions its a pass and advise, but the Police will nick you for it, same with blacked out front windows, pass and advise and again the POlice will nick you,,,,
a.They are planning a Bi annual MOT examination.
b.They are planning 4 year MOT examination on new cars.
c.Automated test lanes are on the way/here at some garages.
d.VOSA dictate the price of the MOT.
e.The MOT will be less vigorous than it is now, in order to come into line with the rest of Europe.
I personally feel that,,
a.The MOT is not tough enough.
b.Scrap the 3year new car MOT. After some of the stuff I've seen come for it first MOT.
c.Europe come into line with OUR MoT examination.
d.Combine the road traffic act with MoT where applicible, for example, I could have a number plate on my car made from cardboardwith letters in pink lipstick, but as long as they are the right shape and dimensions its a pass and advise, but the Police will nick you for it, same with blacked out front windows, pass and advise and again the POlice will nick you,,,,
Well said Gaz, I agree with your points there. My car usually fails it's MOT on one or two points and that's done every year on a well serviced and maintained car. Imagine what it's like for people who either don't know or don't care. Again I don't see why we should fall into line with lower EU standards - they should come up to ours!
sumplug
Established member
Another dumb idea from our dumb government. Don't they realise, alot of fleet cars do their high mileage in the first 3 years? These cars could have over 150000 miles on the clock and be completely illegal to use, but won't need an MOT for another year!!!
The way forward is to do it on mileage or years, which ever comes first. This way, no car that racks up big mileage would get away with it. I think a 12month 12000 mile MOT is needed to take some of the wrecks off the road. And instead of the Road Tax, displayed should be an insurance disc and an MOT disc to prove the car is road worthy. Or is this too simple for the goverment to impliment??
Andy.
The way forward is to do it on mileage or years, which ever comes first. This way, no car that racks up big mileage would get away with it. I think a 12month 12000 mile MOT is needed to take some of the wrecks off the road. And instead of the Road Tax, displayed should be an insurance disc and an MOT disc to prove the car is road worthy. Or is this too simple for the goverment to impliment??
Andy.
I like that post on PH about it. It rings quite true IMO, small number of deaths caused by it and I bet most of those cars didn't have a MOT anyway.
Still, I do think the current system is better, but there are two points of view.
:yeahthat:
