I know cars are vastly more reliable and less rust prone than even a few years ago, but they do more mileage under more arduous conditions.

As an MOT tester I`ve seen first MOT cars with over 100,000 on the clock. And most weeks I see cars almost on the point of collapse because they haven`t seen the inside of a workshop since the last MOT, a mere twelve months ago.

It`s human nature to "leave" things that they are not pushed into doing, so only a few would still drop their car in for service or check if they didn`t have to have an MOT. I`m not talking about the three year old vehicles here, but the seven, eight,ten year old vehicles that owners no longer worry about the service history on, and which still make up a large number of the vehicles on the road.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel this is a really serious issue on many levels, not least safety. Very few people realise how very basic the MOT standards are, how bad something has to be to actually fail. So who should we harass and protest to - your views will be appreciated.

Its example of politicians looking for headlines without thinking it through. They say it will bring us inline with Europe but we can't buy wine at their prices. Our mot regs have worked well for 40+ years don't fix what aint broke.

I would suggest we all mail our MP and point out the safety issues involved. If they go ahead with this it will have serious financial implications, which could affect jobs and training places within the motor trade.

We must resist this barmy idea I would urge that we all, mot garages and non-mot garages alike mail your MP with your views this needs nipping in the bud before it gets any momentum there are plenty of other areas that bureaucracy needs thinning.

They must be trying to get the motorist back onside by saving him £50 a year after taxing the life out of him.
Bet they would not be considering such a change if the government owned the MOT garages.
Long post sorry but could go on and on.

Like a few others I've been an MoT tester for more than 30 years, heck there really was a Ministry of Transport back then.
In all honesty, it's extremely rare nowadays to see a vehicle that actually has defects likely to cause loss of control. We used to routinely go out and collect Triumph Heralds, etc., with collapsed front suspension.Complete brake failure wasn't unusual in the days before dual cicuit master cylinders and plastic coated pipes.
The test has shortcomings, the tyre tread regulations are too lax and there are some defects that may not be easily detected due to the way the vehicles are constructed.
Cars are becoming more reliable and maintenance free with every passing year. Even emissions failures aren't as common as everyone thought they were going to be. Once 100,000 miles on a car was starship mileage, now it's commonplace.
I reckon the test interval will definitely be extended at some point in the future.

Tom W

To me, this 2 year MOT, makes no sense at all.

I`ve been in touch with my local councilor direct today and when asked about this subject he pretty much gave similar waffle about how it was 30 odd years ago (pre MOT).

They haven't a clue and need to be educated, never mind the "how it used to be brigade", I urge anyone reading this to stop this ridiculous agenda ever getting off the floor. Mail your MP!!

BTW We are not an MOT station looking after our own interests, just a guy looking out for firstly his family and secondly make a living.

It may seem like waffle to some,but cars were not very good (with a few notable exceptions) when I started in 1970. Power isn't the whole story. Of course, there were powerful cars running on tyres(often X ply),suspension and brakes that are vastly inferior to today both in terms of efficiency and quality. Only about half the cars on the road had seatbelts (which weren't worn), no collapsible steering columns, sharp projecting dash panels etc. No airbags either. People walk away from accidents at higher speeds now that would have caused death or serious injury not so long ago.
Car service intervals have increased dramatically over the past few years, made possible by huge advances in the life of consumables such as tyres, brakes,lubricants and wearing components. It seems inevitable that the MOT test will eventually go the same way.

Tom W

Our local taxi licensing authority (Bucks C.C.) has its own annual taxi test which involves wheel removal etc.. Obviously this isn't country wide.
I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. My main observation is that I just don't see the death traps when I'm testing nowadays compared to 20-30 yrs ago.
If cars are still driving around in very poor condition in some areas, the annual MOT only appears to prevent this in the short term.Maybe a couple of months immediately post test.

Tom W

No. 1 safety considering the Uks congestion problems.
No.2 Emissions cars emit considerable pollution & 2 years is just too long.
No.3 all the investment & expense of implementing computerization the investment will not be recouped
No.4 An annual mileage record is kept on all vehicles making mileage fraud harder
No.5 2 yearly testing will inevitably push up insurance costs very considerably.

If we are going to fight this we need good salient points that are clear & concise and don't get into highly technical raves that people wont understand or even read. These are just a few lunch time thoughts please add to this list as I wont be writing until I have seen some of your points that I can use as well. DON'T GIVE UP UNTIL THE BATTLE IS WON.
John Kennard.

Have a look at the article on the Auto Express website about tread depth. Watch the video (part 2) where you can visually see the difference in the cars stopping on 3mm tyres and 1.6mm tyres.....it will certainly open your eyes and those of your customers. I'm ordering two new ones for mine this week. The cars are stopping from 70mph on 3mm and 1.6mm. The point at which the car on 3mm stopped, when run on 1.6mm tyres its still doing 50mph and needs another 30+m to stop!

What with all the rain we are having, its likely to be a common scenario on the motorway.

Sean

A prime example is the effect the Euro is having on countries subjected to it and don't even start me on the issues involved with entry of all and sundry in to the EU (Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania...Mars, Venus etc.)

However, that is not providing an answer to this problem; we need a united front with well-presented arguments which are not too technical (initially at least). I regularly receive mailings from Christian Aid, who produce post cards on topical issues to send off to MPs etc. after filling in your name and address.

Perhaps we need to do something similar.

Yearly testing is our only lip-service to safety and the argument is not that vehicles are more reliable and safer than they were 30 years ago but that the roads are more crowded, cars are much faster, and they NEED to be much safer.

If they want unity with the rest of the EU then the other countries ought to introduce yearly testing and fall in line with us (for a bl**d* change)...please, stop me now or I'll go on about this forever!!!!

Regards,

Steve

("Soap Box Steve" to my friends)

Scenario:
Money conscious driver has the vehicle serviced and mot'd at the same time.
Now this is only required every 2 years, saving driver money.
18 months after mot, car falliing apart, suspension bushes hanging out, brakes to the metal etc
VOSA pull them over, another statistic added to the list.
Showing that VOSA were right to introduce roadside testing, as this driver would have got away with driving a dangerous vehicle if they weren't!!!!

However, if they'd left testing at 12months, then he wouldn't have been driving a dangerous vehicle in the first place.

We went to a VOSA seminar recently but it must have been different guys presenting yours. We didn't have the video at the start. Also the mention of 4+2 testing instead of the current 3+1 testing was of concern to all at VOSA but they felt that this wouldn't really happen given what benefits the current system has to offer. They even presented some of the stats that indicated that when some new vehicles are tested at 1 year old, 9% failed! At 3 year this increased to about 30% I think.

However, they did point out that VOSA are only their to implement the system deemed required by the Department of Transport and had no power in themselves other than provide the necessary data when requested.

HTH

Sean

Presumably Siemens are not going to be happy if the number of 'test slots' reduces considerably. Presumably their sums with regard to payback time were done on the existing test intervals.

Tom W

Peter

I see some Numbnut signed the petition "a good idea in my opinion".

Regards,

Steve

That was one of the supporting points raised by VOSA....Siemens have a contract in place with the Department of Transport and this would be a breach of that contract which I'm sure Siemens would fight all the way....well lets hope anyway!

Sean

just done it!! , there is enough deathtraps on the road with current mot minimum standards
what are they thinking??

regards

lee

What are they smoking, more like

Russell

I think Siemens had a contract to run the computerised MOT from 1997/98 for ten years so it will expire next year, so whoever gets the contract will be looking at a 2 year MOT system (if legislated)

By having the MOT every 2 years will allow fewer testing stations, maybe drive throughs such as in Spain, separate from any repair establishments

All speculation, but who knows what goes on in the corridors of power

Peter

>>>There is much more i can add to this thread but don't want to make it to long.<<<

If you have more to add, lets hear it! Why worry about making a thread long? I find usually the most interesting posts are the LONG ones as we get so many diverse opinions about a subject. If you ask Peter he will tell you the hit rate goes through the roof with these type of threads so lets have it all, I say.

Mike