speedking

This article in the Times this morning relates to UK implementation of European laws, but the interest is that MOTs might be made two yearly rather than annual.

Fewer MoTs to save drivers millions - Britain - Times Online

"The study found that Britain’s 22 million motorists would save £465 million a year if they had the MoT test less frequently ..." This does not include the time taken to drive to and from the garage.

Add on the time spent swapping cats and the savings are enormous.

Note: they will probably make the test more stringent, doubling its cost, and hence we will save nothing

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Just taken my lad's car in, cost was £45, I'm sure it was only £40 when mine was done

Alcazar

Dracoro

This will only mean that there are more dangerous unmaintained cars out there on the road. If anything, they should make it twice a year.

Baulk at the cost at doing it twice a year? If so then you're probably the type who wouldn't afford to maintain it properly anyway so all the better

They should just leave it at once a year and clamp down on mot-testers that let their 'mates' car through without properly checking it. The DVLA should have their own people who go out randomly checking cars that have very recently passed an MOT. Now we know that light bulbs can go at any time, however stuff like tyres and supsension don't suddenly go and any mot centre worth it's salt will know if they are nearing the limit.

Brendan Hughes

"The MoT change is one of ten bureaucracy cutting measures recommended by the review into the impact of EU legislation. The review, conducted by Lord Davidson of Glen Cova, QC, found that the Government often “gold- plated” EU rules, making them far more stringent than necessary.

The study found that the gold-plated regulations — which range from banking controls to animal testing and consumer protection — cost British businesses and consumers £670 million a year. "


Interesting. A review that finds that a massive burden of the EU laws is the fact that they're fairly simple but the UK Government chooses to unnecessarily complicate the issue. Would love to see how this is spun by the Mail and the UKIP...

CrisPDuk

That's the problem in the UK in a nutshell, it isn't the generally the EU laws in themselves that create the problem, in fact a lot of them start off very sensibly. It's the Civil Service's inability to do anything without managing to completely **** it up that causes the grief

PeteBrant

Sounds to me like there isn't much spinning necessary

More seriously, I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with the UK going over and above what is required by EU law - If it means higher standards, then you weigh up the cost of maintaining those standards, versus the cost of lower quality. It may well cost £670 Million per year to adhere to UK law, but it may cost £800million to fix the problems caused by lowering standards.

SJ_Skyline

It's also why the French do so well out of Europe because if they don't like legislation coming out of Brussels then they just ignore it. Fair play to them, a lesson we should learn!

PeteBrant

We could learn a lot from the French, if they don't like a given law, or practice, they just have mass disobedience. Could you see the French allowing monitoring of wheely bins etc?


WIth regards to MoT - Obviously it doesn't really assure road worthyness for any period of time other than on the day of the test - However, would you buy a car that hadn't been MoT'd for 18 months? I wouldn't.

CrisPDuk

If that's the case, I'd love to see what the governments excuse is for lowering the standards of education, policing & hospitals

CHRIS_D

every 2 years here in cyprus

In my opinion the MOT is only really valid for the day it's awarded anyway. For example what if your number plate cracked (which is an MOT failure) as you're driving out of the test station etc, in theory your car is not roadworthy until recitifed which probably won't be until your next MOT in 11 months and 30 days.

negri

i agree with you that it should be every two years but things that are nearing there limit officially still pass the test .

mot standards are so much lower than that of service levels . . your tyre could have 1.7 mm of tread on the day of the test and it would pass . and they could go the next year thinking there tyres will be ok till the next one .

imagine if that is two years ? crazy . not everyone even gets there car serviced regularly so imagine the trouble getting mots done every 2 years is going to cause

Spring Heeled Jack

They won't go through with it. Think of the 1000s of 'hole in the wall' rip off MOT centres that will whine about being put out of business. If they do, they will have to double or triple the charge.

TelBoy

Surely there has to be an age of car when annual tests should still be necessary, no??

scoobynutta555

They have the biennial test in Ireland. Looking through the cars for sale, the people serious about selling their car have the NCT done prior to selling, likewise over here with the MOT. I agree with the biennial test, cars today hold together much better than they did say 20 years ago.

speedking

Telboy, I don't see why. It is the longevity of the replacement parts that would cause concern, e.g. tyres / wipers will last the same, irrespective of what age of car they're affixed to. Perhaps there would be some justification for a mileage based interval?

Presumably the reports authors have access to failure rates at MOT of three year old cars, and can see that very few fail and so therefore the reduction in road safety by having an MOT is negligible compared to the massive cost. First MOT at 4 years seems sensible to me.

PeteBrant

Also, bear in mind that the biennial in places such as germany are far more stringent than our MoT - There wont be any significant savings because the test will cost more.

Scooby Snacks 23

Agree - half the cost of the MOT and do it twice a year.

Shark Man

They often do. When an inspector turns up (without prior notice) to a testing station, they often choose to re-inspect a car that has already been tested on the same day.

scoobynutta555

I don't agree with an MOT twice a year. It's a big enough pain in the **** the way it is now.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Part of me says great but it also worries me, most people get surprises when they go for MOT anyway, 2 years worth might be a bit much, my dad use to take peoples cars for MOT when he did the servicing, he would go back and explain what needed doing, say an advise on the tyres and the same car comes back a year later with the same tyres on and another six thousand miles on, this time he cuts himself of the wire banding poking out.

2 Years for those who know what they are on about, 6 months for everyone else !

pslewis

Should be done on a mileage basis IMO. 2 years or 15,000miles whichever is the sooner.

SJ_Skyline

Common sense approach

...or maybe in-line with the vehicle's servicing schedule to ensure that people service their cars when they should be serviced?

scoobynutta555

Only one problem with MOT and mileage, the cases of clocked cars will go through the roof and not many people would need an MOT.

Shark Man

I don't think we can have it any longer than annually. There are simply too many death traps being driven about by people who are totally ignorant to even the most basics of car safety. Even when they do think something is wrong, most will just ignore it and keep driving the vehicle, some may even make a half-arsed note to get it looked at sooner or later, later rather than sooner in some cases though.

One of the proofs is the amount of blow-outs people suffer due them not checking tyre pressures and condition on a regular basis.

The last thing I want is to get caught in a pile up because of somebody who doesn't bother checking their tyre wear/condition. Yes, the culling of stupid mechanically ignorant drivers is pure darwinism, but I don't want to be taken along with it, nor my family, kids etc.

pslewis

2 Years OR 15,000miles .... whichever is the sooner - all cars will have an
MOT

Tidgy

personaly mot's dont realy bother me apart from the £65 for it, i would run my car to the same standard even if there was no mot etc. just gives a chnace for more sheds to be on the road if they are less often

scoobynutta555

Thanks Pete, I did read it properly

65 quid MOT, where's that!

pslewis

My MOTs cost me the Full Fee - minus 33%

IF it passes .....

If it fails I walk away paying NOWT!

Works for me

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

My photoshopped mot's cost me nowt anyway

PeteBrant

About as much use as a chocolate teapot in this electronic age