jods

Motorists will MOT cars every two years under new Government plans | the Daily Mail

I'm undecided - as long as I only keep a car up to 5 years 11 months I guess it saves me a few quid !

Will, of course, keep up the 10K / 12 month servicing !

subarujimmy

iTrader: (3)

Terrible idea IMHO.

There are already enough death traps on the road.

Will be harder for people to do accurate mileage checks on used cars.
Im sure there was a petition for people to sign if there against this, if anyone can find it?

scoobyverysoon

iTrader: (1)

Agree - puts more unsafe death traps on our roads

I hate MOT time but at least its a regular check to ensure your cars in a fit/safe condition - a years too long IMO but 2 years

fabiavrs

What a stupid, stupid idear!

EmEm

I think if they are going to do this, then the MOT should be alot more strict about what cars pass and fail.

borat52

I think its a great idea, but not for older cars. Realistically how many cars under 10 years old need an MOT to highlight something serious? Then think about how many work hours are lost each year with people taking their cars to the MOT stations, then how many needless 40 odd quids are handed over for cars that had nothing at all wrong - its a big waste of a lot of money and time.

Old cars are a different matter, anything over 10 years should have an MOT at least once a year. But once again with old cars a good proportion of them are driven by people without insurace/not registered properly so they wont be MOT'd anyway.

In japan they have the 'shaken', first one is three years after first registratoin then its every 2 years. I've personally imported 9 cars from japan and not a single one of them has been unroadworthy, the worst was one with a tyre that was probably not legal but it was 10 years old at the time.

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

Who thinks up all this crap?

borat52

Wait a minute, before its branded crap is it not worth digging the figures on road accidents out from japan, they only 'MOT' their cars every 2 years? I personally see little evidence that its going to make cars under 10 years old more unsafe.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

財団法人　国際交通安全å*¦ä¼šã€€IATSS


If you can be bothered to look through it

subarujimmy

iTrader: (3)

In reply to your message about the imports you have bought borat52, could it be some of the cars you bought went through sva and for that reason were in a decent condition?
I don't have a problem at all with one year mot's. I personally check my car on a pit every 3/4 months, but thats just me being cautious when it comes to my vehicle carrying my family.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Doesn't the sva just require it to meet UK laws (foglights etc)then still need an MOT test or am i mistaken?

RB5_245

I think it's a good idea, will take a few years to filter out the death traps but I think it will actually be positive in the long term.

Dave

Shark Man

The three key safety factor the MOT checks is suspension, brakes and tyres.

And even then it is the most basic of basic inspections. Brakes for example are just a basic efficiency test with very relaxed threasholds, and visual inspection is difficult due to the wheels not being allowed to be removed.

Tyres are obvious and due to the fact that so many numpties don't check their tyre pressures, yet alone the inner sidewall condition or tread, its no wonder that failing tyres is already high on the list of mechanical contributrabies to an accident and breakdowns (blowouts, tread de-lamination, aquaplaning etc).

Suspension is also a top ranking area that should have mandatory checks at least once a year; even on modern cars it wears and rusts. Ball-joint play on MOT failures is still common on many modern cars, if left for over a year it could physically fail or pop out when driving, and seeing that is what holds half the wheel on the car, you'll be going off the road like Lionell Richtea (sp)

With 2year tests, far too much onus is left on the driver/owner and the garage who services it (presuming they actually check; most main dealers don't bother with being so thourough on inspection; They rather change your brake discs for the hell of it instead. Whereas teh MOT inspection procedure is standardised and provides a basic level of vehicle safety. Basic servicing is more associated associated to changing fluids.

In contrast, with companies that operate large vehicles or have personal liabilities to staff etc, some have to carry out safety checks on their trucks every 3months! Compare that to the potential 2years that a privately owned car could be driven for without having anything checked under the proposed 2 year MOT.

All in all there are too many ignorant drivers out there who don't understand the reason why MOT tests were introduced in the first place; Ask the average woman when the last time did she check the tread or inner sidewall condition of the tyres on her car And teh average non-car motivated man is equally as ignorant. The MOT was introduced to protect us from stupid people causing us harm (and themselves) due to their car crashing because of a preventable failure of a critical component.

If anything IMO, MOT should be stricter; More like German tests. It needs to have better testing of shock absorbers (bounce test means nothing, aparts from it show that there are shocks fitted). Shake testing of suspension to inspect for excess play. Brakes must have much more stricter efficiency tests, and allow for wheels and drums to be removed to inspect brake linings, wheel cylinders and caliper condition. And finally allowing any engine trim panel or undertray to be removed so the tester can actuall inspect properly, as most modern cars restrict the tester's ability due to these trim panels being fitted.

As an end note, I'd also ban any cheap brand tyre made in the far east not designed for our climate (cold and damp). Most of these budget tyres are lethal in term of wet grip levels alone, and if found fitted to a car should fail the MOT.

borat52

No not at all, I always pick my cars up from the docks, only 5 of the 9 needed an SVA (which was completed after I picked them up and inspected them) as the other 4 were over 10 years old.

The SVA is a complete joke, with an FTO they will make you put little round edges on the exhaust and as soon as its passed you can take them off and its still legal.

Another reason why its a joke is that cars over 10 years old (ie the most dangerous) dont need to go through it. Its there to protect the EU car industry as if it was easy to import from japan then you'd see boat loads of their cars coming over imported by independant dealers. Anyone who has been through an SVA will know how stupid the whole affair is, I had a car failed once because drivers side headlight was out of line with where it should have been, with an MOT the garage would just adjust it and pass it - but the SVA tester failed it resulting in a £60 retest fee. The retest took 5 minutes as he only looked at the headlight. But I suppose it keeps the Germans and French happy as every 60 quid extra on an import means they can charge £60 more for their cars.

And yes, even with an SVA certificate you still need an MOT on top. If the car is over 10 years old you just need an MOT.

Multijfj

Decat FTW

subarujimmy

iTrader: (3)

yes, i agree with you entirely about the 10 yr rule for imports, and yes it has to have an mot as well, but surely this has got to be a contirbution to safety the ones that have been sva'd?? wether we agree with the failures or not.
I know of several companies who mot there vehicles with literally thousand of pounds of new parts, but these parts havn't just worn out. They have been slowly failing, and if it wasn't being mot'd would they have spent that money???

euan_r

iTrader: (29)

really hope this doesnt happen. mot test aint most comprehensive but at least a garage gets to inspect car once a year. your average motorist has no idea of the mechanicals of a car and diy car maintanace is a falling trend. Some owners only service / repair cars when actually forced to for mot time. cars under three years old can be just as bad at times as well

borat52

The SVA does not enhance safety above an MOT, they check for stupid things like any wiring you have done is clipped an certain length intervals, all edges of the car are not sharp ect. These are all noble endevours but you have to remember that most of the cars imported from japan are near identical to the UK spec in all that they look for. EG whats the difference between a UK impreza and a jdm impreza for the purposes of an SVA? NONE. Also if you have an aftermarket exhaust then it will fail - with an MOT if it passes emissions then its a pass no matter what exhaust you have. The SVA wont even bother testing emissions, they will just fail if the exaust differs from that on the model report.

I had a pajero go through an SVA, on their brake test they check the front and rear brakes against the maximum load for the veicle. Now this brake test is done unloaded but based on the vehicle's maximum loaded weight. They failed the rear brakes on it. Any charlie who is worth a bucket of p**s should know there is a load cylinder on the rear brakes of such a car so the braking bias on the rear increases with load - the tester would not accept this. I had to go back to my garage, get them to bypass the load cylinder and it passed straight away (another £60 restest fee). Had they have tested it fully loaded it would have passed 1st time. As it is I was bombing around in a 4x4 which would lock the rear brakes up under moderate braking if not loaded up. The SVA system is a sham, the MOT is perfectly good for used cars that have near identical models sold in the UK.

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

MOT's can identify potential death traps. How can removing this safety check be anything other than stupid?

borat52

Its not removing it at all, its just changing it from 1 year to 2 year, which other countries already have. To turn this on its head how would you feel if I said that MOT should be due every month? Its a question of degree, my imprezza passes its MOT every year and its 13 years old, However I had a 1990 escourt that I just scrapped that routinely failed its MOT every year on pretty serious things. Its my opinion that cars under 10 years old should be fine for an MOT every 2 years, over 10 years and its a different story. I think the majority of death traps, and there are tons out there, are over 10 years old. Not that the government is championing the 10 year thing, I've made that up myself - cars over 10 years old should be very strictly tested regularly.

CowbitSpecD

If it's in the Daily Mail it must be true.

jjones

try using google then you won't look such a tit when wheeling out the scoobynet cliche responses..

Government’s proposed MOT changes will kill and injure motorists, costmore money, increase pollution and increase the Governme
Red tape review suggests MOT every two years | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Retail Motor Industry Federation

evil.soup

iTrader: (1)

I think that may be the point, they keep looking for ways to keep people off the road and a double strict MOT will do the trick i think.

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

And this wouldn't have been brought to your attention until a year later which could have been disastrous!
Your post proves my point!

On another note, servicing isn't compulsary so you can't rely on these to identify potential death traps.

borat52

I agree, but its why I said its a good idea for cars less than 10 years old. Bangers should not be on the road, period. Cars older than 10 years should be legislated against as they are most likely to have faults.

The point I am trying to make is that modern cars under 10 years old by and large are in pretty good condition and less inneed of an MOT than some rusty old banger with its chassis rotting and its silly to put them all in the same bracket. A new car currently does not need and MOT untill its 3 years old - is anybody complaining about this? It seems sensible to me that if new cars get 3 years then its a good idea to gradually decrease the MOT time to a point where its tested every year at least and not just say 'its 3 years old, test it every year'.

subarujimmy

iTrader: (3)

Ok so say a car 3 yr old covered 30k miles has mot passes, 2 yrs later passes again with 50k miles.
Next car 3 yr old 30k miles has mot passes, and in the next two yr does 50k miles (25k per year), at least it would have been looked at at 25k miles.
Just a thought.

As for the sva borat, im not saying its the best thing in the world for road safety. But i am saying wiring loose, sharp edges and headlights which dazzle oncoming vehicles are all safety critical items and are items which are picked up at sva, and which "should" also be picked up at mot time.
The debate is about two year mots really matey.

borat52

Your spot on there actually, a better idea would be to say MOT every 2 years or 20k miles, whichever comes first. That way we could also keep a better eye on wether a cars mileage was genuine or not (as it would be recorded at MOT time) as well as ensuring cars were tested at a time when they may have wear on them.

As for the SVA I didn't bring it up but if an MOT is good enough for a 20 year old UK bought car then it should be good enough for a brand new JDM impreza which for the purposes of the SVA is just a fog light, speedo and fuel restrictor short of being a UK model. The stupidity is that you can pass an SVA and then mod your car to a state where it would fail an SVA but pass an MOT with flying colours. Just putting an aftermarket exhaust on would do this. If you think its there for any other reason than to protect the EU car industry then your mistaken.

pslewis

Excellent idea to have it every 2 years ..... everyone has had enough of garages ripping people off each year as they see the MOT as a way to manufacture work!

Don't test until 5 years I reckon and then every 2 years until 15 years old and then annually.

Also, lets get some genuine, MOT ONLY, testing stations set up where the test is carried out fairly and genuinely .... any car without a CAT will be taken away and CRUSHED!!!

Shark Man

I've seen ball joints wear out in under 5 years on cars, mainly due to drivers bouncing up curbs when parking (especially delivery drivers), speedhumps and poor roads in many inner city areas. Which in turn ends up scrubbing down the inside edges on their cheapskate "Road Champ" deathtrap tyres.

The day I'll advocate 2 year MOT is the day I'll see every woman in the UK learn how to check tyre pressures and condition on a regular basis - i.e never gonna happen. That baby on board sticker won't save them.

marmski

I think the MOT should be more strict... and focus harder on safety.

I also believe that their should be a system where perhaps cars under 2yrs old do not get tax'd and as the car gets older then the tax comes in and goes up. It will force more older cars (which are more likely to be causing higher CO2 emissions and more likely to contain worn/defective parts) off the road. This would also make it harder for younger drivers (who usually (but not always) have less experience) to get power cars just because of the cars age causing its value to be lower.

The consumer should be awarded for purchasing a newer car with lower rates, as these are most likely to be conforming to the CO2 regulations and safety regulations as they evolve.