[Owen]

Drivers will have to put their cars through MoT tests once every two years instead of annually under plans being considered by the Government.

Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, said: “Car technology has come a long way since the 1960s, that’s why we think its right to look again to check whether we still have the right balance of MOT testing for modern vehicles."

Currently three options are being considered:

1. A new car’s first MoT will take place at the end of its fourth year. It would then have an annual MoT.

2. A new car would have it's initial MoT after four years, a second after another two years, then annually after that.

3. The first test after four years, then three MoTs at two-yearly intervals, followed by annual testing.

Do you think this is a good idea? Which proposal sounds like the best option?

You can read the full story here: http://uk.autoblog.com/2011/04/11/go...ery-two-years/

[Hometune]

None of them!!! As usual the government is in cloud cuckoo land. The technology may have come a long way but that doesn't stop suspension bushes wearing out due to potholes and speed humps. Tyres and brakes don't last for 4 years and a LOT of drivers don't check them. With fewer police AND fewer tests, more unroadworthy vehicles will be on the roads.
And the other consideration is that with a potential 50% reduction in tests, a lot of testing garages may well go under with the loss of livelihoods, jobs etc and the follow on for the parts suppliers who will in turn suffer too.
In fact the government should go the other way and fail cars where a safety feature is displaying a fault on the dash. Currently only ABS lights fall into this. They should add airbag, steering, stability and traction warning lights to the list.

[smudger]

Every 2 years would be OK for cars up to, say 10 years old,...... but after that once a year would be better..

As all the major components get worn as the car gets older, and that can make it dangerous to be on the road?

Well, that's just my thoughts on the subject, I could, and possibly am....wrong?

[MrDanno]

In an ideal world we would not need to have MOT tests, As people would maintain their vehicles to the required standard.

However, The whole reason the test was brought into place in 1960 was because people were just driving cars which were unfit for use and they still do. Many people drive cars with faults because they still have x amount of months before the MOT is due.

I think yearly is just right personally. Although there are some MOT testers who could do with a bit more education on the rules and how to read the rules.

[wagolynn]

Perhaps I am far too cynical but I think it will cost the government less than reducing fuel duty, fixing roads or looking into the accounts of the insurance industry, yet it looks as though they are doing something for motorists.

[Snowball]

Our nephew lives in France, and he tells me that French MoT's are bi-annual. Don't know if this changes with age of vehicle or not. He does say that the French MoT is more searching than the UK one.
One aspect of any such change could be a doubling of the fee (so no loss in revenue, and some gain in lower admin costs) and, because of a substantial reduction in number of cars per year, time to allow a much more thorough testing. It might also give the police/DVLA more opportunity to physically pursue expiring MoT's.
Much as we may enjoy ridiculing the crazy laws of government, almost without exception there is a government advantage somewhere in the equation.

[ficklejade]

What's that saying? If it ain't broke don't fix it!
For some people the only time their car gets a service is before the MoT - that thought fills me with horror if one's doing high mileage in particular. I'm with Hometune on this one.

[Snowball]

Hometune and FJ, you could be, and most likely are, right. but governments do not have the same agenda as we 'ordinary' folk.
My vehicle is subject to a manufacturer's service and maintenance warranty. This means it gets full attention immediately it should need it, and which I pay for.
Therefore, I for one am against any legislation which might allow even less roadworthy vehicles to put the likes as me at increased risk.:mad:

[Hometune]

Fj makes a good point about servicing. Too many drivers are unaware of what an MoT covers and think that a 'service' will fix everything. A lot of manufacturers are on 15-20,000 mile service intervals so combine that with a 2 year test and a lot of cars will not have had any form of inspection in 24 months. As I understand it, the MoT fee will be increased but not doubled so there will be a loss of revenue to the trade. At my local MoT garage, a large proportion of the drivers have no idea about timing belts and their replacement intervals. It is only when the garage owner alerts them that they do something about it. How many times do you hear the phrase, 'an MoT and service'?
Smudger, a new car will travel around 30,000 miles in the first 3 years. That is when the tyres and brakes wear out. Yes, some cars have sensors for the brake pads but not for the tyres!

[Snowball]

I spent my whole life in engineering, and car maintenance was my hobby. Regarding disc pads, I always changed these when they had reached about 3 - 4mm Ferodo thickness. This was on the premise that wearing them down to permissible minimum thickness allowed more heat transfer to the seals and pistons, thus a greater risk of detremental effects. I never had a problem with brakes.

Now in my mid-70's, I have my car on a manufacturer's service and maintenance contract. However, I still look after the wheels and tyres myself. This is because I change my tyres at between 3 and 4 mm tread depth. The tyre industry standard for need to change is 3mm. Below this figure, braking and road grip (particularly in wet weather) is seriously compromised. I have never found a satisfactory explanation for why the government settled on a depth of 1.6mm.
The spare is also subject to the same minimum 3 - 4mm criteria. So, in the event of a puncture, the spare does not have to be changed again due to being "unreliable". Currently, the spare is new and unused. On the next tyre change, it will go into use and be replaced, either by another new tyre or one that still meets my imposed standards, so that the spare doesn't "grow old" in its stowage space.

Although having adequate breakdown cover; VW (via RAC) and Green Flag, I still equip myself for minor 'on the road' problems, and carry spare bulbs, fuses, high visibility vests, red triangles, torch and 12 volt tytre inflator.

My early motoring years demanded a need to be self-proficient and, coupled with my engineering training, I have developed a "help yourself where possible" discipline that is too ingrained to change.
The trouble with modern drivers is that they look very little further than buying a car and fulfilling the legally required documentation. If they dug deeper into the rudimentary requirements to keep a car reliable, they would probably (a) have less problems on the road, and (b) have less chance of buying a dud in the first place.

[ficklejade]

Snowball, the problem is not what cover you have (meaning no disrespect - can't afford to change my car as regularly as you do - I have to keep mine going!) - or what you carry in your car (and thank you for reminding me my order for spare fuses and bulbs hasn't come through yet!), but the simple fact that the majority of motorists - unless they're enthusiasts or engineers or work in industry for example, have no idea about their cars. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't be able to do much because cars are so complicated nowadays. I think I've mentioned before changing valves, headgaskets and even a clutch (latter with assistance I might add!). My tyres tend to get replaced at 4mm or just below - have to balance finances - but if I'm not happy with something or I've hit a rock or huge pothole, that car is down below at the garage for a check.

I only do circa 7000 a year but about 1000 is on forestry roads, 250 totally off road or forestry new cut rough digger tracks and 2500 on potholed island single tracks. I get my car checked out before main rally season and in October - that's the service and Mot element, Hometune!

I'm not disagreeing with your comment about Gov't, Snowball, in any way - they do have a totally different agenda!

[Snowball]

Hi, FJ. Over the last two years my annual mileage seems to have settled at around 7,000. Regarding changing cars regularly, if this is now my regular yearly mileage I won't be changing quite as often. My last change was for going from 7-seats and no spare, to 5-seats and full sized spare; sounds extravagant I know, but when you are towing 1,500kg of caravan around, a full sized spare is a must. Along with the fact that we do tour France with it. I agree that the modern car is a bit more complicated; although I would still do my own maintenance if I were younger and had my then garage facilities. On your comment about some drivers not having the necessary knowledge about cars, it does annoy me when I hear of a trusting innocent being ripped off by unscrupulous rogues in the industry. It happens frequently on here, doesn't it, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.
In the process of MoT reform, perhaps the government should make it compulsory for dealers to submit every car over three years old for MoT at an independent station before being allowed to sell it.

[smudger]

Aye! we are the same now, as we only do about 2000 miles a year these days, ever since I got paid off from my job, yet years ago, when I was working away from home I used to do ten times that!

That is why we are looking to buy a small Smart car now, as it seems a waste to have a brand new Mobility car sat outside, without being used? As Mk2 has a fear of being outside, mind you, we are getting there, I had her out for a ride on her scooter a couple of days ago, when the weather was nicer.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Snowball

In the process of MoT reform, perhaps the government should make it compulsory for dealers to submit every car over three years old for MoT at an independent station before being allowed to sell it.

BMW dealers already do this. So if you bought a car that was two and a half years old they would MoT it even though its not due for another 6 months. And any car over 3 years must have 12 months when it leaves the forecourt. Its a BMW rule and I agree with you here Snowball.

[Rolebama]

I would add that even though I look after my cars, it does make me happy that someone else gives it a 'once-over' every year. I have seen too many disasters-waiting-to--happen to agree with two years between MOTs. I would also add that corrosion alone justifies yearly inspections.

[Nomikitty]

This is not the case, I heard that they suggested this, but this was because the stats were squewed. Many garages were doing any work required to vehicles before the vehicles were MOT'd. Therefore, when stats were going through, it appeared that more cars were passing first time, and hence this led to them suggesting a 2 year check.
Now, what should be happening, is cars should be MOT'd, if they fail, then the work should be done and then the car re tested. There is no shame in this, and it gives a much more accurate report of how the UK cars are doing. It also shows the bods that be, that the MOT stations are doing work to vehicles to make sure they are road legal.
In my opinion they should keep MOT's every year and allow accurate testing. Owners should want this too.

[Hometune]

A lot of customers will ask for a 'pre-MoT' and the garage will carry out what they consider to be the necessary work. So I agree the figures are not an accurate reflection of the state of many cars. However, the fact the cars are repaired, either before or after the MoT, ensures they are roadworthy regardless. This is an another example of statistics being used to win an argument. By a strange quirk, if an MoT garage's test results show a high pass rate or conversely a very low one, then VOSA will investigate if the percentage is not within their accepted limits.

[Snowball]

I concur with hometune on this. A vehicle owner will always have the legal right to put his/her car into a garage for a service at any time they wish. If they ask for the vehicle to be given a check over (some garages refer to this as a "health check"), then a garage is going to do this, even if for nothing more than the additional revenue earned for the work. It can be presumed that the owner would have previously booked the vehicle in for all this to be done. The owner does not have to inform the garage that it is a pre-MoT check, and the garage have no legal right to demand if it is so. In addition, where garages offer a pre-MoT inspection (obviously to assist gaining the extra business), this is also legitimate. It would also be pointless to make this illegal, because the work would simply be done under a different guise.
Furthermore, the MoT regulation is an effort to ensure that all relevant vehicles are kept in reasonable order; not to obtain a record number of failures. The statistics are just...........statistics. Whether a vehicle passes first time, or requires attention and retest is immaterial to the purpose of the MoT. as in other areas, many statistics are collated to employ statisticians; who possibly would otherwise be unemployable!

[smudger]

I suppose it all comes down to cost, there are some drivers who can afford all these servicing and pre -MOT test checks, and those who cant afford them.

With the present financial climate, the latter list will be increasing :confused:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

I suppose it all comes down to cost, there are some drivers who can afford all these servicing and pre -MOT test checks, and those who cant afford them.

With the present financial climate, the latter list will be increasing :confused:

This may be true but, when it comes to maintaining a roadworthy vehicle, affordability falls into two courts; either one affords to run a car and ensures it is properly maintained, or one does not run a car.
Safety for others on the roads is not negotiable.

[tommytwotanks]

Originally Posted by smudger

Every 2 years would be OK for cars up to, say 10 years old,...... but after that once a year would be better..

As all the major components get worn as the car gets older, and that can make it dangerous to be on the road?

Well, that's just my thoughts on the subject, I could, and possibly am....wrong?

oh and i thought they would have gone for the fourth option, a major mot test and minor mot test, major test for everything over 5 years old with a minor test every other year, and minor test before it's 5 years old

[Rolebama]

Can't agree with that. Maybe I've become cynical with age, but I cannot help but remember the amount of cars I have seen with quite low mileage with major safety problems caused by poor driving habits and non-existent maintenance.

[MrDanno]

I think the system we have now is just about right. If you had seen the state of a car I recently worked on that was MOT'ed just a few months prior to the person buying it, You would say we don't do it frequently enough at a yearly interval.

[Snowball]

Whether they change the MoT timing/procedures or not, I doubt that they will ever achieve a satisfactory 'one size fits all' solution. Annual mileages of vehicles varies tremendously. Some vehicles are serviced on a 12 month/10,000 miles basis, where others are on variable service regimes. Some vehicles are given a rough life, whilst others are driven with care; greatly affecting the degrees of wear and tear.
How capable are the DfT/government of setting technically viable MoT parameters? Consider the 1.6mm minimum tyre tread depth regulation. This is much too low for truly safe driving. I am of the understanding that this figure was arrived at simply because a correct minimum depth of 3mm would have resulted in an outcry from the driving public. How does that equate to safety?
If a vehicle passes its MoT with treads barely above this depth, don't they realise the possibility that the tyres will still be in use and have even less tread depth until the next MoT in a year's time; unless they fail beforehand? What percentage of drivers take heed of "advisories"? What percentage of drivers are attentive to the behaviour of their vehicles, whilst others simply wait for something to go bang?
A string of questions which I doubt anyone can currently answer.

[smudger]

Quote.." Some vehicles are serviced on a 12 month/10,000 miles basis,"

Well, why don't they change the MOT test date to mileage rather that a Yearly basis? That would make more sense, as some cars will only have covered, say 2000 miles in a year, whereas other could cover eight times that.;)

[MrDanno]

Some parts of cars deteriorate worse on cars which don't do much mileage, Things seize up through lack of use.

[Snowball]

Using the car's mileage would be impossible to police. For one thing, car odometer readings are not tamperproof. Also, regardless of any opinions about DVLA/police efficiency, the number of illegal drivers who blatantly ignore the law proves beyond doubt that policing is necessary, and working on a timescale for renewal of MoT is the only realistic method for automated computer checking.

Personally, I want to feel safe on the roads, so I welcome any technology that forces the illegals off the roads. None of us are perfect, but I think we are all aware of where the geatest threats to road safety exist.

[smudger]

Aye! it was just an idea I had, I knew the DVLA couldn't enforce it, as it takes them to handle the job as it is?;)

[Rolebama]

With the technology available, it would not be all that difficult to build in features similar to service lights which could show brake, suspension, tyre and steering wear which could give, for instance, fifteen miles before the car refused to start. This system could be linked to failed bulb warning systems as well as any number of other features.

[wagolynn]

Re-”greatest risk to road safety”, I cannot make the connection between un-insured/taxed vehicles and thoughtless complacent drivers.