|
It's probably just as well it's been dropped. I had a 1967 Hilman Minx (from new) and it failed the first MOT at 3 years old because of serious corrosion of the floor and a strengthening channel welded to the floor. The floor appeared OK from inside the car but what you saw was actually just a layer of sound deadening thick paint. The metal under it had disappeared completely!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 1 Feb 12 at 12:27
|
Thank goodness for that. Cannot imagine how this idea got past first base.
Even modern new cars can have significant problems inside 36months - probably more so for low mileage vehicles than those used for business etc.
It's quite obvious from the number on the road with lighting defects that many owners never check their cars and even those that do 'defer' defects. There's a Focus I see two or three times a week with faulty stop/tail lights - been like that fior weeks.
|
|
When the idea of testing every 2 years was proposed, what reasons or benefits were given for such changes?
|
>> When the idea of testing every 2 years was proposed, what reasons or benefits were
>> given for such changes?
>>
Wake up at the back!! IIRC it was to align with the EU procedures. :-)
|
>> Wake up at the back!! IIRC it was to align with the EU procedures. :-)
Alignment with EU was one reason but the public face of the proposal was the agenda to cut 'red tape'.
www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20111215a/
|
>> Thank goodness for that. Cannot imagine how this idea got past first base.
Even modern new cars can have significant problems inside 36months - >>
OMG! I must stop driving in EU countries where they require the MOT only every two months.
>> ... the public face of the proposal was the agenda to cut 'red tape'. >>
Care to point out where in your link to cut "red tape" that the MOT is mentioned?
AFAIK, the proposal was initially put forward while Labour was in power and it was solely to meet Labour's EU "harmonisation" drive.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 1 Feb 12 at 14:05
|
What other countries get up to is their business. It's not a black/white issue but I'd prefer UK to retain status quo.
The proposal is admittedly not directly mentioned in my DfT red tape link but is in the page it links to as follows:
www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/vehicle-safety-and-standards/
(Red Tape Challenge which specifically includes the MoT regulations)
And there's some helpful analysis of public comments on to the subject here:
tinyurl.com/7aywbpm (Fleetnews)
Press are also reporting the 'red tape' context which suggests DfT Comms are briefing it in those terms. Gordon's lot did the same - I guess pushing the EU angle is regarded as a exposing a vulnerability (EU bureaucrats cut road safety sort of thing).
|
HeyHo...It would have been nice.....I'll just have to keep stumping up £50 of me meagre pension away every year.
Ted
|
First at four years and every two years after that seems to work ok over here. It's only valid as a check on the day it's carried out isn't it?
I thought you used to build Hillman Hunters Mr Snail?
I certainly remember my mechanic uncle's 1964 Triumph Herald failing it's first MoT on structural rust, to his considerable shock.
|
>> I thought you used to build Hillman Hunters Mr Snail?
R&D on Rootes/Chrysler UK heating and cooling systems.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 1 Feb 12 at 20:36
|
There's no reason to link an initial 4 year period with a period of 2 years thereafter. It would be perfectly possible to retain the 3 years bit then make it every 2, or indeed to make all intervals, including the first one, 2 years.
The argument that because many cars fail their initial 3 year test isn't one against a periodic 2-year test, rather the opposite - that a car in perfect order on average lasts 2 years before things go wrong.
|
"Ms Greening scrapped the plans after examining research by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.
The study by VOSA showed that more than a quarter of MoT tests carried out in 2011-11 missed routine defects and also wrongly passed thousands of cars as being roadworthy when they were not. "
|
Note the date: 12 Dec 2008
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/3724567/Two-year-MOT-plan-scrapped.html
Two-year MOT plan scrapped
High-profile plans announced by Gordon Brown to ease the burden on motorists by making MOT tests less frequent have been quietly shelved,
The about turn was performed two years after the then-Chancellor said that MOTs would move to every other year as part of a Government crack-down on bureaucracy and red-tape, and in order to reduce the cost on drivers.
In an embarrassing move, the proposals have been scrapped after officials calculated that making MOTs compulsory only every two years - rather than annually at present - would lead to a "significant increase" in deaths and injuries on the road.
The Conservatives questioned why the analysis of the impact of the proposals, which would also have seen MOTs compulsory only for cars above the age of four, rather than three at present, was not carried out until after Mr Brown announced them with such fanfare.
Robert Goodwill, the shadow transport minister, said: "This botched policy idea should never have seen the light of day.
"If it had been given the green light we would have faced a situation where there were thousands of dangerous cars on our streets putting people's lives at risk.
"This is yet another one of Gordon Brown's big flagship policies that has been consigned to the dustbin of history."
At present, the £53.10 certificate of road-worthiness is compulsory every year for all cars aged three and above.
Mr Brown unveiled his plan to switch the tests to every other year in a speech to the CBI conference in November 2006, eight months before becoming Prime Minister, saying the move would bring Britain into line with the rest of the European Union.
He told the CBI: ``Moving to the EU minimum would mean cost savings in terms of inconvenience, time and paperwork.It would also save motorists pounds £465 million a year in test fees.''
The proposal was based on a recommendation by Lord Davidson, the Labour peer who was commissioned to carry out a review of red tape in Britain compared to the rest of the EU.
Two years later, in a written ministerial statement slipped out this week by the Department for Transport, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Transport Minister, said that an analysis of the proposal had found a significant cost in human terms.
He said: "Our analysis suggests that a significant number of additional road traffic accidents would be likely if MOT test frequency was reduced.
"This is primarily because the annual MOT failure rate is already high (around 35 per cent) and if we were to reduce frequency, there is a very real risk that the number of unroadworthy cars would increase significantly. In turn, the number of road casualties would inevitably increase.
"Clearly any significant increase in road traffic accidents or in the number of road casualties would be a wholly unacceptable outcome, and for that reason, our view is that the MOT test frequency should remain unchanged."
|
Plans for fewer MOTs are dropped - L'escargot
