Safe Speed Forums

I think that's an excellent point - but I wonder how usage patterns tend to change with age of vehicle?

If we are trying to do 50,000 pa, then I presume that, in general, cash availability and need for reliability will tend to favour a younger vehicle.

Perhaps this sort of 'regulation' might mean that we shouldn't expect to change MoT intervals with age?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What's driving this??

I've never heard anyone complaining about the MOT.

If he really wants to cut red tape and cost the start with abolishion of the tax disc!!

[quote="civil engineer"]What's driving this??

I've never heard anyone complaining about the MOT.

quote]

Or is this another attempt to divert attention away from some other bit of nastyness (as in a good dayto bury bad news??)(another Labour trick)

I had a phone conversation this morning. Apparently some MoT centres are experiencing a DOUBLING of time taken to do the MoT since computerisation. The quote was: 'We used to be able to do 8 in a day, now it's only 4.'

So I guess we're probably on the brink of a major capacity crisis.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Perhaps they're about to bring in horrendously stringent requirements that will make vehicles over (say) six years old non-viable. Perhaps the cost of the test is about to rocket, and reducing the frequency of testing and/or delaying the onset will let him say it's cost-neutral. Perhaps they're about to replace the MOT system with mandatory maintenance by qualified professionals (IOW, you won't be allowed to do more than top up your oil, coolant, and screen wash). Whatever, the cynic in me is watching very carefully for the gotcha that's bound to make motoring even more expensive.

_________________
Will

Oh dear! I'm in full paranoia mode now! (where's the appropriate smiley when you need it?!)

I think I've just seen the future and it ain't pretty...

"OK public! Roll up roll up get your free spy-in-the-cab black boxes here! And just to keep you plebs happy about all this covert surveilance, here's the relatively worthless token sweeteners we're going to throw in:

* We're going to put these telemetry devices in your car so that they can monitor your mileage and call you in for an MOT when we think you need it. If you've a young, environmentally friendly car or a classic car that that doesn't do a lot of miles, you only need an MOT about every 2 years. Can we say fairer than that"?!

TRANSLATION: "If you drive a nasty high-performance car or an ordinary high-miler, we'll make sure you'll need an MOT every week!"


* "We're going to only charge you for the number of miles you drive and the time of day when you drive - together we'll bring down the cost of motoring"!

TRANSLATION: "As long as you only drive to the corner shop between 02.00 and 03.00 in the morning using back roads - that is. If you want to get anywhere at a useful time, we'll make sure it's AT LEAST as unpleasant and expensive as using the train"!


* "We're going to make the Nation's roads safer"!

TRANSLATION: "We're going to take your licence off you if you EVER send a signal back saying you've strayed over a speed imit (regardless of circumstances)".

That's what I heard as well - when they brought it in waiting lists were horrendous. But all it needs is to simplify the collection process.

I'm astounded if they do this on the back of a cost/benefit report. Just shows they don't give a sh*t about road safety. If it was on the basis of pass/fail statistics fine - but there's no mention of it being a safe thing to do.

Worth a PR?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

From many of my own conversations both with MOT testers and with VOSA, I think this is codswallop.

The problem was that a couple of testers were caught signing 120 MOT certificates A DAY! VOSA cottoned on to this and they now use the computerised system to keep a lookout for unusually high "productivity"! They completely recognise that a 3 year old Mondeo is likely to take less time to MOT than (say) a 10 year old Escort. They tell me they're not going to come looking for anyone who does an MOT in (say) 15 minutes less than the "book" time.

My feeling is that this is Gordon buttering-up the motoring public for some really nasty news....

I've observerd a couple of computerised tests now and when everything is running ok it takes little more time than a normal test. They don't need to tick off each item, only failure items, it's pretty straightforward really.

If there are any problems it's usually related to the training of the testers and the physical hardware/connection with VOSA, and the system has crashed a couple of times now.

Also the testing itself has been relaxed - a vehicle can fail on ANY item and be partially retested within 10 working days. Previously a partial retest could only happen on certain items, and then only by the end of the following working day. If it failed on a bulb and was brought back two days later then technically it HAD to be fully retested, although in practice this didn't usually happen.

Gareth

Mole wrote "My feeling is that this is Gordon buttering-up the motoring public for some really nasty news...."

That's my thoughts --more butying of bad news.


On the test side - had mine done in June. Was only that i knew about computerisation that made me see any slight difference. Took same time .
Tester said it made little difference to him

Computerisation made a big difference when mine was tested because, although the brakes exceeded the minimum required for even the heaviest MOT Class IV vehicle, the system refused to decide whether to pass or fail the car until it has been given the unladen weight of the vehicle.

Now manufacturers are not obliged to provide unladen weight figures. Even if they were things like the options chosen, which parts were on the shelf when the car was assembled, and that all vehicles put on weight with age would mean that manufacturer's unladen weight values must be on an individual vehicle basis and then only good for when the vehicle left the factory. So an essential element of the MOT relies on optional and unreliable data

FWIW, we ended up feeding the system with a guestimate based on what the chart gave for the UK-spec equivalent vehicle.

_________________
Will

I know my old fiat had a plate which had the weight stamped into it along with the chassis number and a few other bits n bobs. Shame this isn't done still has it is handy to know.

http://www.motester.co.uk/motcurrent.html

http://www.boston-ge.com/news.htm#atltestlane

Please remember, the front of the MOT test says it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

THis is european harmonisation.

Gordon is dressing it up as a reduction in red tape but in reality it's a brussels directive.

It could also have something to do with the motor industry, the Govt, is going to take away block exemptions, as it has with francished service required for warranty to be valid.
I see the govt. helping them (they are a powerful lobby) recoup loses from sales with compulsory 'qualified' maintenance, increasing servicing and repair profits.

I'd rather trust my ability, to properly fit replacement brake pads, than some 17yo dipstick at Krap Fit.

fatboytim

I agree. I've yet to meet a mechanic who knows more about my car than I do.

_________________

[quote="jamie_duff
I agree. I've yet to meet a mechanic who knows more about my car than I do.[/quote]


And not so long ago , I took a van into a major Ford outlet --

"Check out thr drivers side head light says i" " Nothing wrong " says fitter " - round te corner i spot a problem and ddrive back. I park van and grab apeentice --your main beam is out ,says he----

Would have been spotted if "mechanic " had known that ignition off switches off headlamps--------

NOW WHY DON'T I TRUST MAIN DEALERS...........

...which is why we should leave well alown, the system appears to work. The machine gets tested every year and the driver once a lifetime.

Don't mind my MOT at all.

The MOT brake test weights are not the ones on the car's VIN plate.

The VIN plate (for a car) has 4 weights on it. These are always:

Gross Vehicle Weight (maximum it is allowed to weigh fully laden).

Gross Train Weight (maximum it is allowed to weigh INCLUDING fully laden trailer)

Maximum front axle weight.

Maximum rear axle weight.



The MOT test uses some weird weight which is the empty weight plus about 100kg for a driver and a few bits & bobs. They can't use the maximum vehicle weight off the VIN plate because if the vehicle is empty, there is a good chance its wheels will lock on the rollers before it reaches the required efficiency (just 'cause there isn't enough grip with it being empty).


In Willcove's case, I'm guesing it was a "grey import"? This is one of the problems with these cars. They are outside the "system" so VOSA has nobody to go to to get an "official" figure for ther brake test chart. When your car came in, it should have done an SVA test and the car would have been weighed at the time. Ironically, this is one of the situations that helped drive the computerised MOT system! The idea would be that as soon as the tester identified your car (registration / VIN) the computer should have found all its relevant data (brake test weight, emissions etc) and TOLD the tester what to test it to! Clearly the system isn't quite working as intended just yet!

The car is a Mitsubishi Pajero which underwent SVA. However, the system knew of the car but didn't know much about it and all the details had to be entered by hand. When I booked the MOT, the tester asked me to bring my V5 because he apparently he would have difficulty doing the test without the document number. BTW, I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd bought one of the other cars on my shortlist: Mitsubishi Delica L400 or Mazda Bongo SGL5 - neither of which have UK equivalents.

The system also didn't get my other vehicle (a Citroen Dispatch) right and incorrectly flagged it as two-seat, 1.9D, 815kg payload whereas it is actually a three-seat, 2.0HDi, 900kg payload variant. So I suspect that there are serious problems with the MOT system data. That said, according to a DVLA report over 70% of their records contain one or more errors, so the data quality issues of the MOT system aren't surprising. What is crazy is that the Government are rolling out system after system based on the flawed DVLA data.

That said my original post was to highlight the problem of using unladen weight for the brake test without actually weighing the vehicle at the test station. They could do this very easily just by fitting load cells to the carlift they use for most of the test. The unladen weight changes over the life of each vehicle. They all put on weight due to accumulation of detritus, corrosion, fitting of accessories and even when new, the weight of two examples of the same vehicle can be different because of manufacturing tolerances, difference of options fitted, etc. So the wallchart that's been used for years, in which the weights are specified to the nearest kilogram, are inaccurate. In borderline cases, this can result in a pass that should have failed, and vice versa.

_________________
Will