Safe Speed Forums

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Cost asside, personally I recon MOT's need to be MORE freuqent, not less! Alot can go wrong in 12 months and we don't need any more dangerous cars on the road.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Few crashes are caused or contributed to by vehicle faults.

But I expect there's something entirely different behind the proposal. Can anyone guess what? Some fallout from computerised MoTs perhaps?

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

Or Gordon Brown is just being positioned for a takeover at Christmas.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I think this is quite serious.

In my company car days every single car I owned failed its three year MOT test. Normally minor things like emmisions or stone chipped windscreens. I'd want to know what percentage of cars fail the MOT and therefore what is the risk that these vehicles will increase accidents as a result of their deficiencies.

Most cars that faill thier mot are not "dangerous" they just fall below an accepted standard.

I can wreck a set of tyres in months If I try!
We might want to have a cheap fast mot every 9000 miles and a biggie every three years?

It will still not stop people driving on non existant tyres or with broken shocks.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'm all for paying less but I think the annual MOT is no bad thing personally.

I often lend a hand at a garage I used to work at when in chatting with the lads (sit in car, honking horns, shaking steering wheels, brakes on/off etc).

It's quite surprising what you see there

Recently a 02 plate Honda Civic was in for it's MOT. It was a 2.0 model with leather interior etc, obviously a higher spec one but I don't know a lot about Civics.

Anyhow, the car was owned by a little old lady on a housing estate and it had covered less than 14,500 miles since new (purely a shopping car), yet it failed its MOT because both anti-roll bar drop links had failed.

In the quest for recycle-able cars, the drop link ball joints are held together with melted plastic rivets.


It didn't matter much to granny but to a more spirited driver (Type R perhaps?) it could have been a real problem. Nothing against Hondas - I've always found them to be very reliable cars, but it still shows that nothing is indestructable and we need to keep a regular inspection routine up on cars.



Although an annual test wont solve much, one thing that did strike me was that the average member of the public books their car in for a service and MOT. They seem vaguely aware that cars need to be maintained but many aren't what I'd call religious about it. Given that many such problems (and even things like brake pads that were past it) we would find on cars came up during the service part. If only in for an MOT many more would have failed or been given advisories.

I just wonder if the average run-about would get that service (and brake pad change, for example) every year if the A5 sheet of paper wasn't needed each year???? Perhaps it wouldn't affect service patterns that much, although I'm certain that some wouldn't bother at all if it wasn't for the MOT part

_________________

Could this be linked to the threat to ban DIY car mechanics,
sounds like compulsory servicing will be next, but with some cars having 20k service intervals is this a recipe for disaster on the roads.
I like my annual MOT as they check the things I can't easily do at home like have a good look at the underside structure, pipes and bushes.

fatboytim

They can ban what they want. I still wont be paying £60^ per hour for someone with less knowledge of my car than I have to perform anything that can be done without a 2 poster ramp.

Oooh I'm well on my way to being an enemy of the state aren't I?

_________________

I'd like to know how they actually stop me from repairing my own car? Surely its preferable to have someone (I know there's alot of muppets out there that do more harm than good, I'm talking about competent people) maintaining their car as and when its needed, than worrying about whether they have the time and money to have it repaired 'professionally'.

I've spent many an hour being chatted up by idiots in suits who don't have a clue whilst I've been under the bonnet...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

A while ago someone told me that there was a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents after MOTs were introduced. I can't find any figures though. Do you have any further info?

Here's the report in question: (PDF link at bottom)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independe ... _index.cfm

The MOT discussion starts at page 23 (28 in the PDF).

edit: The report recommends the DfT draw up a cost/benefit report and consult on moving to a 4-2-2 testing pattern (first test in 4th year, then every other year).

Hmm it seems Paragraph 2.38 voiced the same concerns about servicing/maintenance as me

_________________

I'm a bit confused here - firstly why a report into EU rules spends so much time on UK MOT rules that were in place before the EU! I expected to see lots of stuff about Human rights laws etc. Another waste of money I think.

Secondly - what's it got to do with Gordon Brown? - last I heard he was chancellor. What I want to hear from him is what he's going to do about simplifying & reducing the tax burden on us - pretty easy I would have thought given the levels of money they waste and the hundreds of thousands of tax inspectors they pay to monitor the myriad of tax rules they've implemented.

Back to MOTs, surely this has got nothing to do with EU rules - it's a simple matter of analysing pass/fail statistics & basing any decisions on changing the time periods from those results. Personally I'd be amazed if the results showed that it was sensible to reduce the time periods.

If they're so worried about the cost to us (which I don't believe for one minute - as someone said earlier "what's in it for them"?) then they just need to re-look at the computerised system again. When it was introduced I was told by a couple of garages that the test time was doubled.

Although I haven't seen it I can well imagine that with the governments obsession with collecting data, the mechanic has to go to the on-line system and tick a box for every bulb he checks. A simple pass/fail entry would serve the main purposes of it being computerised and probably reduce the time significantly.

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

why not have an MOT system that allows for graded MOTs? ie. if after 3 years there is no sign of wear on any components, then issue a 3 year MOT, if it looks worn but safe issue a 2 year MOT and if it is well worn but servicable issue a normal 1 year MOT. reasonably simple and takes into account that some cars will be like new at 6 whereas some may be fit for scrap at the same age.

And to avoid any problems in the meantime ---lets just revert to the old tried and tested idea of a yearly MOT.

With Golden Brown, look for the not so obvious - he's trying to curry faviour with car ownres - time he was told to mot off, and get his bits MOTed.

MOTs ARE t odo with Brussels. It's the "Roadworthiness Directive" or something similar. It specified maximum intervals for a roadworthiness test and the UK is at the tight end of that. Some other countries are not as keen.

I have some sympathy for the idea of the first MOT going to 4 years. In this day and age when people likw (?Kia?) are offering a 7 year warranty, they can obviously be pretty sure that the vehicle won't start seriously falling apart until after that time has elapsed!

On the other hand, my car is 16 years old and has a very high mileage. Up until I "retired" it a few years ago, it was doing 25,000 miles a year. I really don't think a 15 year old car could safely do 50,000 miles between inspections. OK, I did this myself all the time - I pretty much had to!) but I think there is an argument for increasing the frequency of the tests back up to every year once the car hits (say) 10 years old.

Sixy, Ireland didn't have an MOT scheme until very recently (a few years ago I think). Maybe you could find stats for the Republic of Ireland to see how that affects your theory?

It wasn't me, Mole, it was semitone

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I heard through the grapevine that the cost of the MOT is likely to go up to £100 in the next couple of years to cover the cost of the expensive computerisation. They may decide to whack it up but extend the intervals for some people ie those with newer cars who can afford it, which is typical of their thinking in the hope of shutting up those that complain about the cost.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't do something odd like change MOT intervals on classic cars to every other year reflecting the actual use some of the cars get...although standing around is worse for a car than being used regularly.

Over time, the number of serious DIYers will no doubt diminish, as new cars are becoming more and more complicated to repair. With some, you need a laptop, rather than a spanner. Although, it could also mean that older cars are kept on the road when normally they are "retired" as they aren't as expensive to maintain.