Safe Speed Forums

The European Commission is working towards forcing manufacturers to release service data but they are responding by making their own (very expensive) diagnostic equipment pretty much indispensible for quick and accurate repair work! No sooner does the aftermarket industry come up with a generic fault code reader than the manufacturers make their engine management systems more complex again! As for self-certification of cars by their DIY owners, I'm not too keen on that either. I wouldn't mind doing it but I could see a lot of scumbags certifying their old "classic" without a second thought!

I prefer your earlier idea (or a variation of it) whereby suitably qualified and registered mechanics (with something to loose if they cock up) could provide a certificate of roadworthiness and anyone who didn't want to pay "main stealer" prices could just got for a government test instead.

Perhaps there is scope for a line of "independance " - the testers test - then are not allowed to take any further part in any remedial action.
All remedial action is undertaken by either the owner , or a repair centre.
Me - i'm seriously comntemplating using my local council test facility - independant and as least as unbiased as i think you can get, since there is no financial incentive to pass/fail .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

But is that because we have annual testing?

Yeah, good question. Grumpy Old Biker alluded to it on the last page, saying:

Whilst, on this evidence alone, it is impossible to draw any conclusions, no doubt the 'rule makers' can use it to support the current requirements.

I know the answer (it's 'no'), but proving it would be next to impossible. That said, I thnk regular testing is worthwhile. It sends the message that vehicle condition is important. Ultimately, I believe that the message is more important than the test itself.

Changing to tests every two years will make no difference.

And, by the way, dropping the test frequency was proposed because the new computerised MoTs are putting undue strain on the system.

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

Perhaps it is because MOT testing is effective at reducing the incidence of vehicle defects. I'm sure if you compare the incidence of vehicle defect related road accidents with those for the times before the introduction of the MOT, you will find things were much worse then. But of course the technology was less developed and less reliable too, so we can't be certain about this.

It is true that before the MOT, people would keep running unroadworthy bangers that should have been scrapped years before. I don't think Paul is suggesting that encouraging unroadworthy vehicles is a good idea. I'm sure periodic vehicle testing is a good idea. How often is more debateable.

ISTM that less frequent MOTs will not improve safety, although what amount of degradation will result from increasing the interval is not known. In the end it is a trade off of safety against cost. If safety is paramount, perhaps we shouldn't take the risk.

A lot. A great deal of degredation can occur to (especially) an older car in the course of a year. I run two older cars and I maintain them well but I know if I did not keep on top of the job, an MOT failure would be a dead certainty. I have seen, for example, steel and flexible brake pipes go from perfectly servicable to bursting point in less than a year and this is safety. Same goes for steering components.

A two year test in the UK would be a disaster from a safety point of view. Of course, what all this is about is to reduce again the number of old cars running around because, I suspect, their green credentials are not seen as good (rubbish incidentially but too OT for here) and too many older cars in service hurt the economy of the car manufacturers and dealers.

Given the averagely maintained 8 year old car just scrapes a pass at 10 it is going to fail so spectacularly that it will be uneconomic to repair and therefore scrapped and money in the pocket of a dealer for a shiny, new replacement.

It is already working to a degree. The MOT is tough now, two-yearly ones will be tougher again. E-bay is full of MOT failures and for people like me, who can fix and restore, it makes a ready source of cheap and very tasty cars that for a bit of graft can be made really good again but totally uneconomic to have repaired by a dealer.

It's the old adge again "There is no smoke without fire" A hidden agenda is at work here, as usual

_________________
Jim

Citroen Xantia: Tears and Joy

Does anyone have any contacts in the Irish Republic? Until a couple of years ago they didn't have any MOT system at all so it might be worth looking at accident stats before and after.

AIUI, Mr Taxi driver (well proper Hackney Carriages) are exempt from the requirement for an MoT because they already have a mandatory 6 monthly check.