Bi-annual MOTs

[Worcester_spoon]

The argument over tyres doesn’t work. New cars don’t have an MOT for three years, most of those tyres will be close to or been replaced based on 12-15k per year. Yes cars are newer so you could argue more likely to be taken care of, but there are many people with new cars that don’t really care about them.

I’m with PVR.

This ^

[Mr Tidy]

Nothing happened when the MOT was extended by 6 months, I don’t always go for the doomsday scenarios that never happen and are theoretical.

But that was probably because for at least 6 months nobody really went anywhere! So over 18 months most cars only did 12 months mileage, if that.

I've only ever seen one of my neighbours check anything on his car in the 11 years I've lived here - they all rely on the MOT to identify any issues, so as I have to share the roads with millions of people who don't maintain their cars I'll happily stick with annual MOT tests.

[Pondrew]

The argument over tyres doesn’t work. New cars don’t have an MOT for three years, most of those tyres will be close to or been replaced based on 12-15k per year. Yes cars are newer so you could argue more likely to be taken care of, but there are many people with new cars that don’t really care about them.
I’m with PVR.

My 11k miles new car failed it's first MOT (at 8k miles) on a bulge in one tyre. So the tyre was changed ONLY because of the MOT.
Just one example.
12-15k miles a year has never been an average. It used to be 8-10k, now more like 5-7k depending on the type of vehicle and what it is used for.

[pvr]

Nothing happened when the MOT was extended by 6 months, I don’t always go for the doomsday scenarios that never happen and are theoretical.

But that was probably because for at least 6 months nobody really went anywhere! So over 18 months most cars only did 12 months mileage, if that.

So are you saying it is purely mileage based then? A sales rep can do 75k miles in the first three years and not requiring anything whilst someone else can do 500 miles on a year and requires testing every year.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions that first of all, more cars would fail, secondly that it would be dangerous and thirdly that it would cause an accident. If we take the figure of 2% of accidents that have any mechanical cause, it will only be tiny percentage that is something that could have been picked up by an MOT.

[Pondrew]

So are you saying it is purely mileage based then? A sales rep can do 75k miles in the first three years and not requiring anything whilst someone else can do 500 miles on a year and requires testing every year.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions that first of all, more cars would fail, secondly that it would be dangerous and thirdly that it would cause an accident. If we take the figure of 2% of accidents that have any mechanical cause, it will only be tiny percentage that is something that could have been picked up by an MOT.

If you are not concerned with safety. look at it another way, then. Thousands of garages rely on regular MOTs as their 'bread and butter' work which pay the bills and overheads. By reducing it in half, their regular income is reduced by half. Many will go out of business, the rest will increase the cost of servicing, so we will all lose financially.

I like an annual MOT as it is cheaper than hiring a ramp for an hour!

[PerryGunn]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we want (or think), the government will make the decision and, like all political decisions (by all politicians), it won't be based upon mundane reasons such as safety, it'll be based on how they think they can spin it to garner votes

I like an annual MOT as it is cheaper than hiring a ramp for an hour!

If they do change it, there's nothing stopping you having an MOT any time you want one - the statutes only specify the maximum interval between tests...

[Mr Tidy]

So are you saying it is purely mileage based then? A sales rep can do 75k miles in the first three years and not requiring anything whilst someone else can do 500 miles on a year and requires testing every year.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions that first of all, more cars would fail, secondly that it would be dangerous and thirdly that it would cause an accident. If we take the figure of 2% of accidents that have any mechanical cause, it will only be tiny percentage that is something that could have been picked up by an MOT.

My reply was to the question of whether MOTs should be annual or bi-annual in the heading, so mega mileage in the first 3 years is a different discussion. Although I did buy an ex-company MK3 Cavalier SRi from a former employer that had done 97K when I took it for it's first MOT. But as a company car it had FSH so no issues.

Most issues are mileage/use based. Tyres, suspension components and even bulbs don't really wear out due to time!

Where does that 2% statistic come from anyway?

I worked in General Insurance Claims for over 30 years and even in the 80s/90s there was never any detailed inspection of vehicles involved in accidents if they had an MOT - only if there were fatalities, caused life-changing injuries or involved someone in the limelight.

And even then nobody got prosecuted for bald tyres or DWDCA when a DR10 was a slam-dunk!

[rdgreen]

If the argument for MOT's is based purely on the grounds of safety it makes little difference in the accident rate. I say that as I come from a state that has no inspections locally yet other states (NSW, Vic etc) do have them and the accident/death toll is virtually the same. Ironically the only time cars need to be inspected locally is when vehicles are imported from interstate, even from those states where they do have inspections, or when a local vehicle is defected by the police.
I'm not sure that the argument about reducing garage owners income is particularly valid as it sounds more like a mandatory government work subsidy scheme rather than anything to do with road safety.