Bi-annual MOTs

pvr

pvr

Dutch
 Ruler of the South East UK
Looks like the UK might finally catch up with the rest of Europe where this has been the case for many years. Such rubbish to have an annual MOT but no doubt there wlill be screamers again like we had in 2020 when the MOT was delayed by 6 months.

There are enough rules to deal with dangerous cars without the need of an MOT. There was nothing published after the 6 months delay in 2020 that there was an issue with that.
 
Its fairly obvious to me that many many people (even on here) rely on the annual MOT as the only safety check their cars get. Look at the number of times people get advisories (or even fails) for tyre condition for example. I'd be mortified if that happened to my car.
 
Rules are there, enforcement however is severly lacking. Switching the mot to biannually will just double the number of unsafe cars on the road.

Terrible idea IMO, mots need to be kept yearly. If the idea is to save the average person money, there are far better ways of doing it that don't compromise safety.
 
Initially, won't there be a busy year, then a quiet year? Until they all start to spread out?
 
If they do the same as in Europe, MOT would not be required until year 4 so that would help with the spread.

Interesting that there is a view that it doubles unsafe cars on the road - this is not the case in Europe, so why here?

To me the whole MOT business is a pain in the neck, not so much just the money side but also the inconvenience of doing it.

And cars over 40 don't need them anymore ...
 
As build quality of modern cars is so much better than it was in 1960 when the MOT was introduced, I could get on board with something along the lines of

Privately-owned vehicles (non-trade use)
- First MOT at 4 years old
- Then MOTs at 6, 8, 10, 12 years old
- Annually thereafter

Privately-owned vehicles (trade use e.g. Transit vans etc.)
- First MOT at 3 years old
- Second MOT at 5 years old
- Annually thereafter

Taxis etc.
- First MOT at 1 year old
- Minimum of annually thereafter
(IIRC black cabs in London have 6-month tests)
 
i think the problem is, the majority of the motoring public only review their cars from a safety perspective, when they get MOTd. and going two years between checking your tyres is far too long. not to mention the number of cars in winter driving round with one or more bulbs blown, ineffective wipers so they can't see, and brakes that don't work properly.

oh also air quality would worsen, as a failed cat/blowing exhaust will take a year longer to be fixed.
 
This is a never-ending debate depending on how you care for your car. If you keep up with maintenance and have a keen ear or ability to hear or feel when something is not right. You are able to investigate and resolve prior to a major issue. (To you the MOT is a pain). However, as stated there are people who only know when they have car issues when using a MOT. Unfortunately, here in the US each state handles a MOT differently. For example, based on my past places of residence. In NJ need a MOT every year where they check car out. same here in MO. However, when I lived in Georgia, they only checked emissions every year. (Never required a car inspection). So, in my opinion I would rather have a MOT every year. And feel the expense and time for it worth it if it stops someone from being killed or hurt because of an unsafe car in use.
 
Perhaps I am in the minority wanting less state control :roll:

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. Why is it assumed that all cars will have worse emissions when there is 12 months longer between MOTs
 
As I indicated earlier, I don't think that longer gaps between MOTs are an issue for newer cars. People who buy (or lease) them from new tend to have them regularly serviced to keep to the warranty/lease conditions. The services should pick up on anything mechanical that is becoming worn before it fails and ensure that it remains within legal emissions range.

As cars get older and their value decreases, in general (and I accept that there will be exceptions), they are more likely to end up in the hands of people who don't get them serviced as regularly so more frequent MOTs for older cars seems sensible.

Where to put the crossover point between bi-annual and annual MOTs is something that could probably be ascertained from an analysis of MOT statistics.
 
rdm05z4 said:
So, in my opinion I would rather have a MOT every year. And feel the expense and time for it worth it if it stops someone from being killed or hurt because of an unsafe car in use.
Click to expand...
Agree totally. There are many people (I know several) who rarely service their vehicles and NEVER check tyres or brakes. So the annual MOT is the ONLY thing protecting the rest of the Country from their ignorant and irresponsible behaviour.

Just look at the MOT history of a sample of cars at 3-6 years old (I have looked at hundreds). A good percentage will have failures or advisories on tyres and/ or suspension leaks. These issues would become extremely dangerous if checked every two years.
 
pvr said:
Perhaps I am in the minority wanting less state control
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with State control for me, mate. A degree of protection from the half-wits, which there are (too) many. :)
 
2% of all accidents last year were caused by mechanical failure (includes overloading the car). 6.3% by drunk driving.

Of the 2% failures, it is not clear how many would be picked up by an MOT though.

It is the same discussion about the ever lowering of speed limits, same arguments
 
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.
 
srhutch said:
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.
Click to expand...

This ^
 
pvr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
srhutch said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mr Tidy said:
pvr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pvr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom