Government are considering/consulting on extending first MoT from 3 years to 4:
www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-motorists-as-government-proposes-no-mot-test-for-first-4-years
Launched yesterday with ministerial pitch that
New vehicles are much safer than they were 50 years ago and so it is only right we bring the MOT test up to date to help save motorists money where we can.
IMHO 4 yrs is too long. Another whole year for people to ignore slick tyres, blown bulbs and pads/discs on last legs.
What does the panel think?
|
Full MOT every 2 years is fine by me.
But there should be yearly half-MOT where basic things like tyre, bulbs etc should be checked.
The number of cars I see with just one headlight is alarming!
|
>>The number of cars I see with just one headlight is alarming!<<
The number I see with four blazing is worse! - if they took main beam off cars, folk would probably drive more carefully and considerate in the night!
|
|
Whilst there are a few drivers who don't dip their headlights when another car approaches I am actually more surprised at the number of drivers who don't use their main beams at all. I think it's a town driving thing. When you live in a city you hardly ever use full beam so don't think to use them when driving unlit roads or perhaps it's too much effort to flick the switch on and off.
|
>> Whilst there are a few drivers who don't dip their headlights when another car approaches
>> I am actually more surprised at the number of drivers who don't use their main
>> beams at all.
They are usually driving very slowly (because they can't see far enough ahead) and are difficult to overtake because they aren't lighting the road for the overtaker either. Sometimes it is necessary to fire up the main beams oneself to overtake. The HIDs on the Outlander are like daylight compared to dipped tungstens. They don't like it up 'em, but I doubt if they get the message.
|
>> The number I see with four blazing is worse!
Likewise fog lights. If manufacturers limited the speed of the car to say 30 or 40 mph when fog lights are switched on, I'm sure there would be less misuse of them.
|
|
I've driven in fog where 30mph would be lunacy. Use of fog lamps when not necessary is irritating. Not using them when necessary could be lethal
|
>> I've driven in fog where 30mph would be lunacy. Use of fog lamps when not necessary is irritating.
>> Not using them when necessary could be lethal
>>
I have read " Fog lights are useless !"
I suspect it was really " Fog lights are useless when driving at 50+ in fog" :-(
|
|
I rather doubt that non roadworthy three to four year old cars are a significant source of accidents so seems a reasonable move.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 23 Jan 17 at 18:35
|
|
I know somebody who got his company car derived van up to 117 000 miles by the end of year one.
|
>> I rather doubt that non roadworthy three to four year old cars are a significant
>> source of accidents so seems a reasonable move.
>>
I rather doubt that non roadworthy cars of any age are a significant source of accidents.
It might be a better use of resources to scrap MOTs totally and instead concentrate on regular testing of drivers, in particular psychological checks on propensity to anger, competitiveness and impatience.
Also impairment of hearing, eyesight and reaction times.
|
|
I would agree with that. Even the poor condition of a vehicle I suspect has a close correlation with the personality and attitudes of the driver.
|
>> IMHO 4 yrs is too long. Another whole year for people to ignore slick tyres, blown bulbs and pads/discs on last legs.
>>
>> What does the panel think?
>>
I'd agree, it doesn't take up any time at all really, most people tie it in with their service so not really a hardship. The cost in the grand scheme of a three year old car is nothing. I think it also goes beyond the test itself, a message that road safety isn't so high up the list because it's of very minor inconvenience nor do I buy the line that it's all about saving the motorist money.
|
>>IMHO 4 yrs is too long. Another whole year for people to ignore slick tyres, blown bulbs and pads/discs on last legs.
Disagree - but I'd expect the Civil Service to enjoy annual pointless processes. ;)
People with cars less than four years old mostly have them serviced annually to keep their warranty.
If you're doing 40,000 miles a year then you're getting through more than one set of tyres annually anyway. The annual MOT is thus irrelevant for checking tyres and pads/discs.
Testing light bulbs annually is insufficient, you'll be wanting monthly MOT tests next. My car went through its MOT with only one rear numberplate light.
So I think the first MOT should be at seven years. Modern cars don't rust to pieces in the way BL cars did, so you don't have a weak chassis, which is surely the main point of the test. The MOT obsession with tyres and lights and suspension is because they're the only things that cars can fail on these days. And fixing the suspension never seems to make any difference to the car's handling anyway...
|
>> So I think the first MOT should be at seven years. Modern cars don't rust
>> to pieces in the way BL cars did
>>
I agree the interval could be longer, 4 years is not unreasonable.
In the interests of fairness, BL cars were not the only ones which had rust problems.
Back in the 80s & 90s which were really the BL "glory" years, many foreign cars had even worse reputations for rust than BL.
Our company car lists at the time banned all Italian cars for a few years because of rust issues.
|
|
Sorry, I used BL as an example, rather than blaming them particularly!
|
These days I do not see so much black gunge being pumped out of exhausts.
I cannot see or smell what also gets pumped out.
Passing the emissions tests is also important.
|
>
>> Passing the emissions tests is also important.
>>
Then it's a pity the government connived at its wholesale flouting by manufacturers of diesel-
engined cars.
|
MoT Changes - movilogo
