Possible 2 Yearly MOT

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Horridlittleman, Nov 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I cannot provide a link but I heard on the radio last night that Gordon Brown is proposing changes to the MOT system. Instead of being required annually it will be 2 yearly in an attempt to cut red tape and bring us into line with other EU nations.

    That raises a few issues with me:

    1 - Why can't other EU nations fall into line with us.
    2 - The MOT forces people (who want to drive legally) into carrying out basic repairs each year. Changing it to 2 yearly would effectively mean some cars being driven for an extra year whilst being unroadworthy.
    3 - How much red tape is involved in MOTing vehicles. Or is this just a naive attempt to make people think that the government is trying to do something of benefit to the populous!
    4 - Has the MOT been targetted as the treasury doesn't directly benefit from it?
  2. I think its seen as a "sweetner" for when the real whammy kicks in - road use charges, but no drop in road tax.
  3. The MOT test was introduced many years ago (when the government department was still called the Ministry of Transport, in fact) when cars fell to bits after a few years life. There has been an amazing improvement in quality, reliability and longevity of cars since then and there is a case for saying that the regime is too strict.

    I could see a sliding scale being a good idea, with the first test perhaps one year later than at present, then every two years for a while and then every year as the car approached the end of its life. It would also make sense to specify the test in terms of mileage rather than age, but that would complicate enforcement through the annual licensing process.
  4. If the MOT has its current standard then yes go for the two yearly one, I find the legality of the MOT annoying as it means nothing the moment you drive out of the MOT centre. But i do agree that the idea of the MOT is good as it ensures that everybody is driving a car that meets some standards!

    My overall preference is to have a yearly MOT but with some weight to it that if you show it to an authority they don't just say "well that was yesterday wasn't it". I know you could bash your car the instant you drive out of the MOT but at the moment it is of negligable value!

  5. The MoT test does date from the days when cars were much less reliable, were not stuffed full of diagnostic systems and warning lights and braking systems not that wonderful.

    But does this mean they will still stick with first MoT at three years old? I would be quite happy to see it at two years.

    Reason I say this is that my wife's car was purchased from a supersite at 8 months old. When it was 2 years old odd noises start coming from front. "No fault found" about 6 times over. Then at 2 years 11 months and 1 day had an MoT and, hey presto, immediately failed on corroded/ worn front ball joints and a defective power steering rack.

    Fixed under warranty which was fine but a 2 year first MoT would stop car makers and dealers fobbing off customers on safety related warranty claims.
  6. As much as I hate getting an MOT (well actually the repairs and associated bills), I think it's good to have yearly MOTs. Everytime that I get my MOT there is always something that needs doing on the car and I would much rather this gets checked every year rather than wait for two years.
  7. An MOT is just a record that on a certain day, a car was roadworthy. No more, no less.
  8. Speaking as someone in the trade, keep it annual! Not because the nasty trade want's your cash (ahem) but because people are driving around in genuinely unsafe cars with their brains in neutral.

    The number of cars I see with completely duff tyres, never been serviced, bulbs gone, wiper blades with the working area of a gnat's scrotum, no brake lights, etc etc. And the drivers? While I will not comment on their gender or socio-economic status, how bleddy difficult is it to work out that a tyre with no tread and metal exposed is not something you should be considering circumnavigating the M25 with? (hello Mum!)

    Don't even get me started on the 30% who never have their car serviced until it breaks down, never check their levels (watch them use a full aerosol of deicer every morning...), never clean their glass so they have about as much forward vision as an astigmatic mole in low sunlight, can't be bothered to demist properly, kids unsecured in vehicle, pink fluffy seat covers......

    I think I might have hurt my keyboard. Grr.
  9. I'm happy enough with a yearly MOT, I have very little knowledge of motor mechanics and every year there is something on the car that needs attention, something that I hadn't identified.

    Yeah the costs are a pain in the arrse, and I take the point that anything can happen once the car leaves the MOT centre, but with my dozy female, limited knowledge of what goes on under the bonnet at least the car is fault checked with some kind of regularity.
  10. Why not include MOT as part of the annual service? After all when serviced it should pass!!
  11. Agree with the debate here about some people driving around in a dream world and don't maintain their cars but I also appreciate the point about the validity of the certificate the moment you drive away from the test. I'd prefer to keep it annual. For honest people, it also provides another part of the insurance/MOT/ownership/tax link when you renew road tax.

    The real scandal is that those least likely to have a licence or insurance or both will not be bothered about an MOT. Time for this hopelessly inadequate government to do something about getting illegal (and most likely drunk/stoned/speeding) scum off our roads.
  12. See above - 30% of the allegedly responsible adults driving on our roads don't have their cars serviced until they have a breakdown or major fault (that figure is a bit out of date so feel free to correct me). Plus a lot of new car service intervals are at 20k or 1 year, and this is always interpreted as whichever is the longer not whichever is the shorter!

    I bought in a car years ago from a professional legal beagle, with 'FULL VW HISTORY'. When I wondered why the thing was producing enough smoke to make me think they had the James Bond option, it turned out that it had just passed its MOT (pre emission testing!) and the owner thought that was what was meant by FSH. Genuinely did not realise that cars need servicing.
  13. As MOT would be a legal requirement so would annual service.....
  14. Which would involve traffic officers rather than cameras (NO, DON'T START THAT TOPIC!).

    However the new computerised MOT certificate allegedly* means that a Reg No recognition camera can link into DVLA to check MOT status. And ABI for insurance status. Of course it still requires a copper to go and physically stop the pikey scum.

    *Allegedly because the whole system went tits up for a bit shortly after launch and garages had to back to the manual certs. And it's a Govt IT system which as we all know are procured on time, under budget and work as intended. Meep.
  15. Breathe deeply, C_S, and breathe....... :lol: