lumuah Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8441028/MoTs-every-two-years-under-proposed-changes-to-system.html Seems like a good idea to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 50% of MOT testing stations will be done for - or the price will double. Also when it fails there will be twice the work to be done and not many will budget for it. They'll bottle it and leave the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 Just buy a brand new car every three years. Sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 Just buy a brand new car every three years. Sorted. Or effectively 'lease/rent' one as most do. Two years makes sense from a safety point of view, but what about cars over ten years old, technological advances or not there will be some real wrecks surviving and soldiering on under these new measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 (edited) The vast majority of drivers don't look after their cars as it is, how many even know where to check the oil or screenwash, brake fluid etc on their current car? The mentality is to put fuel in it until it breaks, or only take it to the garage at MOT time. Make that every 2 years and the number of unroadworthy cars driving around will shoot up. Even the article says; ''The MoT test costs just over £50 but it can easily increase to £200 or more with tyre replacement and repairs for wear and tear, such as brake discs. The proliferation of potholes caused by the recent cold winters can also sharply raise the cost of MoTs though the damage they cause to suspension systems. '' Imagine all that damage done in a year, but you only find out about it twice as bad at MOT time. Your wife or children going round in cars that could potentially be deemed unsafe because they didn't think they needed to do any maintenance for 2 years instead of one. Scary thought. Edited 10 April, 2011 by gaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 There are enough crap cars on the road without this clearly mad idea. You only have to drive in places without an annual test (eg South Africa) to appreciate why we need it. I wonder if Saint David (MOT Expert) will raise his head on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 10 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 April, 2011 Or effectively 'lease/rent' one as most do. Two years makes sense from a safety point of view, but what about cars over ten years old, technological advances or not there will be some real wrecks surviving and soldiering on under these new measures. The article does say there are a number of proposals, all of which after the 6-8 year point would be back on annual inspection. I think it is reasonable that newer cars don't need quite as much in the way of MoTs as they need to be maintained at the correct intervals to maintain the warranty. This maintainance would be more thorough than the MoT anyway, and if a fault is found it is fixed. Only an idiot would buy a car and not want to keep the warranty valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 April, 2011 Share Posted 10 April, 2011 Stupid idea, most cars fail on one thing after 12 months so are we going to let them get into a worse state by only testing every two years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 11 April, 2011 Share Posted 11 April, 2011 If all motorists were responsible and ensured their car was looked after and maintained (as i do) this would be fine. Sadly not all motorists do look after and maintain their vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 12 April, 2011 Share Posted 12 April, 2011 Good idea. Have a MOT at 3yo, 5yo, 7yo and 9yo and then every year after that for cars 10 years and older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 12 April, 2011 Share Posted 12 April, 2011 Stupid idea, most cars fail on one thing after 12 months so are we going to let them get into a worse state by only testing every two years? My car is now 11 years old. It has failed once, and I did actually spot it the day before the test, as there was a small oil leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 12 April, 2011 Share Posted 12 April, 2011 When you see some of the states out on the road I'm glad they order an MOT every year. What some people try to get away with is unbelievable. Some people do not have the common sense to be able to keep their vehicle in a road worthy condition for 2 years. Think this is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 12 April, 2011 Share Posted 12 April, 2011 But the law still states that if your car is unroadworthy, then you are breaking the law regardless of whether you have a current MOT. As we seem to be taking more traffic police off the roads, then I guess that in hindsight it might be a bad thing in practice, although good in theory. The other thing to take into account is that modern cars are designed so much better than old ones. Another thing...as more manufacturers are offering 5 year warranties (and some 7 or 10 year ones), then in order to keep your warranty (which I imagine nearly 100% of people do) you have to have it serviced properly/regularly. While there is no compunction to get any repair done, I imagine most people would. Whatever happens, I still think that cars 10+ years old should be MOT'd annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handyman Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Stupid idea, most cars fail on one thing after 12 months so are we going to let them get into a worse state by only testing every two years? Four years ago the M O T examiner told me that our Corsa needed a new clutch,(he was unaware that I had been a motor mechanic longer than he had been alive) Four years later that clutch is still going strong. Don't believe everything that you are told, they may be fishing for unnecessary work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 8 May, 2011 Share Posted 8 May, 2011 Although not a trained mechanic, i know my way around a car, my mechanic is 100% honest (he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge). I do agree that some may try it on but that's only a small percentage; let's not get all Daily Mail paranoid about it!! Its hard for garages to get it right 100% of the time, there is currently an argument raging on a forum i'm a member of between a highly recommended specialist and an enthusiast. The specialist is used to dealing with people who look after their cars and want things replaced that show wear rather than waiting until the part fails, whilst the enthusiast is complaining that he advised the replacement of a 'weeping' shock absorber stating it had loads of life left in it; who's in the wrong? A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing! As for the 2 year MOT i honestly fail to see how it can improve things, i see plenty of cars drive around for months with broken bulbs simply because the owner never checks, at least with the current 1 year system it's caught occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handyman Posted 9 May, 2011 Share Posted 9 May, 2011 Although not a trained mechanic, i know my way around a car, my mechanic is 100% honest (he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge). I do agree that some may try it on but that's only a small percentage; let's not get all Daily Mail paranoid about it!! Its hard for garages to get it right 100% of the time, there is currently an argument raging on a forum i'm a member of between a highly recommended specialist and an enthusiast. The specialist is used to dealing with people who look after their cars and want things replaced that show wear rather than waiting until the part fails, whilst the enthusiast is complaining that he advised the replacement of a 'weeping' shock absorber stating it had loads of life left in it; who's in the wrong? A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing! As for the 2 year MOT i honestly fail to see how it can improve things, i see plenty of cars drive around for months with broken bulbs simply because the owner never checks, at least with the current 1 year system it's caught occasionally. A weeping shock absorber is an M O T failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 12 May, 2011 Share Posted 12 May, 2011 A weeping shock absorber is an M O T failure. That's what i thought, the 'enthusiast' is arguing the toss between weeping and misting!! Apparently he is under the impression that if it's not big enough to cause a drip it will pass an MOT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 13 May, 2011 Share Posted 13 May, 2011 Here in NZ even a brand new car must be tested before it is allowed on the road. Cars etc have to be tested every year until they get to seven and then they have to be tested every six months. Even stranger is the fact that you do not need to insure your vehicle for 3rd party damage. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 13 May, 2011 Share Posted 13 May, 2011 Here in NZ even a brand new car must be tested before it is allowed on the road. Cars etc have to be tested every year until they get to seven and then they have to be tested every six months. Even stranger is the fact that you do not need to insure your vehicle for 3rd party damage. . Bizzare. You don't exactly see cars with wheels flying off or anything like that over here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handyman Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 That's what i thought, the 'enthusiast' is arguing the toss between weeping and misting!! Apparently he is under the impression that if it's not big enough to cause a drip it will pass an MOT??? As far as I'm aware, any leak at all is a failure. the extent of a leak doesn't come into it. If it leaks at all, then the seals are going or gone and/or there is wear in the shaft (plunger). The shock absorber is scrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now