MOT's every 2 years??????????

[ioweddie]

Not sure I agree with the idea of MOT's every 2 years.....what do you Guys think

 

[rorywquin]

I like it, only because I keep my car roadworthy without needing a MOT and find an annual MOT a waste of time and money.

However there are the idiots that will run their cars on bald tyres, worn brakes, shocks etc. Does an annual MOT prevent that?

There are the “friendly” MOT shops and guys swapping wheels with a mate to pass MOT and doing it every 2 years will not change that.

 

[M80]

From a personal view it will save me time and dosh,
but I am mechanically minded.
On saying that Mrs Me's Gr Cherokee used to have issue each year with binding brakes so they required attention. It might be said that that isn't unsafe though.
But even those with good knowledge can miss rotting brake pipes, broken springs or an exhaust bouncing on it's decayed rubbers.

But there are many that just assume their car is road worthy. It may be that their mileage is the school run, shopping, visiting locally. There are those that can't afford the ongoing maintenance. They, assuming they will MOT, should be caused to improve the safety of their motor, or remove it from the road.

Only more police presence or VOSA check points will deter the serial dodgers.

I think the varied emissions allowances are v wrong but otherwise the MOT is the only policing of vehicles standards we have. Keep as is.

 

[rorywquin]

..................
But even those with good knowledge can miss rotting brake pipes, broken springs or an exhaust bouncing on it's decayed rubbers.

...........

I guess that if that happened the day after a MOT and had 2 years to fester before the next MOT it would be a problem for 2 years instead of 1 year. ............However as you said there are the serial dodgers.

What I don’t understand is how people get away with removal of catalytic converters and DPF on diesels.

I’m not really familar with teh MOT process and wonder about the line of accountability.

I get my car MOT done today and tomorrow my brakes fail because of rusted pipes, accident etc etc. Do the authorities check the MOT and then go back to the company that did the MOT? Who is liable if the car “passes” a MOT and then (within days) there is a death because something that “passed” the MOT failed?

 

[C16RKC]

I think it should stay in place.

As someone above said, the majority of people only get something fixed it if comes up in the MOT; if you are lucky they fix things raised in a service.

However, as someone who does always get their car fixed, I hate MOT time. It's the day some gorilla climbs all over your car, kneeling on the seats (potentially damaging the heated seat elements) and generally rushing around it to find faults while occasionally causing scuffs and mucky fingerprints in the process. It's nearly as bad as taking your car to the garage, when a similar thing happens; but at least they do not kneel on your seats!

 

[EmilysDad]

Keep it every 12 months. I don't really agree that some 'historical cars are MOT exempt. Another pair of beady eyes looking at your car once a year is no bad thing.

 

[A.J.]

That is a bluddy dangerous thing to consider. We have enough unsafe junk being driven around our streets now without giving them license to allow their junk to deteriorate even further. It would be a huge NO from me

 

[C16RKC]

Seems to me there is plenty of non-essential expenditure going on that would be better targetted. How about they stop all non-essential road works (i.e. changes to road layouts etc.) and just do repairs (pot holes etc). How about they end all government subsidies to the rail?... but at the same time they need to take away "union" powers so that the rail can stop paying union pressure inflated wages to their staff.

How about they stop all cosmetic surgery/operations on the NHS and instead when people say "I'll top myself if I do not have surgery" give them counselling and teach them to be happy with who they were born as. I'd include cosmetic dental work in this too, as many people have braces where it's not urgently needed.

I'd go on... but I might end up offending someone....

 

[keefysher]

Hmmm this idiocy is the nasty party's response to the cost of living crisis to save hard working people money, nothing to do with safety. So that's a saving of £30 over 2 years. Doesn't cover this months increase in NI.

MrsP car in for MoT on Tuesday. Increase in fuel per tank fill is more than £30 in the last 2 months.

Poll tax went up by 3.9% this month.

Lots of cost increases beyond MoT hard working people are facing

 

[ajlsl600]

Not sure I agree with the idea of MOT's every 2 years.....what do you Guys think

It's been that way in France for at least 16yr
I do an annual wheels, covers off inspection on all my kit and oil, filter change regardless of miles.. Never walked, or failed an mot in near 40 yr

 

[Altamar]

I always fix immediately any defect of which I am aware but I am still grateful for MOTs showing up anything truly dangerous of which I am not aware. I would definitely be against a two year gap not least because there are so many cars which don't visit a garage until they are forced to by the MOT process.

Having said that, I think some of the things which have crept into the MOT check aren't really safety related so I would rather they do an evidence based review of what is checked. For example. a light saying ABS is not working is a fail but what about all those older cars which never had ABS? My view would be as long as the brakes themselves work it should pass, with the warning light being just that - a warning to the driver.

 

[coxyhog]

Not sure it's the same now but when we lived on the Isle of Man in 97-98 there was no MOT.Now I know it's not a very big place but those cars came over on ferries and drove quite legally on motorways etc.
There were a lot of wrecks on the roads.

 

[charlysays]

I think it should stay in place.

As someone above said, the majority of people only get something fixed it if comes up in the MOT; if you are lucky they fix things raised in a service.

However, as someone who does always get their car fixed, I hate MOT time. It's the day some gorilla climbs all over your car, kneeling on the seats (potentially damaging the heated seat elements) and generally rushing around it to find faults while occasionally causing scuffs and mucky fingerprints in the process. It's nearly as bad as taking your car to the garage, when a similar thing happens; but at least they do not kneel on your seats!

I know what you mean. I never really bothered about it until the most recent MOT on my W202. I had the car off the road a lot since September doing a full respray. I also removed the rear subframe and fuel tanks, full prepped and painted the underside with epoxy mastic, blasted the subframe and antiroll bar and painted those with epoxy too and replaced all the suspension arms... so I was not pleased to see the MOT guy wanting to lever at stuff which would set in train corrosion all over again. Thankfully epoxy mastic is no match for their toffee hammer corrosion tool but levering with a pry bar could easily damage my hard earned paint job under there.

 

[flowrider]

Maybe MOT's could be based on mileage. My SL has averaged less than 1k miles pa over the last 5 years, last year it did 179 miles between MOT's. Why am I having to MOT my car annually at such low mileages.

 

[A.J.]

If at all something like this is ever implemented surely a two tier system by age would be more appropriate. Say two years up to six years old and twelve months after that. I still think it is a bonkers idea though

 

[C16RKC]

Maybe MOT's could be based on mileage. My SL has averaged less than 1k miles pa over the last 5 years, last year it did 179 miles between MOT's. Why am I having to MOT my car annually at such low mileages.

This is a great idea - how about an MOT every 10,000 miles, or 1 year, which ever is the longer period, then say up to a maximum of 3 years between MOTs.

But then also MOT "historic cars". I can understand them being excused from Tax, but not doing an MOT on those is bonkers in my opinion.

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

As above not a good idea and certainly not an answer to the rabid inflation we are all set to experience but it goes well with the Tory mantra of all live lane running motorways whatever next bungy jumping from Big Ben anything to create a distraction from what’s really going on in the U.K.

 

[Blobcat]

Maybe MOT's could be based on mileage. My SL has averaged less than 1k miles pa over the last 5 years, last year it did 179 miles between MOT's. Why am I having to MOT my car annually at such low mileages.

Cars don’t just deteriorate because they’re driven… put a car in a damp garage over the winter is a great way for it to rust away.

 

[A.J.]

This must be another lunatic idea from Grant Shapps who has no idea what life is really about. We have already got Cyclists taking priority over tested, taxed and insured drivers, what will he come up with next

 

[ajlsl600]

I always fix immediately any defect of which I am aware but I am still grateful for MOTs showing up anything truly dangerous of which I am not aware. I would definitely be against a two year gap not least because there are so many cars which don't visit a garage until they are forced to by the MOT process.

Having said that, I think some of the things which have crept into the MOT check aren't really safety related so I would rather they do an evidence based review of what is checked. For example. a light saying ABS is not working is a fail but what about all those older cars which never had ABS? My view would be as long as the brakes themselves work it should pass, with the warning light being just that - a warning to the driver.

I have no. Prob with 2 yr mot. Price will double and the legal requirement is at time day of inspection it's OK. 30 second after another story. Mot inspectors not permitted to remove covers so in reality test is wot can see. And not much else except emissions shite . Metered