MOT at 4 years ? Safe or Dangerous ?

[Thrustyjust]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708925

From when cars pre 60's are now exempt from MOT and now 4 years for the first MOT, not sure this is a wise thing to do. Plenty of cars do hyper mileage and some poor repair shops post accident repairs means the potential of more dangerous cars being kept on the road. MOT will mainly pick out the worst , as the Police wont look any further than the tyres if they stop them. Dont believe this is a good move. Discuss.......................

[Captain Colonial]

Why is it necessary to change at all?  Have people been complying that three years is too soon?  If they have, I must have missed it.  At average annual mileage, a car currently gets checked after it hits about 37,500 miles, by which time many people need to have their brake pads and tyres checked anyway.  Leave well enough alone at three years.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

Leave it alone. The amount of people who have zero or very little knowledge about checking the basic serviceability  of their cars is frightening.

A woman at the school run the other day in a range rover sport was quite put out when I pointed out the canvass showing on 2 of the tyres as she picked up her kids. To level off the argument a mate brought his car round late last year as his front brakes were 'squeeling' a bit. No friction material left and the backing plates were cutting some lovely troughs in the discs. Even my own stepson didn't notice a spring broken in half on his twingo. 

Leave it at 3 or better still make it milage related aswell.

[Thrustyjust]

Same here Steve. The girls got their hair cut yesterday and the hairdresser comes to the house. Her front tyres were below the legal minimum, but they were better than what she had on her old car . I just said to the wife , she needs to learn a lesson and get caught. Its not that she wont change them, she just doesnt think she needs to look at them. One of our engineers has a real issue with checking his van. Twice, when the vans are going back, we have had to get new tyres as they were dangerous. I asked him how often he checks his tyres , his answer was ' er, when it gets serviced, the garage check them' Bear in mind his vehicle goes back at 3 years old, means it doesnt go for an MOT ........

[Ian Kinder (Bagpuss) - Joint Peak District AO]

18 minutes ago, Thrustyjust said:

Same here Steve. The girls got their hair cut yesterday and the hairdresser comes to the house. Her front tyres were below the legal minimum, but they were better than what she had on her old car . I just said to the wife , she needs to learn a lesson and get caught. Its not that she wont change them, she just doesnt think she needs to look at them. One of our engineers has a real issue with checking his van. Twice, when the vans are going back, we have had to get new tyres as they were dangerous. I asked him how often he checks his tyres , his answer was ' er, when it gets serviced, the garage check them' Bear in mind his vehicle goes back at 3 years old, means it doesnt go for an MOT ........

His view may change if he gets a pull and 3 points+ fine for each slick! My company car policy requires tyres to be checked weekly.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I agree with leaving it alone if only because a number of MoT testing stations could well be on the margins of profitability anyway. Anything that tempts them to invent work to stay afloat is a bad thing in my view. There was a move to make the test biennial a few years ago, but the Ministry saw sense in the end and kept it annual. Two years interval would have been deadlier than a four years start.

[Thrustyjust]

17 minutes ago, IanK said:

His view may change if he gets a pull and 3 points+ fine for each slick! My company car policy requires tyres to be checked weekly.

I keep banging on about having weekly vehicle checks, but it falls on deaf ears. It may have prevented his engine failure too from no engine oil . Ive said to him about thinking of others while driving by making sure his vehicle is safe. Same as the hairdresser, sometimes you wish people got pulled and punished , but lack of visual policing is only going to get less as time goes on.

[XTR2Turbo]

I would be interested to see some stats on MOT failure rates and causes.

I don't think that the MOT should be there to catch people who have worn tyres as there is no excuse for anyone checking their own tyres and the law is there already to punish them if illegal.  I would rather more random roadside checks for this rather than MOT.

The MOT should be about picking up on corrosion and less obvious wear and tear.

I would be quite happy if it was initially after 4 years subject to car not exceeding 40,000 miles and then every 2 years or 20,000 miles whichever comes sooner.

I don't agree with the exemption for older cars. 

David

 

[John K]

OK, problem here is we come from a different place than the general public.

We all have cars over and above the daily driver that teach us that cars are living breathing things and without regular attention and fettling they get sick and will let you down or worse hurt you.

But... because cars are now so reliable, they are viewed by most folk as 'white goods' or a TV. They arrive, you use them until its time to upgrade or and then you move on. Would they check on the welfare of their washing machine? (and before you say anything I do, spin the drum by hand to check its smooth, check the filter, use anti scale tabs etc).

The long warranties are IMHO to blame. Creates a "I've got a 7 year warranty, so I first need to check my car in 7 years" attitude...

I check my tires, wipers and bulbs etc on the DDs weekly. And I'm fairly sure all of us can't help looking at folks tires in the Tesco car park and lord I've seen some shockers.

So we wouldn't see a problem with an annual test (not for our benefit, but for the muppets we have to share the road with), but most folk (the muppets) would simply think "why on earth do we need that, the cars got a 7 year warranty"

And face it, if folk manage to miss-fuel their cars so often you can get specific insurance for it, what hope do we have they will check anything...

[Thrustyjust]

The latest wife was considering a DD pop along car. She had a liking for the Fiat 500. ( dont worry I cured that) But looking at 3 year old cars with 20k on the clock with MOT advisories and failures was a real eye opener on many cars ( thank god for the DVLA MOT website !!) , to the point we shunned ever thinking about on. Yes, they 'share' the same platform as the KA , but I wouldnt expect balljoints, wishbones, rear springs and exhausts to be a failure on a 3 year old car. Now, lets extend it to 4 years and see what happens to those potential advisories becoming deadly. As John above says, we fettle cars , but Joe Average just gets in and uses it , without any thought. I have just been out the front of the house and found a few stones in the daughters car tyres, so picked the all out........................

[SootySport]

New cars are more reliable but tyres and windscreen wipers can still wear out very quickly depending how they are looked after.   Tyres, wipers and front suspension components are the  most common reasons to go on a failure sheet and mostly due to the state of the roads.   

   I know lots of drivers that do not check their car at all in between the MOT tests, they leave any checks to the MOT tester and have everything fixed just to pass the test.   Leave the MOT tests as they are.

[DonPeffers]

Strange thing MOTs.  Northern Ireland starts at 4 years from new and Queensland, Australia only requires a safety check when car sold--other Oz states vary 3 to 7 years. See https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/australia/transport/vehicle-ownership/vehicle-inspection

I think half the states of the USA only require a safety check upon re-sale also.

From a personal point of view I would love to have 4 years to first MOT but as the highest failures relate to lighting, suspension and brakes clearly most of the public don't check their cars very often. 

IIRC there was case of a French car which failed on corroded brake pipes at its first MOT at 3 years old so in freezing, salty roads Britain maybe 3 years is about right.

[Lawrie]

Modern cars are more reliable, but modern people aren't.  End of story.  Sad really

[jeff oakley]

Having been an mot tester in the past, this is a stupid idea. Almost as stupid as saying cars that are over a certain age no longer need an MOT.

There has been a lot of lobbying done to bring it into line with the EU in many areas but there are stats that show many cars do fail on the first MOT. The majority are simple fails, which makes them worse as the owners clearly do no maintenance at all, the rest are failing on ball joints brakes many which are lack of servicing but remember, I like many drive 50k a year so my three year old car is 150k minimum, our vans are 2-300k at the same age.

We should leave it alone as it works in the main.

[Grizzlee]

On 22/01/2017 at 12:57, John K said:

But... because cars are now so reliable, they are viewed by most folk as 'white goods' or a TV. They arrive, you use them until its time to upgrade or and then you move on. Would they check on the welfare of their washing machine? (and before you say anything I do, spin the drum by hand to check its smooth, check the filter, use anti scale tabs etc).

 

Somehow I knew you would