Proposed changes to make MOTs fit for the future
Views sought on options to improve MOT testing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
first MOT extension....maybe
- Thread starter Mr H
- Start date
The driver is always legally responsible to ensure the car is roadworthy, regardless of MOT.
An education campaign followed by better enforcement might be better than simply a once yearly "catch". It worked rather well for seatbelts.
A high number of failures could suggest the current system doesn't work, a failure means the car may not have been roadworthy for the previous 364 days. An MOT doesn't even mean the car is roadworthy the following day.
I have always felt the MOT was invented because there was nothing better anyone could think of at the time. All these years later, there must be a better solution.
An education campaign followed by better enforcement might be better than simply a once yearly "catch". It worked rather well for seatbelts.
A high number of failures could suggest the current system doesn't work, a failure means the car may not have been roadworthy for the previous 364 days. An MOT doesn't even mean the car is roadworthy the following day.
I have always felt the MOT was invented because there was nothing better anyone could think of at the time. All these years later, there must be a better solution.
Last edited:
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
How about a bit of AI in the car that determines if it is roadworthy or not?
I'll get my coat ...
MrBadger
Badger out
'most new vehicles' pass the first MOT test at 3 years might also mean 51% of cars pass their first MOT test.
As it happens, two reputable sources have done freedom of information requests. Just over 10 years ago, IAM showed that over 1 in 5 cars fail their first MOT test and more recently, WhatCar have shown that for some common makes and models, the failure rate can be ~15%. So if you are on a motorway, the chances of one of the less than 3 year old vehicles around you not being in a road worthy condition will be pretty high.
Another advantage of an early MOT is that any caused by a manufacturing defect will likely be within warranty period.
Unfortunately not all defects are easy to spot/measure. Things like non working electrics/fittings are obvious, but those from wear and tear such as tyres are less likely to be picked up unless 'serviced'/inspected regularly and items such as emissions are nigh on impossible to spot by the normal motorist and even during a service/inspection unless specifically tested for. As mentioned recently elsewhere, many 'services' are little more than a cursory visual inspection (with a view to prove) and nothing even vaguely important tested. I say this from experience, where my car failed its first MOT due to a braking defect present from new - I thought it was just poor brakes on this particular make/model of vehicle, but it wasn't until it was 'independently' tested as part of its first MOT that this defect came to light, and thankfully, just within the 3 year warranty as it took attempts at a brake rebuild to fix - one using existing parts, one having to use a new part. All for a less than 3 year old car that had been dealer services according to the manufacturers service schedule. First thing I did when car was out of warranty/service plan was to get a full independent service.
There are lots if things in life that are assessed at a point in time. MOT is just one of many. Sounds like the article is trying to apply a 3 or 4 year MOT and using a binary as safe, less safe decision on it. If one in 5 cars fail an MOT at the 3 year MOT, I would like to see the numbers on how they get to the 'should not impact road safety'. I think the truth is that it will impact road safety, but are not prepared to put a non binary figure on it.
Pedantic speculation….. The Department of transport hold the data and they don’t have a vested interest to increase (quite the opposite) even if it was 51% they know what the remaining 49% have failed on which is probably bulbs, Tyres and other “minor” stuff that should be rectified as soon as NOT wait until it fails the MOT to do it which is nothing new.
MrBadger
Badger out
The data came from the horses mouth - the DfT via a freedom of information disclosure. And DfT will play the risk vs cost game as much as anyone else, just look at smart motorways as an example.
Likewise, somehow this sounds like people wait until their MOT to fix things. They don't. They fix things that need it as an when, irrespective of when the MOT is due. What the MOT does is reveal things in addition to the above, that 99.999% of ordinary motorists may not be aware of even if a car is fully serviced. An MOT is a red flag that can take an unroadworthy vehicle off the road, or highlight a pending problem that can be rectified before it becomes a problem.
Your making this a binary choice. Like many things in life, its not. Yes, there are potentially better ways to do it, but that doesn't mean that the current way needs to be replaced. Its not a mutually exclusive decision, MOT OR something else. Nothing to stop having an MOT AND something else.
Although nothing in my words said it was binary, whatever replaces it eventually may indeed pull some existing processes within it.
I'd like to see attitudes change that's it's not about "getting the car through an MOT" once a year and then neglecting the car outside of that. The current system is open to abuse. A faulty rear seatbelt can pass an MOT by borrowing a child seat to temporary fit.
I wonder how many cars would fail an MOT a few days after passing one.
I agree. However, you are now being intentionally channeled into a different avenue as to make someones ends meet. The debate/consultation originating from the DOT is on about progressively 3-4 year old cars which 1- are built to stricter regulations 2- EV's (excluding milk floats!).
The first Mot was introduced in 1960 with the first mot being after 10 years! so this an ongoing assessment.
Personally, I dont see the logic where classic cars dont need one (although from reading most owners do it) but that is yet again another topic irrelevant to here (unless the forum opens the Pub
).I agree. However, you are now being intentionally channeled into a different avenue as to make someones ends meet. The debate/consultation originating from the DOT is on about progressively 3-4 year old cars which 1- are built to stricter regulations 2- EV's (excluding milk floats!).
The first Mot was introduced in 1960 with the first mot being after 10 years! so this an ongoing assessment.
Personally, I dont see the logic where classic cars dont need one (although from reading most owners do it) but that is yet again another topic irrelevant to here (unless the forum opens the Pub
There is a whole extra section of questions in this consultation about the future and invites alternative options and ideas for change. For example, you are free to express what the future should be for vintage cars (remembering that some cars of today will be vintage in the future).
I know, I've already completed all of it.
