safety testing - the "MoT test"

General discussion focusing mainly on the cars and the Scirocco Register - other stuff within reason.

Moderator:Scirocco Register

Forum rules
This is a GENERAL discussion area - we have set up specific areas for eg technical queries, model specific issues etc etc to help you get the right answer quicker.

2 year testing...? select the 1 option you think is most important

will save motorists money
1
4%
will cost motorists more money
2
7%
will make roads safer
0
No votes
will make roads much more dangerous
24
86%
make no difference
1
4%
 
Total votes: 28

Nate
Posts:4045
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:37 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Cirencester / Swindon
safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Nate » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:22 am

once a year we have to have our cars tested. it costs us around £50 (less if we know a "tame" garage) and while i'm sure many of us dread the "moment of truth", we can at least see the sense in it.

there are rumours flying around about the frequency of the safety testing for cars in the uk changing from the current format (first test at 3 years old, then every year after, also known as 3-1-1) to cars being tested for the first time at 4 years old and then every other year from then on (4-2-2)

so a transit being used by a courier driver could easily have 500k+ on the clock by the time it went in for it's first safety test. similarly, a typical family car could easily have done well in excess of 100k with no safety inspection.

surely this can't be a good idea? i'm curious what yous lot think


Image

Check out my photostream on Flickr
'69 bay, '79 bay, '74 bug, '78 GLS, '91 GT2, '10 SAAB 9-3

Village Idiots
Posts:512
Joined:Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:33 am
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Ribble Valley, Lancashire

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Village Idiots » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:35 am

Logically then, testing intervals should be based on mileage?



Nate
Posts:4045
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:37 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Cirencester / Swindon

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Nate » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:13 am

Village Idiots wrote:Logically then, testing intervals should be based on mileage?
yes, i can see a strong arguement for it. that or test by operating hours (modern stuff records this already) which would allow for the difference between lots of motorway miles and round town driving


Image

Check out my photostream on Flickr
'69 bay, '79 bay, '74 bug, '78 GLS, '91 GT2, '10 SAAB 9-3

User avatar
Tempest
Posts:503
Joined:Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:08 am

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Tempest » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:17 am

Interesting side note that I came across in this month's German AA magazine: Germany is looking at implementing a potentially up and coming EU directive, whereby the EU may very well want annual inspections. Now go figure.

One day we hear it's going to be 2 year intervals, the next the EU are looking at 1-year intervals.

Guess we will have to wait and see, as it's all dependent on who can lobby hardest, and one thing is for sure, it won't be us poor motorists/car enthusiasts. there are far more powerful people with far more vested interests out there.

Tempest


My Mk1 Rocco, Rado and 928
Corrado Club of GB Events Manager

User avatar
MRMENDER
Posts:692
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:55 am
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Bangor N Wales

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by MRMENDER » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:25 am

Tempest wrote: Guess we will have to wait and see, as it's all dependent on who can lobby hardest, and one thing is for sure, it won't be us poor motorists/car enthusiasts. there are far more powerful people with far more vested interests out there.

Tempest
So true Eric



Nate
Posts:4045
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:37 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Cirencester / Swindon

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Nate » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:18 am

Tempest wrote:it won't be us poor motorists
only because the average motorist is way too lazy. as an example, only 1 vote cast on the poll so far...


Image

Check out my photostream on Flickr
'69 bay, '79 bay, '74 bug, '78 GLS, '91 GT2, '10 SAAB 9-3

Old Mac Rocco
Posts:737
Joined:Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:23 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:West of Glasgow

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Old Mac Rocco » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:21 pm

I think that a two year gap between tests will make the roads MORE dangerous.
I would love to only pay for an MoT every two years but the chances of this happening are very slim.
Garages would go out of business as their income would be cut in half.
Many rely on the MoT and the "necessary repairs" they manage to find.
One garage in our area is offering a MoT for £9.99 ??????????
The number of accidents would increase due to poor maintenance.
We already run the gauntlet of uninsured drivers so why keep a unsafe car on the road for another year when it could be found earlier.
And without being sexist how many lady drivers know about the mechanics of a car and only find out they have "a problem" when it gets it's MoT ??????? Sorry ladies.
I would like to see Status Quo on this poll , better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
Thanks for giving me the chance to have a rant.
:bye:


A heart broken GLI - R.I.P. A loveable GT. A practical Polo now deceased.

mr.brown
Posts:1482
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:13 pm
fill in the right answer:15
Location:Surrey

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by mr.brown » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:29 pm

Nate wrote: only because the average motorist is way too lazy. as an example, only 1 vote cast on the poll so far...
Maybe if you changed the thread title to reflect what's in the post? "MOT tests every 2 years - what's your opinion?" for example.

I can't see how it could ever be considered a good thing. Personally, I don't even think new cars should be exempt - over here ALL cars are tested every year. But maybe that's just a reflection on how poorly they believe they build their own cars :hugegrin:



Tim_R
Posts:590
Joined:Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:03 am
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Northamptonshire

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Tim_R » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:34 pm

Knowing the number of people in my office who's attitude to car maintenance is to wait for the MOT tester to point out a problem, be it lights, tyre tread depth or brake pads or whatever else the thought scares me somewhat. They see the MOT as the only time their cars need to be checked and believe it will continue to be safe to drive no matter what.

As an example there was a Corsa in the car park last month with a front tyre worn down to canvas. Imagine that being driven on a dark wet motorway and trying to stop that from 70 to say nothing of the risk of a blowout as well!


Scirocco GTII 2L 16V
Mk2 Golf Gti 8v
Saab 9-3 Aero - Dead
T4 Transporter 2.4D LWB

User avatar
scrumpyone
Posts:434
Joined:Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:32 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Castle Cary, Somerset

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by scrumpyone » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:52 pm

Old Mac Rocco wrote:I would like to see Status Quo on this poll
Whatever you want :chortle:


Dave

Register No:1110
'79 MK1 GLS (R.I.P.)
'91 MK2 GT2 (alive & kicking)

PeteGLi
Posts:908
Joined:Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:37 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Essex

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by PeteGLi » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:54 pm

mr.brown wrote: .... But maybe that's just a reflection on how poorly they believe they build their own cars :hugegrin:
or because they sue each other for millions over the most minor problem :yup:



User avatar
Ryan
Posts:931
Joined:Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:28 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:South of Salop

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Ryan » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:47 am

Old Mac Rocco wrote:And without being sexist how many lady drivers know about the mechanics of a car and only find out they have "a problem" when it gets it's MoT ??????? Sorry ladies.
I'd be pretty confident to say that you could drop the "lady" from that statement.
I consider myself to be failry aware of what's going on with the cars I drive, but found that my front tyre was well down on pressure this morning before I got in the car, and this was after a spirited drive back home last night through some twisty's when all seemed fine...

I'm for keeping it as it is - 12 months is a long time on some advisories that won't get any attention....24 months may be too long


Image
Octavia elegance kombi TDI

User avatar
whiteshark
Posts:471
Joined:Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:15 pm
fill in the right answer:10
Location:Belfast

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by whiteshark » Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:56 pm

MOT should be based on Mileage and so should Tax, especially cars on a limited mileage policy. My mother has a 1.4 Polo S that is around 10 years old, still looks mint and has less than 30, 000 miles as she uses it to go to the shops, yet this car has had at least 5 MOT's. In comparison sales drivers can clock up ridiculous mileage and have no test for three years. With a recession on I'm sure fleet managers are told from the top to save money. I have no problem with the MOT every year. In N.Ireland they are very stringent, but at the same time, you can query any problem and normally the tester will take you over and show you where the fault is if you ask them. The last test on my wifes Volvo spotted splits in the brake hoses that were quite serious. I missed them and so did my mechanic. If I met that tester again I'd buy him a pint, as these were not obvious. How can you put a price on your own safety and the safety of others. For the sake of no more than an hour and an independent person giving your car the once over what the hell. Oka, sometimes its a pain in the arse and you fail for something silly, but most of the times the guys at the test centre are fairly reasonable. MOT every two years, no thanks.



User avatar
Beddo88
Posts:397
Joined:Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Beddo88 » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:47 pm

Definately MORE dangerous. As has already been pointed out, how many people are naive about how safe their car actually is? There are so many warning lights, buzzers and service notices on modern cars that anyone not looking for a problem would likely not spot it until too late.

I remember seeing a program on TV (although I cant remember what it was) which listed something like a third of brand new cars would fail their MOT either at first test or prior to it where something has been picked up at a service for example. It's slightly worrying... buy older cars and everything that's likely to break will already have done so! This is my logic anyway!


Image

User avatar
Mr Funk
Posts:2131
Joined:Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:39 pm

Re: safety testing - the "MoT test"

Post by Mr Funk » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:35 am

Ooooh it's a sticky one.

Personally I think that a smaller yearly MOT as well as a mileage based test is needed.

For example:

For people that do small mileage there would still be an MOT. In my opinion it's still a good idea, it's all well and good saying that people do small mileage but as has already been pointed out drivers generally leave maintainence until the MOT. It's not just women, it's pretty much everyone. The elderly, ladies, men, teenagers, take your pick. This could be relaxed a little to reflect the mileage but to be honest when you start making different rules up you create more problems.

The mileage based test could well be an add on for high mileage vehicles. These cars get extra abuse so need extra care and many are works vehicles so should be maintained by the firm.

The problem is that the general public are going to whine whatever happens. Add an extra test and they'll claim it's a money grabbing excercise and that the "man" is just trying to keep a brother down.
I can see it from both points of view though. I do 20 to 30k a year in a company car so can definately see the need for an extra test but I also have the Bandit that does 3k a year. That still needs testing as I spend half the time ripping things off and putting them back on.

Saying all that though I do have rather odd views including the one that states that I think there should be a size of car/mileage banding on car tax.


Head of Complaints - Big Pie Cartel
If it sounds like it's naughty, it probably is.