"Insane" plan to switch to two-year MOT regime

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring journalist and TV
presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition Government's plan to
introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane, and a misguided political
gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car owners don't even check the oil,
let alone tyres or brakes, so such a folly would store up problems.

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that changing to
a two-year system would "increase deaths and serious injuries significantly".
Half the cars on UK roads are over six years old, so I'd call it a recipe
for disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie Townsend,
chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting families whose
lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are aghast that the
Government is considering such an appalling backwards step.

"We should be doing everything we can to stop people being killed and
injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so terribly, and to reduce
the economic burden of these casualties."


http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 29/10/2011 17:48, Simon Mason wrote:

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring journalist and TV
presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition Government's plan to
introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane, and a misguided political
gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car owners don't even check the oil, let
alone tyres or brakes, so such a folly would store up problems.

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that changing to a
two-year system would "increase deaths and serious injuries significantly".
Half the cars on UK roads are over six years old, so I'd call it a recipe for
disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie Townsend,
chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting families whose lives
are devastated by road death and injury, we are aghast that the Government is
considering such an appalling backwards step.
"We should be doing everything we can to stop people being killed and injured
on roads, to prevent families suffering so terribly, and to reduce the
economic burden of these casualties."

....though she produces no evidence to support her "case" (because it doesn't
exist and so isn't available) to show that changing the MOT regime will have
the slightest adverse effect on road safety.

http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

Lengthening the MOT test frequency to two years (and, one hopes, requiring
the first test at four years, or even five years, after first registration)
are common sense moves which simply reflect the enormous improvement in the
quality of build of motor cars and light vans since the testing regime was
first instituted in the late 1950s (for implementation in 1960).

The proposed change also recognises and acknowledges the much lower rate at
which vehicles rust away today, as compared with fifty years ago, as well as
higher maintenance standards.

The Constrruction and Use Regulations will still apply and those parts of is
subject to specific metric requirements (lighting, braking, tyres,
screen-cleaning equipment, etc) will still be subject to spot enforcement by
the police and DoT (if they can ever find a way to do it by camera, of course).

The change is overdue by at least ten years, and probably nearer twenty.

Of course it will make life (slightly) easier and (slightly) less expensive
for the motor vehicle owner-driver, which is why some nutters will
automatically oppose it (treat that on an "if the cap fits" basis) and why
certain vested interests will also have "misgivings" about it.

JNugent wrote:
On 29/10/2011 17:48, Simon Mason wrote:

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring journalist
and TV presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition Government's
plan to introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane, and a
misguided political gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car owners
don't even check the oil, let alone tyres or brakes, so such a folly
would store up problems.

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that
changing to a two-year system would "increase deaths and serious
injuries significantly". Half the cars on UK roads are over six
years old, so I'd call it a recipe for disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie
Townsend, chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting
families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are
aghast that the Government is considering such an appalling
backwards step. "We should be doing everything we can to stop people
being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so
terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties."

...though she produces no evidence to support her "case" (because it
doesn't exist and so isn't available) to show that changing the MOT
regime will have the slightest adverse effect on road safety.

http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

Lengthening the MOT test frequency to two years (and, one hopes,
requiring the first test at four years, or even five years, after first
registration) are common sense moves which simply reflect the
enormous improvement in the quality of build of motor cars and light
vans since the testing regime was first instituted in the late 1950s
(for implementation in 1960).
The proposed change also recognises and acknowledges the much lower
rate at which vehicles rust away today, as compared with fifty years
ago, as well as higher maintenance standards.

The Constrruction and Use Regulations will still apply and those
parts of is subject to specific metric requirements (lighting,
braking, tyres, screen-cleaning equipment, etc) will still be subject
to spot enforcement by the police and DoT (if they can ever find a
way to do it by camera, of course).
The change is overdue by at least ten years, and probably nearer
twenty.
Of course it will make life (slightly) easier and (slightly) less
expensive for the motor vehicle owner-driver, which is why some
nutters will automatically oppose it (treat that on an "if the cap
fits" basis) and why certain vested interests will also have
"misgivings" about it.

2 yearly mot will mean two yearly servicing. Many unserviced cars fail
their mot at present, 2 yearly would mean they drive round on bald tyres,
with no lights, no washers, worn out brakes etc. etc. for even longer. The
MoT is the most likely event to force many car owners into any form of
maintenance at all.

On 29/10/2011 21:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 29/10/2011 17:48, Simon Mason wrote:

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring journalist
and TV presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition Government's
plan to introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane, and a
misguided political gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car owners
don't even check the oil, let alone tyres or brakes, so such a folly
would store up problems.

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that
changing to a two-year system would "increase deaths and serious
injuries significantly". Half the cars on UK roads are over six
years old, so I'd call it a recipe for disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie
Townsend, chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting
families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are
aghast that the Government is considering such an appalling
backwards step. "We should be doing everything we can to stop people
being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so
terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties."

...though she produces no evidence to support her "case" (because it
doesn't exist and so isn't available) to show that changing the MOT
regime will have the slightest adverse effect on road safety.

http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

Lengthening the MOT test frequency to two years (and, one hopes,
requiring the first test at four years, or even five years, after first
registration) are common sense moves which simply reflect the
enormous improvement in the quality of build of motor cars and light
vans since the testing regime was first instituted in the late 1950s
(for implementation in 1960).
The proposed change also recognises and acknowledges the much lower
rate at which vehicles rust away today, as compared with fifty years
ago, as well as higher maintenance standards.

The Constrruction and Use Regulations will still apply and those
parts of is subject to specific metric requirements (lighting,
braking, tyres, screen-cleaning equipment, etc) will still be subject
to spot enforcement by the police and DoT (if they can ever find a
way to do it by camera, of course).
The change is overdue by at least ten years, and probably nearer
twenty.
Of course it will make life (slightly) easier and (slightly) less
expensive for the motor vehicle owner-driver, which is why some
nutters will automatically oppose it (treat that on an "if the cap
fits" basis) and why certain vested interests will also have
"misgivings" about it.

2 yearly mot will mean two yearly servicing.

No problem if it happens. Lots of cars *already* have two-year service
intervals. My wife has such a car (and she doesn't do the mileage which would
over-ride it). It's MOT one year and MOT+service the next.

Many unserviced cars fail
their mot at present, 2 yearly would mean they drive round on bald tyres,
with no lights, no washers, worn out brakes etc. etc. for even longer. The
MoT is the most likely event to force many car owners into any form of
maintenance at all.

Does the current MOT regime prevent the offences of using a motor vehicle
with deficient tyres, lights, steering, brakes etc, etc?

If it doesn't, why criticise a proposed change on the basis of a "fault"
which is a feature of the current system?

The only way to ensure proper compliance with the C&U Regs is for the police
to enforce them, whether the vehicle was MOTd yesterday or 23 months ago.

On 29/10/2011 18:37, JNugent wrote:

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

What is different about changing the air filter, oil filer, oil?
Or even spark plugs, brake parts, battery or exhaust?

(and why is this thread missing the SM post in u.t and u.r.d).

JNugent wrote:
On 29/10/2011 21:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 29/10/2011 17:48, Simon Mason wrote:

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring
journalist and TV presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition
Government's plan to introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane,
and a misguided political gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car
owners don't even check the oil, let alone tyres or brakes, so
such a folly would store up problems.

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that
changing to a two-year system would "increase deaths and serious
injuries significantly". Half the cars on UK roads are over six
years old, so I'd call it a recipe for disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie
Townsend, chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting
families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we
are aghast that the Government is considering such an appalling
backwards step. "We should be doing everything we can to stop
people being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families
suffering so terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these
casualties."

...though she produces no evidence to support her "case" (because it
doesn't exist and so isn't available) to show that changing the MOT
regime will have the slightest adverse effect on road safety.

http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

Lengthening the MOT test frequency to two years (and, one hopes,
requiring the first test at four years, or even five years, after
first registration) are common sense moves which simply reflect the
enormous improvement in the quality of build of motor cars and light
vans since the testing regime was first instituted in the late 1950s
(for implementation in 1960).
The proposed change also recognises and acknowledges the much lower
rate at which vehicles rust away today, as compared with fifty years
ago, as well as higher maintenance standards.

The Constrruction and Use Regulations will still apply and those
parts of is subject to specific metric requirements (lighting,
braking, tyres, screen-cleaning equipment, etc) will still be
subject to spot enforcement by the police and DoT (if they can ever
find a way to do it by camera, of course).
The change is overdue by at least ten years, and probably nearer
twenty.
Of course it will make life (slightly) easier and (slightly) less
expensive for the motor vehicle owner-driver, which is why some
nutters will automatically oppose it (treat that on an "if the cap
fits" basis) and why certain vested interests will also have
"misgivings" about it.

2 yearly mot will mean two yearly servicing.

No problem if it happens. Lots of cars *already* have two-year service
intervals. My wife has such a car (and she doesn't do the mileage
which would over-ride it). It's MOT one year and MOT+service the next.

Many unserviced cars fail
their mot at present, 2 yearly would mean they drive round on bald
tyres, with no lights, no washers, worn out brakes etc. etc. for
even longer. The MoT is the most likely event to force many car
owners into any form of maintenance at all.

Does the current MOT regime prevent the offences of using a motor
vehicle with deficient tyres, lights, steering, brakes etc, etc?

If it doesn't, why criticise a proposed change on the basis of a
"fault" which is a feature of the current system?

The only way to ensure proper compliance with the C&U Regs is for
the police to enforce them, whether the vehicle was MOTd yesterday or
23 months ago.

the police cannot enforce it, there are not enough of them and the court
system would clog up overnight. The average car owner does nothing except
drive UNLESS they are forced into it. Depending on the area a very high
proportion of cars fail on initial test, no test for two years would mean
they drive round for even longer with faults, many of which are really
dangerous faults such as faulty tyres, suspension faults and the like. At
present very few crashes are caused by faulty vehicle, do you think the
numbers would get better or worse if the MoT frequency was decreased, and
would more people or less suffer injury as a result? From the point of view
of the country half the mots would mean half the revenue from taxation of
30million mots and the income they generate.

"Mrcheerful" wrote:

The MoT is the most likely event to force many car owners into any form of
maintenance at all.

At the expense of the vast majority of owners who do maintain their vehicles.

Robert Neville wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

The MoT is the most likely event to force many car owners into any
form of maintenance at all.

At the expense of the vast majority of owners who do maintain their
vehicles.

if you looked at the total vehicle usage the majority do not maintain their
cars, and even the ones that do will benefit from an independent inspection.

JNugent wrote:
On 29/10/2011 17:48, Simon Mason wrote:

"Writing earlier this year in the Sunday Mirror, motoring journalist
and TV presenter Quentin Willson said of the Coalition Government's
plan to introduce two-yearly MOT tests: "It's insane, and a
misguided political gesture to 'help the motorist'. Most car owners
don't even check the oil, let alone tyres or brakes, so such a folly
would store up problems.

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

"Back in 2008, a Department for Transport report concluded that
changing to a two-year system would "increase deaths and serious
injuries significantly". Half the cars on UK roads are over six
years old, so I'd call it a recipe for disaster."

Commenting on the launch of the PRO-MOTE campaign this week, Julie
Townsend, chief executive of Brake, said: "As a charity supporting
families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are
aghast that the Government is considering such an appalling
backwards step. "We should be doing everything we can to stop people
being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so
terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties."

...though she produces no evidence to support her "case" (because it
doesn't exist and so isn't available) to show that changing the MOT
regime will have the slightest adverse effect on road safety.

http://road.cc/content/news/47090-ro...ear-mot-regime

Lengthening the MOT test frequency to two years (and, one hopes,
requiring the first test at four years, or even five years, after first
registration) are common sense moves which simply reflect the
enormous improvement in the quality of build of motor cars and light
vans since the testing regime was first instituted in the late 1950s
(for implementation in 1960).
The proposed change also recognises and acknowledges the much lower
rate at which vehicles rust away today, as compared with fifty years
ago, as well as higher maintenance standards.

The Constrruction and Use Regulations will still apply and those
parts of is subject to specific metric requirements (lighting,
braking, tyres, screen-cleaning equipment, etc) will still be subject
to spot enforcement by the police and DoT (if they can ever find a
way to do it by camera, of course).
The change is overdue by at least ten years, and probably nearer
twenty.
Of course it will make life (slightly) easier and (slightly) less
expensive for the motor vehicle owner-driver, which is why some
nutters will automatically oppose it (treat that on an "if the cap
fits" basis) and why certain vested interests will also have
"misgivings" about it.

It is now possible to see from actual failure data how many of which vehicle
fail the test and for what reasons, interesting stuff:

choose your make model and year and read the data, all compiled from 2007
data
http://www.ukmot.com/Reasons%20for%2...sp?start=start

On 29/10/2011 21:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/10/2011 18:37, JNugent wrote:

"Most car owners" surely have their cars serviced timeously and
professionally. Modern cars are more like TV sets in their servicing
requirements than they are like Minor 1000s or Ford Prefects: "No
user-serviceable parts inside".

What is different about changing the air filter, oil filer, oil?
Or even spark plugs, brake parts, battery or exhaust?

Have you ever *tried* to change the plugs on a modern car?

(and why is this thread missing the SM post in u.t and u.r.d).

That's because I cross-posted my reply. I wasn't in a position to cross-post
the OP.