MOT debate. What should be included and how often?

[warren t claim]

The current system of a car requiring its first test at three years and annually thereafter has been in existence for many years so do we think that with modern rustproofing and higher standards of build quality it's time to change that? In other parts of the world vehicles don't need testing as often, if at all and some countries insist on a roadworthy inspection with every change of owner.

 

Does out MOT go far enough or is it too strict as it is? Does our current test cover everything or should other items be included?

 

Discuss. 

[Rocket88]

We don't have MOTs over here...........................To my knowledge there have been no nun/kittens harmed for ages.

The MOT test is now not a test of safety, but a game to see how many dashboard lights you can put out before it goes for it's test.

[fordperv]

Personally I think if they made the test every couple of years the deathtraps that would be rolling around would be killing all the nuns and upsetting the kittens, your average jo just drives a car until it doesn't wanna work with no maintenance at all then crap themselves when the m.o.t comes around

 

Shiteists would obviously be ok as we keep on top of maintenance and actually look after our old pita cars

[Bobthebeard]

Hmmm. Tricky one that.

Some three year old cars will be fine, others won't. Doubt that corrosion will be an issue, but bald tyres and worn suspension items may well be. Many cars cover huge milages nowadays and are often treated badly, especially lease/hire cars. I personally would keep the three years/then every year system.

[Mr Livered]

It's always going to be a tricky one because a. most people would agree that it's necessary to have a general standard of roadworthiness but b. most people would prefer not to have too many regulations to adhere to.

 

A complicating factor is the motor trade lobby. It costs a fortune to set up an MoT testing station, and those who have invested the money to do so will likely be willing to fight very hard against any loosening of the regs (less frequent testing, for example).

 

My view? I'm quite happy to submit my cars to an annual test provided that it's designed to be sensitive to old cars (ie, doesn't expect them to keep to the same standards as modern stuff). In general I think the system does that pretty well as it is.

 

Of course there's a little bit of slack in the system, meaning that the same car can fail an MoT at one station and then drive straight to another where it passes with flying colours. That seems daft, and annoying when it appears to be an attempt to tout for unnecessary work, yet if we took away the flexibility of allowing testers so much discretion I think ultimately it would work against the shiter and we'd end up regretting it.

 

Then there's the pre-1960 exemption, which allows them to tighten up the regs without forcing classics off the road. A splendid idea, as long as cars from the early 60s don't end up being penalised.

 

All in all I think the system in the UK probably strikes about the right balance.

[Junkman]

Sod MoT.

EOM.

[skattrd]

I think the test period of 1yr is fine. I was discussing this with my local tester a while ago.

If a car just scrapes through it's test and it's not due for a re-test for 2yrs, given most owners do minimal maintenance, after 1yr it's dangerous, after 2yrs it would likely be death-trap (think of the kittens/nuns etc)

 

As for testable items, I reckon it's ok, just get rid of things like EML, ABS and airbag light. Lots  of older cars don't have these features, so why have them as failures on newer cars.

 

On the whole though I don't think we're far off.

[brickwall]

EU wide motor manufacturers have been lobbying for more stringent MOTs/safety checks. Nuff said.

[rml2345]

I reckon it's about right as it is too. Apart from anything it discourages Joe/Josephine Public from tooling about in an absolute death trap for longer because the MOT is every two years and it can wait until then.

[Parky]

I would like to see brake fluid concentration added, must be plenty of motors out there with brake fluid that's not been changed for ten years or more. After all it's supposed to be about safety, right?

[Rusty_Rocket]

Agree with above^^

 

So many people I know don't even bother changing a headlamp bulb because 'the MoT is next month and they can do it then...' 

I think a year is plenty enough time for someone to totally ignore their tyres and bulbs and brake pads.

And to think, these same people take the piss out of me for checking my oil and coolant levels every other week when I wash my old banger !!!

[Parky]

And maybe a big red disclaimer across the front of the certificate stating

 

"This is not an annual vehicle service. We have not changed any fluids or parts crucial to the safe operation of this vehicle. Do not attempt to claim this is evidence of full service history - because it isn't. Do you understand?"

 

And "despite being a compulsory annual safety test, the moment the car leaves the premises nothing about this is legally binding and if something falls off we will shrug our shoulders and say it was ok when we tested it"

 

If its a Halfords branch they could pre-fill the form with "This vehicle is dangerous and requires shock absorbers, brakes, and tyres. And a full service, some alloys, and a bigger stereo. We cannot release the vehicle to you until this work is complete on safety grounds, which are not in any way related to our stringent sales targets"

[Jim Bell]

MOTs are concerned with safety?

 

Pre 1960 cars must be the safest in the world then. No need for test.

 

But car with airbag light on equals terrible danger.

[Parky]

Agree with Barry. A broken number plate does not compromise the safety of the vehicle. A rusted rear silencer does not compromise the safety of the vehicle. Yet both are failures. Shitty Chinese tyres with no grip and 2.5 mm of tread? That's fine sir, your vehicle is totally safe to drive at speed on a wet motorway at nighttime.

 

In NZ the checks are six monthly but only concern themselves with steering, suspension, brakes, tyres and lights. I don't recall anything else being in scope. I still think a number of things on our test aren't strictly necessary.

 

Perhaps we could have a grading system?

 

A - car is completely safe, all systems operational to high standard

B - car is fundamentally safe, some minor ancillaries require repair

C - car has faults which require resolution before test certificate can be issued but major control systems are completely fine

D - your car is Parkys Vauxhall Chevette from 1991. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Step away from the vehicle slowly as it may fall apart in comedy fashion in the style of a Billy Smarts clown car

 

A and B cars would be roadworthy, C's almost roadworthy but not quite, and D's should be sold to a mate for £50 before running away and hiding

[meggersdog]

According to my local MOT tester headlamp washers (where fitted) are an MOT item from August 1st this year.

So if your plastic headlights are so opaque you have to be half an inch from the machine to get a beam that's fine but if the washers don't work it's a fail.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

The UK MOT system is one of the rare government-run systems that is genuinely excellent, I would say its great value for money as well.

[Jim Bell]

Spot lights function with lenses cracked = fail.

Remove spotlights = pass.

 

Level of safety increased x10!!!

[willswitchengage]

We're generally on track atm but I think a pan-EU test is due. All the recent changes have been to bring us in line with our neighbours so why not just have one universal one? It'd knob over all of our expats running around France and Spain, and anybody here hoping to register a dodgy old foreign car, but surely that's a good thing?

[warren t claim]

We're generally on track atm but I think a pan-EU test is due. All the recent changes have been to bring us in line with our neighbours so why not just have one universal one? It'd knob over all of our expats running around France and Spain, and anybody here hoping to register a dodgy old foreign car, but surely that's a good thing?

But the French are quite happy to drive with wobbed sills to get their CT. 

[Parky]

And the German ADAC test looks like a bit of a bitch to pass!

[Station]

A fail should mean a months limit before retest in which time you can drive the thing, rectify the faults and then put it in for a retest. 'Dangerous' faults then you can't drive the car. Such a pain in the ass - I want to take my car to my folks driveway to underseal it as it failed corrosion, but I can't as I'll get pulled and the car will get seized. It's going to languish in the garage until I can get someone to tow it up there and by that time the retest period has expired.

[Justin Case]

Why not just stick to the safety related items, including, if they are fitted, ABS, airbags, etc. It should be about a car being roadworthy and safe to everyone else on the road as well as the driver, not about sticking a probe up the car's chuff (oooh matron )

 

BTW, Mrs A's Toyota passed last week with flying colours, but had an advisory as the tester couldn't check the rear seat belts as child seats were fitted Is this a new thing?

[Mr_Bo11ox]

A fail should mean a months limit before retest in which time you can drive the thing, rectify the faults and then put it in for a retest. 'Dangerous' faults then you can't drive the car. Such a pain in the ass - I want to take my car to my folks driveway to underseal it as it failed corrosion, but I can't as I'll get pulled and the car will get seized. It's going to languish in the garage until I can get someone to tow it up there and by that time the retest period has expired.

if you take it in for a test a month early you get exactly that do you not?

[dollywobbler]

if you take it in for a test a month early you get exactly that do you not?

Indeed. I always try to get my cars in early, just for the satisfaction of 13 months MOT.

[michael1703]

It's fine as it is, but.....

 

New cars should need testing after a year,a majority of cars driving around with 1 headlight working is less than 3 years old.

[simmo]

As said by others the MOT is a basis road worthyness check and when I was a tester (80s + 90s) I used to hate it when they tried to get non safety items included.  At the time there were some anomalies like prop-shafts being non testable items but every single exhaust mount being needed.  The VI know this but the MOT is a reflection of how the construction and use regs are drawn up. so this is what happens.  The inspectorate used to have an issue with main dealer testing tom too high a standard what they used to say was a typical service standard was 3 or 4 out of 5 (5 being as new).  The MOT is pitched at 1/5 and the last refresher I went on the chap taking it made a point of saying 'our standards are rock bottom'.

[Micrashed]

EU wide motor manufacturers have been lobbying for more stringent MOTs/safety checks. Nuff said.

Thy cynical bastard in me suggests this is so that more failures = more cars scrapped = more car sales.

[oldford]

The test should include more, I get fed up of having to pass cars where the front side windows have had tinting film in addition to the manufacturers standard applied.  I know that it'll get the driver into trouble and I don't want them to use 'I onlky had it MOTd last week' excuse, so I'll advise it.

 

Some bits of it are stupid, got a knackered rear centre seatbelt or an airbag light on, if you remove them the car gets a pass.

 

There is some ignorance of the MOT in some of the above posts, headlamp washers are only required for HID headlamps, EML is not testable, a rusted rear silencer - rusted to the extent of a fail thus having an exhaust gas leak so the noxious gasses are not exiting clear of the vehicle - not good, spot lights - not testable.  Testers will not touch seatbelts that secure a child seat as they don't want to be held liable should it be disturbed or incorrectly refitted.  The same as they'll advise engine covers and undertrays fitted because they haven't got X ray vision.

[Albert Ross]

As a tester, I would like to see the advice system tightened up on. If I advise tyre are close to legal limit, the presenter has it suggested to them that they visit any test station within 3 months of the issue of the certificate, to have the vehicle inspected, with a view to "removing the advice" if the work has been carried out. If no show within 6 months, then an appointment will be made for the presenter. If no show within 9 months, the vehicle will be seized and then inspected at the owner's cost, and will probably require repair prior to release back on the public highway. Again, at owner's cost. I would also like to see 3 and 6 month MOT certificates issued. A Reduced rate, and on a sliding scale, relative to the previous history.  e.g. if you have already had 2 three month tickets issued within 1 calendar year, the next one must be a full 12 month certificate. Obviously the test would be simplified for the short duration certificates to make this happen. In the case of one 3 monther. no corrosion check or seatbelts. In the next, no emissions or glazing/controls. That kind of thing. All will be controlled by the VOSA computer, so it can tell the tester what NOT to test, and what TO test.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Gotta be honest that sounds utterly incomprehensible, good luck explaining it to s harassed mum who just needs her wheels to be legal and reasonably safe to drive round in