The grumpy thread

[artdjones]

7 hours ago, chodweaver said:

 

 

If it's appropriate to associate 'strategy' or indeed 'thinking' with the policy makers, I'm guessing with a biannual test and two years for advisories to turn into reasons for failure, they expect a rise in MOT failures with a verdict of 'uneconomic to repair' and yay! another modern can be cubed, and another driver is pushed towards the PCP market because they need a car and sharpish.

As for the obviously longer periods that a vehicle may be unroadworthy, fuck it, we're only the plebs that drive or get hit by the deathtraps. The policy makers will be safe on their yachts.

#commierant

 

The Tüv in Germany is two years without mayhem ensuing.

[Dyslexic Viking]

43 minutes ago, artdjones said:

The Tüv in Germany is two years without mayhem ensuing.

What we have Similar to MOT and TUV in Norway are 2 years also. And works just fine and read a while ago that very few of the accidents here are caused by faults on cars. Having to take the car to MOT every year would be very annoying.

[Supernaut]

I get the impression that insurance companies in Germany and Norway are less of a bunch of absolute cunts who seem to have free reign to come up with reasons to print money, though.

[beko1987]

Our local green environmental group seems to have got the town council to make 98% of roads in my rural town 20mph. Gr9... 

I can see the argument for maybe 40% of the roads but nope, the entire town and surrounding areas. My opinion of maybe they should repaint all the fucked white lines on the road and clean and uncover the road signage that gets buried in overgrowth, and cut back the verges and junctions that grow tall every year 'so the bees have somewhere to go' would probably see more of an improvement in road safety got gaslit down by the electric car brigade. 

I'll be in 2nd gear at 20 then, maybe even dropping to 1st if I'm in a particularly pissed off mood. 

[RoverFolkUs]

1 minute ago, beko1987 said:

Our local green environmental group seems to have got the town council to make 98% of roads in my rural town 20mph. Gr9... 

I can see the argument for maybe 40% of the roads but nope, the entire town and surrounding areas. My opinion of maybe they should repaint all the fucked white lines on the road and clean and uncover the road signage that gets buried in overgrowth, and cut back the verges and junctions that grow tall every year 'so the bees have somewhere to go' would probably see more of an improvement in road safety got gaslit down by the electric car brigade. 

I'll be in 2nd gear at 20 then, maybe even dropping to 1st if I'm in a particularly pissed off mood. 

Brighton is a nightmare and sounds just as bad, you've got roads like they have in America coming off the A23-A27 heading towards town and they're all 20mph too!

[sierraman]

23 hours ago, RoverFolkUs said:

Biannual MOTs...

What an utterly fucking ridiculous idea

I see plenty of cars coming in as absolute deathtraps after just one year

"will ease the cost of living"

How? The advisories system would have to be far more stringent when the problem is likely to be ignored for 2 years instead of 1... 

I maybe in favour of an MOT after 3 years, then biannually from thereonwards until the car reaches X number of years old then back to annual tests. 

They toyed the idea of increasing first tests to 4 years, that idea soon fizzled out

Crazy idea this. If you can’t afford £40 for the test get off the road.

[Agila]

12 hours ago, angle said:

I'll use my teeth.

 

12 hours ago, angle said:

Bitrex

It's people like you why warnings ⚠️ like this exist😄😄😄

On a serious note, why is the warning hidden behind where the battery would be and not on the front of the packaging.

They are a proper bastard to get in though and bloody expensive. My slk takes two of the bastards per fob.

[junkyarddog]

Here in Ireland the first roadworthyness test is done at four years old,then every two years until the car is ten years old.Then it's tested every year.

If a car is lucky enough to survive to thirty years old then the test becomes every two years again,when the car reaches its fortieth it's exempt from test.

 

[sierraman]

3 minutes ago, junkyarddog said:

Here in Ireland the first roadworthyness test is done at four years old,then every two years until the car is ten years old.Then it's tested every year.

If a car is lucky enough to survive to thirty years old then the test becomes every two years again,when the car reaches its fortieth it's exempt from test.

 

I don’t know about Ireland but in the U.K. there’s loads of cars knocking about 2-3 years old on bald tyres. There’s no excuse in my opinion, if you haven’t got the money to run the car legally then you need taking off the road.

[5speedracer]

2 hours ago, Dyslexic Viking said:

What we have Similar to MOT and TUV in Norway are 2 years also. And works just fine and read a while ago that very few of the accidents here are caused by faults on cars. Having to take the car to MOT every year would be very annoying.

I suspect the average Norwegian or German might have a different perception of car maintenance than the average Brit though!

[Rust Collector]

They have bi-annual tests in Slovakia as well, and to be fair even in the rural places in the East that I've stayed you don't tend to see motors that are properly hanging in daily use anymore, it's mostly a sea of moderns out there. I'm not sure where you could gather data from, but it would be interesting to see figures on collisions due to mechanical failure in the countries that do have bi-annual test versus annual test, and also would be interesting to see the average mileage covered annually in those countries, plus the average age of car. Maybe even data for inspection failure rates too if you're going all out. You'd hope that some kind of exercise along those lines is guiding the govt decision...

I don't think there's a perfect solution really, as pointed out above it's perfectly achievable to make a new car un-roadworthy within the 3 year initial grace period so our system already has gaps. Testing standards are another point to consider - I've previously imported cars from Japan that were being sold having failed the test there, which then passed an MOT here once landed after having a fog lamp chucked on. Perhaps the 2 year tests are more stringent than the annual tests?

From a purely selfish point of view I wouldn't mind a 2 year test and keep the extra multiples of £50 a year in the beer fund, but it's unusual for me to do more than 1500 miles a year in any one car bar the Insight so a system that suits me probably isn't going to be reflective of the average car user...

[BorniteIdentity]

How many nuns and kittens died due to the extended MOT grace period during COVID? 

My feeling is those who look after their cars will continue to do so, and those who don’t won’t. I know plenty of folk who will skim around on balder tyres, but more who will continue to correctly maintain. More of interest - to me - is whether the great unwashed will now adopt a bi-annual service scheme too, as lots do a service and test at the same time. 

[sierraman]

The point is that we should be making life more difficult for people who won’t reach the minimum standards, the way of enforcing that is ensuring an annual check.

[AnnoyingPentium]

Just now, sierraman said:

The point is that we should be making life more difficult for people who won’t reach the minimum standards, the way of enforcing that is ensuring an annual check.

<two pence>

I agree. The amount of absolutely hinging cars gives me the fear. Certainly no 'nuns or kittens' were injured, but how long does it have to be before someone is because some mechanical sadist fuckwit is driving around in some shed that's bordering on lethal. As yon thread about the police complaint highlighted, it's less likely for the police to tend to these things as it once was.

If you're choosing not to keep a car meeting the bare minimum of roadworthiness then don't participate. Simples.

</two pence>

[sierraman]

Why make life easier for people that can’t be arsed to comply? I’ve no doubt people will say ‘I can’t afford if it fails the test’. That ultimately is nobodies problem but theirs. 

[Rust Collector]

Just to be devil's advocate;

If it's just about making life harder for those who don't maintain their cars, why not a 6 month test? It would only be an extra £50 a year per car for those who look after their motors, and the knackered motors would potentially be removed from the roads several months earlier than under the current system.

Completely agree that not keeping your vehicle roadworthy is not acceptable if you are going to use it on the road, but the timescales and what contemplates roadworthy appears to be somewhat arbitrary depending on each individual country so how do you know what's the best fit without looking at solid data in order to determine what actually supports a level of safety which we have determined is acceptable for our own society? If the data suggests that our car usage matches those of countries with 2 year tests and they have no worse failure/accident rates than us then you'd expect it would be ok to move the test date out without any real consequence in safety assuming usage doesn't alter. If our usage is greater and we already have higher failure or accident rates then you'd expect us to keep annual tests or maybe even consider shorter test periods if it's apparent that there must be a large number of cars out there that aren't roadworthy and are a contributor to road deaths or injuries.

TBH I think they should keep it to an annual test just because that's what we're used to and it presumably works (if it ain't broke etc. etc.), but if the government move it having done due diligence (don't laugh!) then it wouldn't make me more worried to be out on the road with a 2 year test system.

[Rocket88]

1 minute ago, Rust Collector said:

Just to be devil's advocate;

If it's just about making life harder for those who don't maintain their cars, why not a 6 month test? It would only be an extra £50 a year per car for those who look after their motors, and the knackered motors would potentially be removed from the roads several months earlier than under the current system.

Completely agree that not keeping your vehicle roadworthy is not acceptable if you are going to use it on the road, but the timescales and what contemplates roadworthy appears to be somewhat arbitrary depending on each individual country so how do you know what's the best fit without looking at solid data in order to determine what actually supports a level of safety which we have determined is acceptable for our own society? If the data suggests that our car usage matches those of countries with 2 year tests and they have no worse failure/accident rates than us then you'd expect it would be ok to move the test date out without any real consequence in safety assuming usage doesn't alter. If our usage is greater and we already have higher failure or accident rates then you'd expect us to keep annual tests or maybe even consider shorter test periods if it's apparent that there must be a large number of cars out there that aren't roadworthy and are a contributor to road deaths or injuries.

TBH I think they should keep it to an annual test just because that's what we're used to and it presumably works (if it ain't broke etc. etc.), but if the government move it having done due diligence (don't laugh!) then it wouldn't make me more worried to be out on the road with a 2 year test system.

Don’t think the infrastructure could cope with a test every 6 months 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Something something, clutch, something something, other half, something something, on their way to work, something something, recovery by AA, something something, hopefully by Monday.

Great morning.

[chris667]

I have to say I don't get the historic MOT exemption idea.

It places too much risk on the owner of the car. And people don't maintain things.

My mate Dan used to drive a Beetle with a great big hole in the floorpan. We'd go on 100 mile outings, and you could see the M40 rushing underneath your feet. A hole nearly big enough to put your foot into.

I bet there's loads of cars like that, or perhaps worse cars "repaired" with a sheet of steel and a gob of filler.

Rules are good for stuff like this. They give vehicle owners a standard that they must adhere to in order to satisfy the law. At the moment, the onus is on them to decide what's legal.

[horriblemercedes]

1 hour ago, BorniteIdentity said:

How many nuns and kittens died due to the extended MOT grace period during COVID? 

My feeling is those who look after their cars will continue to do so, and those who don’t won’t. I know plenty of folk who will skim around on balder tyres, but more who will continue to correctly maintain. More of interest - to me - is whether the great unwashed will now adopt a bi-annual service scheme too, as lots do a service and test at the same time. 

This, pretty much. The bare minimum drivers will still be bare minimum while those who like cars and driving will continue to drive well-maintained and/or safe cars. I don't think that much would really change

[sierraman]

12 minutes ago, chris667 said:

I have to say I don't get the historic MOT exemption idea.

It places too much risk on the owner of the car. And people don't maintain things.

My mate Dan used to drive a Beetle with a great big hole in the floorpan. We'd go on 100 mile outings, and you could see the M40 rushing underneath your feet. A hole nearly big enough to put your foot into.

I bet there's loads of cars like that, or perhaps worse cars "repaired" with a sheet of steel and a gob of filler.

Rules are good for stuff like this. They give vehicle owners a standard that they must adhere to in order to satisfy the law. At the moment, the onus is on them to decide what's legal.

There’s always been the misapprehension that all classic car owners are competent and keep their vehicle in top notch condition. Some it has to be said shouldn’t be anywhere near the tools.

[sierraman]

1 minute ago, horriblemercedes said:

This, pretty much. The bare minimum drivers will still be bare minimum while those who like cars and driving will continue to drive well-maintained and/or safe cars. I don't think that much would really change

But surely we should be doing more to heavily penalise the ‘bare minimum’ folks?

[horriblemercedes]

4 minutes ago, sierraman said:

But surely we should be doing more to heavily penalise the ‘bare minimum’ folks?

I agree with you, but MOTs don't really do that in my opinion. Scraping pass after pass is barely a deterrent and even (in my opinion) might encourage people just to find completely bent MOT testers to pass their shitbox Fiesta for £50.

 

I would be happy to see it stay as a yearly test, but I don't think that it would make much difference were it to go to every other year. I'd welcome it for myself, but I'm confident that my cars are well-maintained so means that there's a bit less hassle for me organising and paying for tests. It's a long time since I had a car fail a test though.

[hennabm]

It may “save” the car owner around £40 a year but the garage trade will lose around 50% of their current work.

What do the gubberment think these people are going to do instead?

 

[artdjones]

1 hour ago, Rust Collector said:

I've previously imported cars from Japan that were being sold having failed the test there, which then passed an MOT

The Japanese test prescribes the replacement of many parts, even when completely unworn, and the costs of that are so high that 6 or 8 year old cars are no longer worth putting through the test, and are sold for use elsewhere. I don't think that's a safety thing, just a way to keep the local production lines moving.

[sierraman]

3 minutes ago, hennabm said:

It may “save” the car owner around £40 a year but the garage trade will lose around 50% of their current work.

What do the gubberment think these people are going to do instead?

 

The government aren’t interested in helping people and businesses who go out there to work, this scheme is designed to help dodge pots who can’t afford to run a car. 

[Rocket88]

I think the test is heavily skewed towards stuff that is “ easy” to fail. Warning lights for ABS, for example. Do the brakes still work perfectly well? Pass it , with an advisory.  Seen cars that have been failed for just an ABS light, no mention of terminally rusted brake lines…….

[artdjones]

5 minutes ago, hennabm said:

It may “save” the car owner around £40 a year but the garage trade will lose around 50% of their current work.

What do the gubberment think these people are going to do instead?

 

There's some truth in that, but it's also true that a stitch in time saves nine. I.e., when the car is finally tested, instead of a new pair of shocks half the steering and suspension needs replacing. The same for slightly sticky brakes. So with the average UK driver, the garage will be able to charge one big bill instead of two small ones.

[Rust Collector]

1 minute ago, artdjones said:

There's some truth in that, but it's also true that a stitch in time saves nine. I.e., when the car is finally tested, instead of a new pair of shocks half the steering and suspension needs replacing. The same for slightly sticky brakes. So with the average UK driver, the garage will be able to charge one big bill instead of two small ones.

If people are really struggling with the cost of MOT now though then what the govt is proposing won't really help them when you think of it like that. If they struggle to find say £300 yearly to repair their car for the ticket then I'd imagine they won't be of the means/mentality to save monthly for the £600-1000 bill that awaits them instead 2 years down the line. It's kind of like that 'we'll give you some money off your utility bill which you then have to pay back anyway' idea.

[sierraman]

17 minutes ago, Rust Collector said:

If people are really struggling with the cost of MOT now though then what the govt is proposing won't really help them when you think of it like that. If they struggle to find say £300 yearly to repair their car for the ticket then I'd imagine they won't be of the means/mentality to save monthly for the £600-1000 bill that awaits them instead 2 years down the line. It's kind of like that 'we'll give you some money off your utility bill which you then have to pay back anyway' idea.

If they can’t afford the repairs to keep it safe and on the road then they need to get off the road, you wouldn’t run a haulage company and go to VOSA ‘we’ve had a bad run past few months so we’ve not got the money to reline the brakes but we’ve still to earn money so we’re still running the truck’

I agree on the last bit especially, I could see them coming up with a scheme that its not £55 it’s £110 every two years. 🤣