End of road for annual MoTs:

[gmb45]

Tests could be less frequent to reduce costs for motorists

Ministers are considering lifting the requirement that cars have an annual MOT test, despite warnings that it could lead to dozens more deaths on our roads.

Under new plans, drivers may be required to get their vehicles checked only once every two years.
Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the proposal, which would save motorists hundreds of pounds at a time of high petrol prices, was sensible because modern-day cars were a lot safer.

Less regularly: MOT tests could be spaced out for newer cars in a bid to save motorists money

But the Government?s own analysis has found that relaxing the MOT rules could lead to an extra 30 deaths on the road every year.

Garage owners will oppose the move because it will hit their profits, and the AA has spoken out against any change to the current annual requirement.

Mr Hammond said: ?Car technology has come a long way since the 1960s when our MOT regime was introduced.

?That?s why we think it?s right to check whether we still have the right balance of MOT testing for modern vehicles.?

An MOT test ? the abbreviation stands for Ministry of Transport ? costs about ?55. But many of them reveal unknown flaws which can send the total bill soaring.

At present, cars which are at least three years old have to get an MOT test every year. Without an MOT, a motorist cannot legally drive or get his car insured.

Transport Minister Philip Hammond is to launch a consultation on three options for change

Mr Hammond is to launch a consultation on three options for change.

The most conservative would be to delay a new car?s first MOT until the end of its fourth year. It would then have annual MOTs.

A study by the Transport Research Laboratory, which says vehicle defects contribute to 3 per cent of accidents in Britain, has found that this change would lead to about two extra road deaths every year.

Ministers? favoured option is for an initial MOT after four years, a second after another two years, and then annually after that.

Although this would be a boon for drivers, with just four tests in the first decade, the research shows it would lead to five more deaths a year.

The most radical option is for the first MOT after four years and then once every two years, no matter how old the car is. This would lead to between 16 and 30 extra deaths a year.

Mr Hammond said: ?This will be a genuine consultation.

?We want to work with the industry and motorists to get the decision absolutely right.?

As vehicles get older, the rate of MOT failures increases, with nearly 60 per cent failing by the time they are 13 years old. Cars with high mileage are also likely to fail.

AA president Edmund King said road safety could suffer if the plans went ahead.

He added: ?Even if you have a new car that is three years old, you can still have bald tyres and failing lights.

?We have surveyed 60,000 drivers and most of them think we should stick with the current regime.

?Rather than being a burden on the driver, we think it?s a good safety reminder once a year.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MOT tests could be less frequent as minister seek to reduce the financial burden on motorists | Mail Online

[oneman]

Aside from tyres and brakes and I don't think there is much else on a modern car that causes failures in the first couple of MOT ?

I prefer looking at service histories for a car rather then MOT when buying.

[thered]

Aside from tyres and brakes and I don't think there is much else on a modern car that causes failures in the first couple of MOT ?

I prefer looking at service histories for a car rather then MOT when buying.

my m8 will stamp my service history anytime i want most places will fill a book up for you if you if you wanted them too

service history means nothing an MOT is much more likely to be genuine there is not so many people willing to issue fakes these days a fake mot can lead to loss of MOT license facility and fines i am not sure stamping a service book carries any implications

[barrowmanandrew]

new cars don't need an m.o.t. for three years anyway.

i have had a few new cars which have failed their first m.o.t. and serious faults been spotted.

m.o.t test are not expensive, its fixing the faults uncovered that costs money.
surely its in the drivers interests to have these faults identified and sorted....

if the government want to help motorists financially, then they should stop robbing them blind every time they fill up at a petrol station......

[maddogs4291]

what a stupid thing to do.

dangerous faults could go un noticed for up to 2 years. a lot of people wouldnt notice their brakes or steering about to fail and having an mot helps to reduce the possibility of this happening.

an mot is about 30 or 40 pounds, not a major expense! filling up your car with petrol costs double that (or more) and people do it probably once or twice a week.

how about reducing the massive amount of tax they put on petrol?

or do something so that the insurance companies who are making hundreds of millions of pounds each in profit stop ripping us off.

[Canker_Canison]

I see a couple of things with this...

It seems to favor the newer car... So if you have the money for a new car you will end up better off.

Where by those struggling to cope with the financial squeeze, who can't afford a new car, will not be helped unless the 3rd less popular option is put through.


I'd love to have the 3rd option. As I stated in the general section, my car needs some nasty work doing to the inner wings. A two year gap between MOT's would give me time to either repair or scrap my car.

Add to this the attitude people have towards their car & the MOT.
A person driving a car has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe & road worthy before setting off on any journey.
It doesn't matter if the MOT's due or not, it has to be safe or you can be fined, given points & be looking at jail time if you cause a crash.

Basic car maintenance is now part of the test. A lot of people need to be reminded of this. So if the 2 year MOT is passed we might just see a drop in dangerous cars & drivers.... They'll be crashing & wiping each other out. Yeah, there might be a few innocent victims, but the progress gained in the long run should be worth it.


If you need an MOT tester to tell you the reason the car has been pulling to the left & shaking under braking for the past 7 months. You shouldn't be allowed to get back on the road.. ever.

[thered]

I see a couple of things with this...

It seems to favor the newer car... So if you have the money for a new car you will end up better off.

Where by those struggling to cope with the financial squeeze, who can't afford a new car, will not be helped unless the 3rd less popular option is put through.


I'd love to have the 3rd option. As I stated in the general section, my car needs some nasty work doing to the inner wings. A two year gap between MOT's would give me time to either repair or scrap my car.

Add to this the attitude people have towards their car & the MOT.
A person driving a car has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe & road worthy before setting off on any journey.
It doesn't matter if the MOT's due or not, it has to be safe or you can be fined, given points & be looking at jail time if you cause a crash.

Basic car maintenance is now part of the test. A lot of people need to be reminded of this. So if the 2 year MOT is passed we might just see a drop in dangerous cars & drivers.... They'll be crashing & wiping each other out. Yeah, there might be a few innocent victims, but the progress gained in the long run should be worth it.


If you need an MOT tester to tell you the reason the car has been pulling to the left & shaking under braking for the past 7 months. You shouldn't be allowed to get back on the road.. ever.

just a thought if it did go to 2 years i imagine that the garages would stop the advisories and make you get the car fixed if say they thought

your brake pipes will need changing in a few month

i think they would say they had to be changed now because they wont last anywhere near 2 year


im not saying they will i just think they would be more stringent

i never got my car tested for 18 months its just over 10 year old and it sailed through with no advisories

i think every 5 year mots could be good idea if it saved me a few quid and any extra accidents might just help keep the population down and save money for the NHS and welfare benefits

[Meat-Head]

Tests could be less frequent to reduce costs for motorists

Although this would be a boon for drivers, with just four tests in the first decade, the research shows it would lead to five more deaths a year.

The most radical option is for the first MOT after four years and then once every two years, no matter how old the car is. This would lead to between 16 and 30 extra deaths a year.

?We want to work with the industry and motorists to get the decision absolutely right.?

AA president Edmund King said road safety could suffer if the plans went ahead.

He added: ?Even if you have a new car that is three years old, you can still have bald tyres and failing lights.

?We have surveyed 60,000 drivers and most of them think we should stick with the current regime.

?Rather than being a burden on the driver, we think it?s a good safety reminder once a year.?

WHOA HANG ON THERE NOBODY CONSULTED M-H-M ABOUT THIS:-

1) First MOT at 3 years old, yes can't see no reason why can't be
raised to 4 years for certain cars, e.g. Galvnised bodies

2) Going to cost more in fuel and enviroment, as most cars fail on emissons
on clogged airfilters, 'no body' changes sparkplugs nower days
on a 'service' just think what a pig they will be to change excess emmisions knacked spark plugs, bonnet only lifted because it won't start or
out of MOT.

We had a car in once a only came in because it failed BADLY on emissions
the temp sender had gone u/s ECU was reading -40 Deg so it was
CHUCKING fuel down it - MIL light was ignored for months - bye bye
puddy cat and lambarda probes, not to think about bore washed with
neat petrol.

3) Yes ok, susspose a FULL mot every two years, but a 'gentle' MOT
still every anal.

4) UNCONFIIRMED RUMOR states that in Germany you have a 'Tough Test' every two years, sake of argument it is purly one side light bulb and you want to fix it yourself, you HAVE to trailer it away

Can guess that this 2 year MOT WILL be a tough one AND WILL cost more!

[Canker_Canison]

just a thought if it did go to 2 years i imagine that the garages would stop the advisories and make you get the car fixed

This may or may not happen. But you can always complain to VOSA if you feel the tester was unfair.

A friend took his lexus to kwik fit for an MOT, he should of known better. They failed it on brake imbalance & excessivly worn disks.
He asked only one question.... How can I have excessivly worn disks when they were all replaced at the dealers last month?
Told them to sick it & went to the dealers. Passed MOT no problems. There was a very minor imbalance on the front brakes...but it was well within the limits.

Some garages will always try to rip you off.

3) Yes ok, susspose a FULL mot every two years, but a 'gentle' MOT
still every anal.

What is it with you and ANAL?

[the man]

pob just a way to fine the drivers for worn tyers, broken lites and a long list ,the gov are plummmms