Mechanical safety? Too expensive!

[Cudzoziemiec]

Less frequent MoTs are on the cards. Wrong Hammond thinks it's unfair that motorists have to pay for repairs when their cars fail the test due to damage caused by potholes. 

Compare and contrast:

The proposals would mean that, over its first 10 years, a new car would only be tested four times instead of eight, saving motorists hundreds of pounds.

Analysts have also suggested that reduced testing could lead to 30 extra road deaths per year.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Usually the comments on things like this are mad, but this one actually seems pretty sensible:

I would guess that the number of crashes due to dodgy brakes is minimal compared to dodgy driving. Annual Driving Test, anyone ?

[eeymsmo]

If drivers didn't insist on doing 40mph down the 30mph limit potholed tracks that currently make up Nottingham's main arterial roads they wouldn't knacker their suspension in the first place.

And I've always fancied the idea of regular retests for drivers. Phase it in in conjunction with the insurance companies (ie; discount if retest within x years) and it'd probably catch on.

[rogerzilla]

It's bald tyres I'm most worried about.

[frankly frankie]

Wrong Hammond thinks it's unfair that motorists have to pay for repairs when their cars fail the test due to damage caused by potholes speed bumps.

Fixed that

[clarion]

It is a very scary prospect. 

[alexb]

If you want to see what that would look like in practice go to those American states which have reduced intervals for MOTs, the condition of the cars being driven around is shocking, and totally legal unless stopped by the Police.

I can't believe that this is being sold on the basis of reducing costs for motorists, the MOT is a spot check for a number of different things including condition of the vehicle, but also checking the mileage is genuine.

It costs what? £40? Compared to fuel charge increases this is another minimal saving.

[andygates]

More pro-Clarkson sops to the voter massive.

(Did I hear right that Cameron and Clarkson were besties?  That explains a lot)

[hatler]

Good grief. Doubtless this will be billed as another reduction of armaments in the 'War on the Motorist'.

As others have more eloquently pointed out, what about the war on the pedestrian, cyclist, etc etc.

I'm too angry about this one to write much more.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

"The MoT test costs just over £50 but it can easily increase to £200 or more with tyre replacement and repairs for wear and tear, such as brake discs. "

What utter bollocks.
The MOT test costs just over £50
Every so often you have to replace bits which wear out on your car - such as tyres and brake discs.

Stating that these costs make the MOT increase to £200 quid is just UTTER BOLLOCKS.

ps. I own a car. I have paid for MOTs. I have paid for tyres and brake discs. I don;t claim that these make my MOT more expensive.
In fact. I'm damn glad that an MOT points out that I NEED to replace these things - modern cars being what they are most people would never take the wheels off to check brake pad thickness - me included.

[iakobski]

If you want to see what that would look like in practice go to those American states which have reduced intervals for MOTs, the condition of the cars being driven around is shocking, and totally legal unless stopped by the Police.

Or rather: totally illegal but not very likely to be caught.

[Jaded]

I saw this in the ST and my thoughts were exactly as SOTR. The implication was that if you don't have to MOT you don't have to keep your tyres legal.

Muppet driven fuckwittery of the highest order.

Although, to be fair, Edmund King was against it.

[mark]

If you want to see what that would look like in practice go to those American states which have reduced intervals for MOTs, the condition of the cars being driven around is shocking, and totally legal unless stopped by the Police.

Reduced intervals? Quite a few American states have no vehicle safety inspection of any kind.

And no, defective vehicles are not likely to be caught.

[Cudzoziemiec]

In a way, I wonder if having no MOT whatsoever might not be better than having an infrequent one. If it's every two (or three or one or whatever) years, drivers are likely to think "I'll replace/repair it if they say it needs it at the next test", whereas if there's no test, they might think "Uh oh, that needs replacing now." But of course, many will not consider it at all.

What really annoyed me about this is the bollocks way it's been reported - "saving hundreds of pounds" yeah, in test fees but that's over the course of a decade, and what about the actual parts and repairs? Journalist, context please!

[clarion]

And what effect is this going to have on the motor engineering trade?

[Cudzoziemiec]

The article does actually mention that the trade is not pleased. But obviously the livelihood of garages and mechanics is the economic price that has to be paid to put a few hard-earned pounds back into the motorist's pocket a vote-catching headline in the media.

[clarion]

I haven't done a scientifically-based survey, but I would estimate that the vast majority of garage owners are Tory voters, and it would be a bad idea for Cameron to alienate a large number of the core vote.

[tatanab]

How can they justify this when it is only a year ago there were news articles that 20% of new cars fail their first MOT?
 Car Dealer Magazine  » 1 in 5 cars fail 1st MOT
BBC - Open Secrets: MOT failure rates released

Failure causes listed here
Dvla Data Shows One In Five Cars Fails Its First Mot | Number Plates, DVLA Number Plates - CarReg

[Cudzoziemiec]

Doubtless there's a separate press release for the motor trade where they reveal that doubling the interval between MOTs will be counterbalanced by doubling the test fee... The fee level was not mentioned in the article (except the present level).

[Cudzoziemiec]

How can they justify this when it is only a year ago there were news articles that 20% of new cars fail their first MOT?
 Car Dealer Magazine  » 1 in 5 cars fail 1st MOT
BBC - Open Secrets: MOT failure rates released

Failure causes listed here
Dvla Data Shows One In Five Cars Fails Its First Mot | Number Plates, DVLA Number Plates - CarReg

That's interesting. Though even that tries to argue, a bit, that British motorists are being ripped off by a combination of cheating garages and a conniving or ill-designed system. The figures show, though, that the most common cause of failure is lights, obviously a bulb can easily blow within three years.

[alexb]

So how happy is the average motorist likely to be to get himself pulled up and fined for a failed bulb in something obscure like the rear number plate?

This is something you're not likely to check yourself very often, but which presumably sits somewhere on the MOT checklist.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I would imagine the likelihood of it being spotted during an annual test is greater than that of it being noticed by either the motorist or the police over the same period.

[clarion]

It does.  And I can tell you that motorists check their other, more crucial, bulbs rarely enough.  There are hundreds of vehicles in London (probably more) with at least one headlight non-functioning, as well as a great many with at least one indicator light out.

[Jaded]

Nothing wrong with a headlight out. Just put the fog-lights on.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Nothing wrong with a headlight out. Just put the fog-lights on.

It's the law when it's raining, you know!