MoT Tests every 2 years!

[NemesisUK]

Not sure I like the proposal to move testing to every 2yrs.

I suppose most faults should be picked up at the annual service but as so many owners these days drive until it breaks before visiting a garage i think it a retrograde step in safety. Even those cars routinely serviced don't, generally, have their brake efficiency/balance check at service time. How many garages do a suspension check at service time, checking bushes and ball joint play etc??

The small savings in costs to the owner (which in the grand scheme of running costs generally is insignificant) could so easily be completely negated by much bigger bills come failure/accident ...

[Malc]

surely there must be some competent rational reason the Govt Civil Servants have decided upon to bring this forward ....  surely ??? 

Malc

[NemesisUK]

Just headline grabbing, sounds like they are helping the motorist...

 

Oh and don't call me Shirely! 😉

[Vlady]

I see how many people are ignorant with tires condition, I think the police will be more vigilant to caught drivers with bad tires and fine them, therefore, it is an intention for potential saving for the car owners but a good reason for government to make more money on fines.

As you say, too many people drive the car until it breaks or until they are notified about the problem during MOT and having it done every 2 years is a stupidest idea proposed by government! Safety on the roads will decline massively!

[royoftherovers]

3 minutes ago, Malc said:

surely there must be some competent rational reason the Govt Civil Servants have decided upon to bring this forward ....  surely ??? 

Malc

It is a Political gesture Malc to create the impression that the Gov`t is mindful of the financial pressures upon the family.

In reality, as NEMESIS implies above it is a hollow gesture as the cost savings to families is negligible and is bound to increase family expenditure on motoring as the effect will lead to greater expenditure upon repairs and even lead to more cars being failures. It will also lead to reductions upon the income of those who daily task is to carry out MOT TESTING.

Remember that Bankers and others who are awarded bonuses don`t incur MOT costs (as they are in receipt of car as perks and or don`t keep them long enough)so the income gap will widen. further. So much for levelling up !

[royoftherovers]

9 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Just headline grabbing, sounds like they are helping the motorist...

 

Oh and don't call me Surely ! 😉

Quote

Very funny and clever too Peter.😊😊

 

[Spock66]

I think it's nuts, same goes for the 40-year rule for historic vehicles.

The cost of an MOT is negligible in the overall costs of running a vehicle, and if you are that strapped for cash many independents offer free or reduced MOT with a service anyway. Only problem being those with little funds will also skip the service, buying new tyres etc.

 

[VFR]

This is normal in Spain until the car is 10 years old and then every year.

Did not see any issues as a result myself while living there. 

[Linas.P]

2 years MOT (equivalents) is fairly standard across Europe, but I would say that in many European countries people take different approach to vehicle maintenance. As well MOT is joke compared to TUV for example, so yes Europeans mostly do tech inspection every 2 years but it is much more rigorous. I personally would welcome it, just one less thing to worry about every year and my car is in good condition anyway, but not sure that applies to all. In other hand I am not sure 1 year or even monthly MOT would change anything - people who runs their cars on shoe strings will continue to do so anyway. For example how many times one looks at car MOT and sees same advisory for 6 years in a row? This is just approach some owners takes and nothing will change it. 

As well not sure what is the issue with 40 years rule for classic cars (most of Europe has 30 years rule, some countries even 25). Point is - 30 years old cars are unsafe by design, so there is no point in testing them every years just to conclude that new car brakes better with single working brake than classic car on all 4.  The design is such that most of test on them is not applicable anyway. 

[LenT]

In Jan 2018 the DoT concluded a Consultation to determine if the first MoT should move from 3 years to 4.

It was decided, in ‘the interests of road safety’ to retain the 3 year trigger point.  At that time the Pass rate was 85% and the main reasons for failure were tyres, brakes and lighting.  I doubt that the situation has changed greatly since then.

The build standards of modern cars are really remarkably high.  So from the mechanical aspect I can envisage that components such as suspension, steering, say, may only need biennial checks until they reach a certain age - say ten years - and then revert to annual.

The problem, surely, is that it doesn’t take even a year to render a tyre dangerously unsafe.  It can be done in minutes - and may not be apparent to even the conscientious car owner.  Equally, bad driving can render a tyre virtually bald long before a biennial test would pick it up.

So Linus makes a good point about the biennial TuV test being more rigorous than the annual MoT, but I can’t help  feeling that the annual MoT is better at catching those car owners who, frankly, couldn’t ‘give a toss’ about their tyres!

On balance, I think an annual test does a good job at picking up basic problems - and there may be an argument for introducing a TuV style check biennially for vehicles over, say, ten years old.  But the concept that car ownership should be made cheaper by reducing the standards or frequency of vehicle testing doesn’t strike me as advancing road safety.

[Linas.P]

I will be devils advocate here, but if the tyre could be rendered unsafe "in minutes", then what is the difference if they are checked every 1 or every 2 years? 

As for starting point of inspection it is kind of hard to say. For example in my experience doing MOT on my RC was waste of time, it was literally in perfect condition and always services at Lexus, the MOT centre didn't even need to take the car in to conclude that it was like it looked like. So perhaps it should be certain criteria which should qualify car for "exemption of national testing" e.g. if car is maintained by authorised dealership service schedule, then it is exempt for first 5 years, but if car is not maintained then MOT becomes mandatory after 2 years. Or something along those lines.

[Malc]

we should remember this new 2 year rule doesn't avoid the need to be law compliant with the car totally fit 24/7

Malc

[LenT]

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I will be devils advocate here, but if the tyre could be rendered unsafe "in minutes", then what is the difference if they are checked every 1 or every 2 years? 

Only that it’s better to pick up the damage sooner rather than later.

32 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

As for starting point of inspection it is kind of hard to say. For example in my experience doing MOT on my RC was waste of time, it was literally in perfect condition and always services at Lexus, the MOT centre didn't even need to take the car in to conclude that it was like it looked like. So perhaps it should be certain criteria which should qualify car for "exemption of national testing" e.g. if car is maintained by authorised dealership service schedule, then it is exempt for first 5 years, but if car is not maintained then MOT becomes mandatory after 2 years. Or something along those lines.

Unfortunately I was interrupted in mid-write but I was going to go on with something on these lines, but I think you’ve probably expressed it better than I was going to.

Why not combine a Service conducted by Dealers - who  are invariably MOT recognised anyway - with a recognised Test procedure?  As it happens, because I do so few miles, my Service is conducted on a time basis not mileage.  So I am able to have it done at the same time.

Since wear of the basic safety items tends to occur mainly during use, it could be argued that the MOT should maybe also be conducted on the same basis and coincide with the Service.  Of course, the big problem here would be those car owners who do their own servicing, in which case the vehicle would still have to be independently checked.

[Linas.P]

15 minutes ago, LenT said:

 Of course, the big problem here would be those car owners who do their own servicing, in which case the vehicle would still have to be independently checked.

Yes, but that is why I said exempt/qualifying - if one does not want to use authorised dealer and they do maintenance themselves (or doesn't do it at all) then they have to continue doing MOT on exiting rules, the infrastructure already exist for that.

[Spock66]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

As well not sure what is the issue with 40 years rule for classic cars (most of Europe has 30 years rule, some countries even 25). Point is - 30 years old cars are unsafe by design, so there is no point in testing them every years just to conclude that new car brakes better with single working brake than classic car on all 4.  The design is such that most of test on them is not applicable anyway. 

Yes modern cars are much safer by design, but key basic safety checks are still highly relevant ie brakes, tyres, steering, suspension, structural integrity etc.

[Linas.P]

20 minutes ago, Spock66 said:

Yes modern cars are much safer by design, but key basic safety checks are still highly relevant ie brakes, tyres, steering, suspension, structural integrity etc.

Yes, but imagine MOT centre has a rolling road for brake check adjusted for modern cars brakes and tyres, the old car won't pass the brake check, may even get damaged in process. Obviously, it depends on what cars are being checked, some classic car may be relatively modern in design and can be evaluated by modern methods, but others won't even have the same suspension components etc. Imagine 40 years from now, if they need to check emissions when all cars are electric and they don't even have equipment for ICEVs, same applies to old cars now where the yare made to the standards which would not pass current tests, or testers don't even know how to properly test them. So I think government just had to draw the line somewhere to say that after so many years the technology is so different we can't even evaluate it properly, if it survived 40+ years it must be good enough. Most countries has it and I think that is good thing - it supports car culture, because it would be nearly impossible to maintain classic car on the road if it would be checked every year based on modern standards. By making them exempt it protects those cars and promotes the ownership, but 40 years is too long, I feel 30 is more appropriate, that is usually when car values starts going-up again.

[Mr Vlad]

What a thread. Tyres are definitely Not the main testing criteria. Tyres should be checked by the cars owner. As for the brake testing rollers set for modern cars! Rollox. The rollers are set for the relevant rulings so all cars of all ages have the same score to pass. TUV v MOT? If someone thinks the gerry version is superior then your MOT tester ain't worth his salt. Every MOT test I've taken my cars to, except the Lexus ones, have had utter stringent tests carried out. 

The utter pee take of the government helping out financially the public to the tune of 50 sommat quid is a farce. 

MOT's should be done yearly and ideally at service time and that's how most are done. Why annually? A true example. Someone I know, my wife's ex, who is 80 took his car in for MOT last year and it flew through. Around Christmas time he had to get a new clutch. A month later new brake lines. Next MOT which was earlier this month Catastrophic Failure. So much rust apparently developed that suspension mounts/supports were so rotten, also chassis areas too far gone. If the MOT changed to 2 years then that car of his would have caused deaths not only to him but other car drivers and even pedestrians. 

Thise cars with advisories over 6 year periods, well if it's still an advisory after 6 years then what justifies it to be an advisory?

From what I've just read this more to a 2 year test is just a suggestion. All safety campaign organisations are totally against it as are the motoring organisations. I'm against it too.

[H3XME]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

took his car in for MOT last year and it flew through. Around Christmas time he had to get a new clutch. A month later new brake lines. Next MOT which was earlier this month Catastrophic Failure. So much rust apparently developed that suspension mounts/supports were so rotten, also chassis areas too far gone. 

You're telling me that a car has rotten that much in 1 year? Sounds a bit fishy! How does it go from "fine", "no advisories" to a failure within a year? Sounds like whoever tested the car prior to the last MOT didn't do a very good job. OR of course, it was purposely "missed".. 

Some of the MOT rules are stupid anyway. You won't pass if you have lights on your dash.. I for example have the bucket seat in, which means the factory plug is empty and results in a lit air bag light on the dash. However, if I put a resistor in OR even tape over the bulb inside the cluster it passes. Same for a different steering wheel. I can take my wheel out, put an aftermarket steering wheel in without an air bag and as long as the dash light is off, it passes even though it's very obviously not standard and if you can put 2 & 2 together you know it's got no air bag now, so why does it matter if the air bag light is on or not in this case? Obviously it's a different scenario if you haven't modified anything and your air bag light comes on.. then it's on because something is wrong as opposed to having the light on by "choice", not by some unknown fault.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

What a thread. Tyres are definitely Not the main testing criteria. Tyres should be checked by the cars owner. As for the brake testing rollers set for modern cars! Rollox. The rollers are set for the relevant rulings so all cars of all ages have the same score to pass. TUV v MOT? If someone thinks the gerry version is superior then your MOT tester ain't worth his salt. Every MOT test I've taken my cars to, except the Lexus ones, have had utter stringent tests carried out. 

The utter pee take of the government helping out financially the public to the tune of 50 sommat quid is a farce. 

MOT's should be done yearly and ideally at service time and that's how most are done. Why annually? A true example. Someone I know, my wife's ex, who is 80 took his car in for MOT last year and it flew through. Around Christmas time he had to get a new clutch. A month later new brake lines. Next MOT which was earlier this month Catastrophic Failure. So much rust apparently developed that suspension mounts/supports were so rotten, also chassis areas too far gone. If the MOT changed to 2 years then that car of his would have caused deaths not only to him but other car drivers and even pedestrians. 

Thise cars with advisories over 6 year periods, well if it's still an advisory after 6 years then what justifies it to be an advisory?

From what I've just read this more to a 2 year test is just a suggestion. All safety campaign organisations are totally against it as are the motoring organisations. I'm against it too.

I think here you contradicting yourself - saying that MOT is just as rigorous as TUV and then in next sentence saying that between two MOTs car rotten to such level that it is structurally unsound. Now I know for certain that some MOT centres are very good, but some are complete trash - put the probe into exhaust, take £45 and 15 minutes later calls you that car is ready to pick-up, that is before we even talk about fraudulent ones which for £100 can pass the MOT on the car without even seeing it. So the issue here is not that all MOT centres are bad, but because government defined rules are quite lax or not checked/enforced there so much room for interpretation that nationally there is huge discrepancy from one centre to another. TUV, like most tech inspections in Europe are government run and strictly controlled centres, so the TUV you get in small village near Hamburg will be exactly the same as the one you get in the middle of Berlin. 

Now my view about nanny states is well know - how many more rules should we have, signs like "slow down, sharp turn" would be funny if it wouldn't be so annoying. Here is where I partially agree - tyres should be responsibility for the driver, just visually inspect them every other week and that is all that is needed, but most of the cars I have ever wanted to purchase had advisories or fails for the tyres and makes me think that people are either blind of they completely don't care. If they don't check tyres regularly, then one would expect that they would check at least before MOT, but they don't do it even before MOT.

As for advisories - I see your point, but if advisory is leaking shock, then it could easily be leaking for 6 years, or I have seen advisories for crack in the tyre on classic car which did like 1000 miles a year. Point of advisory is not to just sit on MOT certificate, it is to advise customer what needs to be done before next MOT, I would even argue that advisory which comes-up twice in a row should be considered fail. I come back to the same point - those who care will continue to care and for them MOT is just going to be unnecessary expense and annoyance, those who don't care will continue not to care.

Finally, I have to admit that underlying reason for this change is stupid, if they care about cost of living then there are so many other areas which can help - like dropping added value tax on insurance (which is literally tax, on the tax, on the tax), how about dropping fuel duties, how about introducing pay by mile road tax, or affordable government monitored third party insurance cover, setting up parking charge limit nationally. I mean there are so many major expenses when it comes to motoring that MOT is really last of the costs. And it just signals wrong thing - they are willing to drop safety standard (even if I consider it to be negligible) for the sake of living costs?! Surely safety should be last thing to compromise on, no matter how small is the change. So I agree with you - this is "utter pee" as far as cost of living is concerned and there are dozen other areas which change would have no safety detriment. In short before they set-out to help motorists/citizens they should look into what costs them the most, yes transportation would be major area, but then I am sure that fuel duty and insurance will be two biggest contributors to the cost long term, followed by road tax and car maintenance and MOT would be the least concern for sure. Even if I support it because for me it is just waste of time, this suggestion is just cheesy nonsense, because it doesn't help with cost of living at all. 

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

What a thread. Tyres are definitely Not the main testing criteria. Tyres should be checked by the cars owner.

While I agree with pretty much everything else, I rather think this may be a counsel of perfection.  The reality with most car owners is that tyres tend to be taken for granted and if checked at all, it’s generally just a cursory inspection.  

But most dangerous of all are the drivers who don’t even bother with that and drive around with tyres that are visibly bald!  Of course, it’s often the case that they don’t bother with MOTs either!  Or RFT.  Or insurance.

In which case I suppose they’re only going to be exposed by spot checks or when they have a loss of control.  Rather than tinkering with the current system - which I think on balance works pretty well - we need to find more effective ways to take the criminally careless off the road.  And keep them off it for far longer.

[H3XME]

35 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

If they don't check tyres regularly, then one would expect that they would check at least before MOT, but they don't do it even before MOT.

People are incredibly lazy and uneducated so they go for an MOT to be told what needs doing rather than caring enough to fix it before hand. You're ultimately setting your cash on fire because anything that will be done by the MOT garage or any garage at all will cost you more than doing it yourself. I'm talking about simple things that anybody can do now e.g. bulbs, wipers.. 

Part of getting the license should be learning how to fill up your tyres, top up your screen wash etc.. those two things alone can fail your MOT. I know people, mainly females that can't even put tyres in their tyres.. it infuriates me. Their dads should've taught them better! I just the other week had to show my girlfriend how to put air into her tyres and where the screen wash goes.. and how to even open the bonnet. You can imagine my face when I found out about this. 😑

I feel like everybody should know or at least be taught how to do these simple things, like changing your tyre etc... but I suppose they don't so others can capitalise. Welcome to 21st century. 

[H3XME]

27 minutes ago, LenT said:

we need to find more effective ways to take the criminally careless off the road.  And keep them off it for far longer.

I'd start with perhaps training the police force.. It seems like everywhere else in the world, Australia, Europe, Canada, USA.. coppers are actually educated about cars and can do certain checks themselves etc. Here? You get pulled over on a suspicion, get sent for an MOT re-test which you can pass with £50 in your hand and the "right" tester.. nothing will change because that person won't touch their car but will pass the re-test. 

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, H3XME said:

People are incredibly lazy and uneducated so they go for an MOT to be told what needs doing rather than caring enough to fix it before hand. You're ultimately setting your cash on fire because anything that will be done by the MOT garage or any garage at all will cost you more than doing it yourself. I'm talking about simple things that anybody can do now e.g. bulbs, wipers.. 

Part of getting the license should be learning how to fill up your tyres, top up your screen wash etc.. those two things alone can fail your MOT. I know people, mainly females that can't even put tyres in their tyres.. it infuriates me. Their dads should've taught them better! I just the other week had to show my girlfriend how to put air into her tyres and where the screen wash goes.. and how to even open the bonnet. You can imagine my face when I found out about this. 😑

I feel like everybody should know or at least be taught how to do these simples things, like changing your tyre etc... but I suppose they don't so other can capitalise. Welcome to 21st century. 

That is part of the theory and part of the exam in the country where I got my license. They are asking such things like - how do you know what pressure should be used etc. Quite comprehensive. In exam I think I was asked to open the bonnet and show where the screenwash goes, so it was easy, but in the actual driving school you I was extensively taught and tested on this knowledge.

As for the tyres - you can get 3 points and £1000 for each, so if you have 4 bald tyres that means 12 points and £4000... not light! But the question is - when was the last time actual police has stopped you?! I live in UK for 15 years now and I have never been stopped. 

[H3XME]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is part of the theory and part of the exam in the country where I got my license. They are asking such things like - how do you know what pressure should be used etc. Quite comprehensive. In exam I think I was asked to open the bonnet and show where the screenwash goes, so it was easy, but in the actual driving school you I was extensively taught and tested on this knowledge.

As for the tyres - you can get 3 points and £1000 for each, so if you have 4 bald tyres that means 12 points and £4000... not light! But the question is - when was the last time actual police has stopped you?! I live in UK for 15 years now and I have never been stopped. 

I get stopped fairly regularly 😂 They normally just ask about the car, or question my number plate but never got into any trouble, touch wood. That being said, my car sticks out from the crowd, so how often a regular Joe in a stock car would get pulled over, who knows. I don't think I know anybody who got pulled over who hasn't got a stupid car like me.  

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, H3XME said:

I get stopped fairly regularly 😂 They normally just ask about the car, or question my number plate but never got into any trouble, touch wood. That being said, my car sticks out from the crowd, so how often a regular Joe in a stock car would get pulled over, who knows. I don't think I know anybody who got pulled over who hasn't got a stupid car like me.  

That is the point. And funny enough, your car is probably less of a risk to public than trashed out Peugeot with 4 different tyres, two of which are so underinflated that they make screeching noise. But it will never be stopped because it drives 5 miles below the speed limit... and that is considered "safe" in this country.