2 year MOT's

[Steve]

Government is considering changing MOT to two years. Do you guys think this is a good idea?

[rangermastiffs]

My pocket says Yes

My head says No

MOT is a safety issue and many people rely on it to point out things like

suspension, Brakes, lights, etc ....

If done by a 'reputable' garage it is £50 well spent .....

[Bob King]

There is a big argument on the MOT forums over this, i can see it from both sides, I'm an ex mot tester and i maintain my car to a high standard, so am happy my car will be safe between 2 years mot's, the problem is owners that only get their cars looked at when the mot is due, that is the biggest risk to all of us.

Another side to the argument is many testing station will go bust and put many testers out of a job. Safety is the biggest worry with the new 4,2,2 system, so i feel it should stay as it is now 3,1,1.

[Steve]

should cars between 3-7 years have the 2 year MOT applied? Then yearly after that?

I personally feel safer if it was done yearly. For the safety of everyone and my family I prefer yearly :)

[ormi]

i think this is mental as a tester at a main toyota dealer many of the company cars come in for their 3 year mot and they have over 100k on them...and a few company cars are not serviced on time if at all

[Steve]

Do you find any of them dangerous at 3 years with 100k on the clock?

[afterburner]

I think 1 year is just about right - for 'car enthusiasts' it's probably a bit short as most of our cars will be well maintained anyway. But for your average Joe who couldn't care less about their car, testing once a year is probably a good thing. The amount of cars I see around with bald tyres, lights out, grinding brakes, and other obvious MOT fails is appalling.

It could be worse - in NZ, my cars all needed the MOT equivalent every 6 months. Trust me, that can become rather tiresome quite quickly.

[Steve]

Annual MoT tests could be a thing of the past, despite fears of an increased number of deaths and injuries, if a Government plan comes into force.

Under the new plan, new cars would need an MoT after four years; cars under ten years would only need an MoT every two years, with only vehicles over 10-years-old needing an annual check.

However, a study commissioned by the government appears to undermine this plan, saying that the move would be 'likely to have adverse road safety consequences.'

Vehicle defects account for three per cent of road accidents according to The Transport Research Laboratory, with motoring groups fearing that biannual checks will cause an extra 55 deaths on British roads every year.

With over 23 million MoT tests taking place each year, garages have also condemned this proposal, claiming jobs will be lost as repair work to get vehicles through the test will fall off.

Despite all the arguments against, apparently the Department for Transport is still keen to push ahead with these changes.

source: http://uk.autoblog.com/2011/08/23/government-to-relax-mot-rules-despite-concerns/

[dave1]

Another side to the argument is many testing station will go bust and put many testers out of a job. Safety is the biggest worry with the new 4,2,2 system, so i feel it should stay as it is now 3,1,1.

I think the annual test should remain from the safety aspect however I also feel that the point you make above has no relevance at all to the frequency of tests. The test is about safety and NOT about providing employment.

[Bob King]

Like it or not the government are pushing through plans for, new cars would need an MoT after four years; cars under ten years would only need an MoT every two years, with only vehicles over 10-years-old needing an annual check.