Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Proposed Changes to the MOT

  
  1. #1
    Status
    Offline
    Ffoeg's Avatar
    2170:01:06
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,591
    Mentioned in
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Thumbs Down Proposed Changes to the MOT

    I found out yesterday that the Government are planning at making changes to the MOT system. They intend to follow europe (yet again) and introduce the '4-2-2' system.

    This means that a new car will not need an MOT for the 1st four years on the road, and then at 2 yearly intervals after that until the car is 8 yrs old, and then each year after that as per "normal".

    The following is taken from the MOT testers website and IMO it makes scarey reading...

    Proposed MOT changes will cause more death and injury on the roads!
    (If you like facts and figures, here is a report prepared by John Ball for the MOT Trade Forum – How will 4-2-2 affect you?)

    Britain currently has the safest roads in Europe – but not for much longer if Gordon Brown has his way.

    Research clearly indicates that EU countries which comply with just the European MINIMUM level of ‘MOT’ Testing have higher accident rates.

    Yet the government – announced by Gordon Brown himself – is proposing to reduce the level of MOT Testing being applied to UK vehicles to those over 4 years old, and then only every two years - the current EC MINIMUM requirement.

    It is estimated that such a change could result in up to 100 more people dying every year on Britain’s roads as a result of vehicle defects – that’s in addition to the 3,000 people who already die every year as a result of road accidents.

    There would, of course, also be an associated increase in the number of people suffering serious injuries during such accidents.

    This is unsurprising given that 30% of vehicles fail the MOT each year, most on key safety related items – tyres, brakes and lights. That’s about 7.5 million cars and light commercial vehicles every year which at MOT time are unsafe. Just imagine the deleterious effect on road safety if those vehicles continued to be used on the roads without being tested for a further year!

    The Government claim that as vehicles are now more reliable, they do not need to be Tested so often. That is appalling, naive and misguided logic; since when has a vehicle's reliability had any bearing on its road safety systems?

    Indeed, research has shown that vehicle reliability is not linked to a vehicle’s roadworthiness in road safety terms.

    Tyres do not affect reliability, brakes, lights, windscreens – all deteriorate over time, all affect road safety – but they do not affect reliability in the general sense at all. All are currently tested every year on vehicles over three years old – soon they may only be tested every two years, and after a further 10 or 20,000 miles have been put on the clock!

    So why is this being proposed?

    Mr Brown says it is to reduce regulation and save the motorist money. We have another theory: political expediency – buying votes. When motorists are being hit ever harder for fuel duty and road taxes, here's an opportunity to be seen to be generous and beneficent. But what are these votes costing?

    Coming to the apparent financial cost savings in a minute, what will be the cost in motorist's lives?

    The Davidson report

    In December 2006 the Davidson report into Transport policy was published – this report was sponsored by the Government.
    The issue of the MOT being changed to every two years was considered. In the report Davidson warned “In 2004, there were 3,221 deaths and 31,000 serious injuries in road accidents. Changing the MOT system could lead to a rise in these figures.” He also expressed concern that by changing the MOT to every two years, the general level of vehicle safety could fall, noting “Even drivers who do service their cars regularly may be driving with defects as the MOT test is more rigorous than some services in testing items such as brake efficiency and emissions. Furthermore some motorists only service their cars in order to pass the MOT.”

    So a few hundred people extra die and a few thousand are injured on the roads – but we're saving money aren't we?

    No Cost saving…

    This proposal has been put forward as an example of cutting red tape and reducing costs to industry, and to the country more widely. This is a false claim. Whilst two-yearly MOTs would indeed save motorists about £25 each year, the overall cost to the country would be much more when the costs of increased road deaths and injuries are factored into the calculations – and there are other cost issues.

    Increased insurance premiums

    Insurance companies, aware of the inevitable increase in road accidents have indicated that following such a move, insurance premiums will rise.

    Unemployment

    The MOT industry currently employs perhaps 75,000 people directly, with many more dependant on the annual MOT test indirectly. Vehicle spares suppliers, general motor mechanics, the suppliers of equipment to garages.

    Make a difference...

    If these figures appall you, and we can't imagine why they wouldn't, you will want to take action to persuade the Government not to push through this legislation.

    Write to your MP!

    This is the most effective way of registering your protest. By using this link http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm, you can access the website which gives you the name and address of your MP, who you can then contact to register your protest against this proposed change to the MOT.

    To assist you to make a protest, we have put together a sample letter which can be used (copy and paste the following into your email browser).

    ___________________________

    Dear [your MP's name]

    I am very concerned at the Government’s proposal to reduce the frequency of the MOT Test and by delaying the first Test a vehicle has by a year.

    I believe that the current annual MOT Test is one of the main reasons for the UK's current excellent road safety record and that the proposed changes will inevitably result in a significant increase of un-roadworthy vehicles being used on the roads. I am very concerned that this will result in more deaths and injuries on the roads.

    I would like you to make representations on my behalf to the Secretary of State for Transport to oppose this change.

    ___________________________

    or Contact the Department for Transport

    Preferably in addition to the above, you can contact the Minister of State for Transport directly at the following e-mail address: Stephen.Ladyman@dft.gsi.gov.uk

  2. #2
    Status
    Offline
    Jamee's Avatar
    AOC Obsessed
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,478
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Bloody hell, thats scary, i dont mind paying £35 a year, at least i know my is safe to be on the road. Politicians are soo slimy, anything to get votes!!!!
    .
    .
    SOLD Slightly tickled 175.9bhp 2.2 SE2 on 19" vxr's..

  3. #3
    Status
    Offline
    Jamee's Avatar
    AOC Obsessed
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,478
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Ive added this to z22se forum mate, as the more letters generated the better.
    .
    .
    SOLD Slightly tickled 175.9bhp 2.2 SE2 on 19" vxr's..

  4. #4
    Status
    Offline
    haulme's Avatar
    AOC Obsessed
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,474
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    thats very crap, regardless i will get my car mot'd yearly
    Drives:Mazda 6 MPS- Zoom Zoom

  5. #5
    Status
    Offline
    dannysport18's Avatar
    AOC Obsessed
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    35,241
    Mentioned in
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    7 Post(s)
    you should see that state of some 3 year old cars
    one of the drivers at lul has a 2 year old car thats a death trap

  6. #6
    Status
    Offline
    Paul's Avatar
    Ex-Astra Owner
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    12,861
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    It is a bad move IMO.... more death traps on the road

  7. #7
    Status
    Offline
    markfeeble's Avatar
    AOC Fanatic
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    God... A lot of people don't even bother to check their tyres/brakes etc anyway for the entire year... So this means that all those people too lazy to check the tread on their tyres or whatever in the space of a year are quite blatantly going to be too lazy to check the state of their car over the course of two years.

    Thanks Gordon, thanks for nothing.

    The really bad thing about this is that no matter how safe you make sure your own, all it takes is some moron coming round a corner with 4 bald tyres and shitty well worn brakes to slam into you and it's pretty much game over.

    Not happy, and will def be sending that letter to my MP.
    Watch who's comin' at you! Why? Who's got the power?

  8. #8
    Status
    Offline
    Brett's Avatar
    AOC Gold Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    14,196
    Mentioned in
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)
    I could understand it on if it was based on millage,so say under 5k a year, then you would have a 2 year mot, but each year it must go for a road saftey check, wich is a basic overhall of the car.

    Other wise it should be every 12months.

    With my astra I have barley used it since its last MOT so its a pain in the arse more than anything, but my Bora I wouldnt be happy it not MOT'd due to millage and age and that my family's saftey is reliant upon the saftey of my car. I dont think a saving of 25 squid can put a price on it tbh.

  9. #9
    Status
    Offline
    IainL's Avatar
    AOC Obsessed
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,844
    Mentioned in
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)
    This makes scary reading, but what people seem to be forgetting is that the majority of road accidents are caused by driver error.

    The Government should scrap this crazy idea though, to stop the road death toll rising, and instead actually spend more money educating drivers on safer driving, AFTER they have passed their test.
    I>< Silver Coupe ><I

  10. #10
    Status
    Offline
    jam's Avatar
    AOC Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tamworth, Staffordshire
    Posts
    11,695
    Mentioned in
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Follow jam On Twitter
    I'm sure this is a repost from last year.
    Its a jam thing

    Haec credam a deo pio, a deo justo, a deo scito?



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Proposed to my girlfriend on sat.
    By southwestastra in forum Chit Chat and a Warm Welcome!
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 13-10-2012, 22:03
  2. Finally proposed to the g/f!!
    By Dannywrc in forum Chit Chat and a Warm Welcome!
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-10-2007, 10:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •