Why I’m glad about the u-turn to keep yearly MOTs

Test should be based on mileage. I have two motorcycles, one does less than 500 miles per year, the other two thousand. I’m just lining the MOT centres pockets. My car only does about six thousand miles per year, and my wife’s three thousand, both bought new. We are paying at least £120 per year for vehicles that are regularly serviced and cared for, many will be paying more. Plus, what about the rip off merchants who charge for non faults, not to mention the testers who don’t know the correct procedures. Two years is plenty soon in my book, and don’t forget it started as a ten year test when vehicles were far less reliable and safe.

When MOTs were introduced it might have been possible to claim they had some effect on accident rates. Then the testing was confined to ‘the big three’, lights, brakes and steering (from memory which may be playing tricks, surely tyres were in there from the start?). Now the range of possible fail points is enormous and the link with accidents is ever more tenuous. MOTs perpetuate the daft notion that the car is responsible for accidents, when we all know that the most of the risk lies with the driver. Those with longer memories may recall drving home with dodgy brakes; how did they do it? Answer, very carefully indeed.

I would love to know what work has been done to justify this ever-increasing imposition. The main effect is obvious to every driver, the cost of the test itself and all the minor repair work to get through it, not to mention premature retirement of countless vehicles, At a conservative estimate this must be worth about £1 billion ot the motor trade, small wonder they want to keep it the way it is. Road deaths have come down hugely since I was a young driver (about 75% in 50 years), but claims this is even partly due to MOTs seem to me to be mere assertion, unless someone can point to genuine research..

This isn’t sour grapes, my car has just passed with no problems, but I still don’t think this is a good use of scarce cash

Dave,

Thanks for the comment – I see you agree that just because something, in this case more extensive checking, can be done, it doesn’t follow that it should. So some sort of value judgement is being applied, call it a Cost/Benefit Analysis if you like. My question was, just what CBA has been done on vehicle testing regulations? I was hoping somone, you perhaps, could supply the answer. All I see is mere assertion, which doesn’t inpsire confidence.

For a much more authoritative opinion, please read Professor John Adams at UCL on his blog at http://www.john-adams.co.uk. You will see that even the most ‘obvious’ safety improvment, seat belts, isn’t nearly so obvious when you look at the statistics. Fatality rates tend to fall nearly everywhere over time as societies get used to the new technology, and the introduction of new restrictions has little discernable effect on the long term trend (I think he says somewhere in his blog that you can’t tell from looking at each nation’s road casualty statistics when the seat belt laws were introduced). I strongly suspect the same is true for vehicle testing but would appreciate real evidence on the issue one way or the other.

Surely a more pressing matter is the need to enforce a uniform standard for the MOT in Britain. The test in Northern Ireland has always been carried out through one of a number of government-run MOT centres thus ensuring a uniform standard – which I might add is very high. Motorists in NI are always advised to have their car tested on the mainland if they want an ‘easy’ pass.

i think every two years is quite often enough for an mot, i only did less than three thousand miles last year and my car is serviced regularlly, which by the way is another point to ponder, my car has to be serviced every 12500 miles or 12 months to comply with the warranty. and as i only did less than 3k miles last year it means dumping perfectly good oil etc.

Jim,
A 2 yearly MOT would probably be adequate for you vehicle, if you keep it garaged. But the Government has to set the standard for the lowest common denominator, not the highest.
Many drivers do in excess of the 12K a year average, do not have any pride in their vehicle, believe they are a motoring god and can tell if anything is wrong with their car just by driving it. The test is for these people so that an experienced eye goes over the car, just once a year, as a means of showing them something is wrong with their car, which they will immediately interpret as the garage using it as an excuse to rip them off.