MOT amendment consultation - have your say

[duncs500]

Yeah, fair enough.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Cheers for the link Mik. I've filled it in, alhtough it started to drag on a bit, and there were a few questions which prompted a "HTF should I know? type of response".

I'm in the keep it as it is camp, but for some of the EV and hybrid related stuff I was amazed by the inference that some things aren't inspected at present.

They seem to be of the thinking that on newer cars, or cars of the near future, much of the tech can monitor all the essentials and that tests could become less frequent/redundant. I can't imagine the basics of "are the tyres bald", "are the wipers hanging off", "does the windscreen have a thousand cracks in it" etc will be all that easy to cover off with sensors.*

*waits for someone to tell me about the new tyre, wiper and windscreen sensors fitted to the latest BMW iXWank edition.

[mik]

They seem to be of the thinking that on newer cars, or cars of the near future, much of the tech can monitor all the essentials and that tests could become less frequent/redundant. I can't imagine the basics of "are the tyres bald", "are the wipers hanging off", "does the windscreen have a thousand cracks in it" etc will be all that easy to cover off with sensors.*

Yeah - I answered against the reliance on automated self-checks for the same reason.

Also - impossible to answer questions about sufficient gov dept oversight of test centres when I have no idea what they look at or what powers they have

[nuttinnew]

What are they up to really? They wouldn't spend money on changing it just so we can save...have the penalties for bald tyres etc increased (or are they looking/talking about doing so)? I think they're viewing as a stealthy way to get older cars off the road, cars that at the moment people spend some money on to get through an mot but could accrue more and more costly faults when run for another year with the result they get scrapped when they fail the two yearly. Even if the cost to repair is only twice it used to be annually, how many people would view it like or "it's never cost me that much before, I'm not spending that on it". The extra year for new cars is just in the consultation to sound balanced - an extra year all round - when they've likely got no intention of changing it, unless it could affect leasing costs making the banks more money, of course.

I'll fill it in later. Thanks for posting.

[mik]

What are they up to really? They wouldn't spend money on changing it just so we can save...

Yeah it does seem a bit strange.

I can only find data for 2019 > UK road fatalities count was 1752, but the framing report in my initial post suggest that only 30 of these (same 2019 timeframe) had "vehicle defects" as a contributory factor (with around 350 of "fatal" + "serious" collisions where vehicle defects were contributory). No doubt someone is taking from this that we don't have a serious problem with vehicle maintenance/safety, and therefore rules can be relaxed.

I am missing the compelling reason for the govt to drive this change though - it's not like they are responding to public pressure (afaik)?

[scotta]

Can you start a campaign to exempt Lotus cars from emissions tests?

[duncs500]

Can you start a campaign to exempt Lotus cars from emissions tests?

Seconded, and Caterhams.

It's a PITA.