MOT amendment consultation - have your say

[mik]

Note: the survey on ov9 does not constitute all or part of the official govt survey - it’s just for the silliness. You have 2 votes - the idea being to vote once on each of two points. I kinda know we won’t all manage that though eh?

=-=-=-=-=-=-

So the Gov have initiated formal consultation relating to MOT’s.

They are seeking feedback on 2 main aspects:
> Requirement for 1st MOT currently 3 yrs old. Increase to 4 or 5 yrs old?
> Current annual MOT requirement. Increase to 2 years?

Background information, detail on the proposals with stats n shizzles to support is located here

Provide your personal feedback HERE
The consultation period began on 18 January 2023 and will run until 28 February 2023.

Whilst the MOT is a bit of a PITA, I concede that the system has identified issues on my cars that I was not aware of. I have also suffered over the years weird fails like cuts in CV boots etc that look very fresh and clean - almost like the cut has occurred during the test in order to create some work for the garage. Such situations are massively annoying.

I am also aware that a very large percentage of General Joe Public and John Q Citizens - who don’t take any interest in their vehicle (or have no idea what they are looking at or hearing) only drive a car that is adequately mechanically safe (at least once a year) because the MOT system forces them to address problems.

Katie deals with a lot of trade stuff, so possibly not entirely representative, but

[Rich B]

It's fine as it is.

[duncs500]

MOT is just an unnecessary hassle for me, therefore the less frequent the better.

[Mito Man]

Also find it a hassle.

The reasoning this time round from the government is silly though. They want to extend the first test to 4 years to help those less well off. I can't see many people with such a new car having £40 make or break them. Of course if your car would otherwise need a new set of tyres/brakes at 3 years old but now you can push it to 4 then yeah, you'll save some money I guess

[Simon]

Leave it at yearly.

Change first test to 3 years or 30,000 miles, whichever is sooner.

Whole idea is stupid.

[DeskJockey]

Having watched enough YouTube videos it the state of vehicles in the US (where tests aren't mandatory in all states), I'm going with keep as is.

[Mito Man]

Leave it at yearly.

Change first test to 3 years or 30,000 miles, whichever is sooner.

Whole idea is stupid.

Actually having it mileage based overall is way more sensible. Something like every 10,000 miles or every 2 years for the weekend car people.

[jamcg]

When do non car people bother to check their lights? The week before mot and only so it’ll pass. It needs to be left at yearly intervals.

As for the first mot, keep it as it is. Cars are getting heavier and materials are getting cheaper yet more expensive- I’ve heard people commenting on how frequently newer cars will snap a spring compared to older cars, no idea if it’s true but I could believe it given how many come with big wheels and painted on tyres as standard these days

Another reason is length on warranty. Yes some do 5-7 years now but the vast majority are 3 years, and people don’t care about maintenance any more, so those cars will get 2 services for the warranty and nothing else until it breaks, so a check at 3 years is still important

[integrale_evo]

The three your thing seems sensible as it is, and as mentioned, £50 is hardly likely to break the bank if you can Alford a 3 year old car.

I’d be happy with two year gaps on my own cars, but not for most of the idiots on the road.

[mik]

Just completed my feedback. 83 questions (!) - some quite thought provoking to be fair, and some rather stoopid.

A cynic might suggest that it is intentionally long to minimise the feedback they will receive.....

[Ascender]

I've not had a lot at the feedback, but my first wonder is why on earth they're planning to change it? Seems to work well and while its a bit of a hassle for us, I dread to think how little attention a lot of people pay to their cars so the small cost & inconvenience helps keep everybody safe surely?

[Carlos]

I think the current system should continue. My wife made a point that there are so many bings, bongs and warning lights on her Sportage that she just ignores them including no fuel and tpms ! Unless the car grinds to a halt she wouldn't check anything and even then it would be my fault

My colleagues say the same, they are to "busy" or "its ok its a Mercedes" to get it checked so carry on as long as it starts and drives !

The no MOT on older cars at all is also a concern !

[mik]

The no MOT on older cars at all is also a concern !

That’s one of the questions in the survey - should they continue to be exempt?

[duncs500]

If someone has kept a 40 year old car on the road then surely in all probability it's been looked after? It would not be economical to run one just to avoid MOTs.

[Carlos]

If someone has kept a 40 year old car on the road then surely in all probability it's been looked after? It would not be economical to run one just to avoid MOTs.

I'm talking basic checks, lights, brakes, steering and a visual on structure, tyres etc. Hoovies recent Charger purchase was a great example of a loved and valuable car that is rarely driven and has knackered tyres, no brakes and questionable lighting

It also prevents the clocking and cloning of older cars.

[duncs500]

My Elise has questionable lighting, but it's not an MOT fail.

[mik]

I get the rationale that if you have a classic you’re likely to be a car-person and likely to keep it good.

However - if you know it needs a new brake show or whateveh and you know you can’t get one for 3 weeks, and you have the car booked to be on the classics-r-us stand, and you are only going to drive 25 miles there, but hey - you’ll be super-careful…… I’m sure it’ll be OK…. It doesn’t have to have an MOT or anything.

I feel that if they are going to be using the same roads then they should be subject to the same safety checks.

[duncs500]

The game has moved on in terms of safety, emissions etc though, so you either ban classic cars as being unsafe or cut then a bit of slack Shirley?

Probably a modern car with shonky breaks still stops better than some classic cars on mint-but-period breaks for example.

[Mito Man]

Yep might as well ban anything not fitted with TC or ABS or automatic emergency braking if you go down that slippery slope. The MOT is largely irrelevant in many cases as it’s just a test which a car has to pass at a particular date.

My car passed its MOT and its spring snapped off a week later. I drove it carefully 20 miles to my mechanic, and I’m sure we’ve all been there with shit like that.

[mik]

The game has moved on in terms of safety, emissions etc though, so you either ban classic cars as being unsafe or cut then a bit of slack Shirley?

Probably a modern car with shonky breaks still stops better than some classic cars on mint-but-period breaks for example.

I’m not suggesting that we apply modern limits to them on brake rollers or that they need to provide Euro6 emissions. Just that someone should check that the chassis isn’t rusted in half, that ball joints aren’t about to separate due to wear, that the brakes are actually functioning and 3 of the 4 aren’t rusted solid. That kinda shizzle.