Biennial MOT tests

[throwaway4372]

Someone voted for these muppets! It’s on you!

True, but that election was about Brexit so the normal rules didn't apply. That said, I voted for them previously to get a lower tax bill, which probably was the biggest help for my cost of living so I don't regret that either. Different priorities for the next election though.

 

[chrcoluk]

True, but that election was about Brexit so the normal rules didn't apply. That said, I voted for them previously to get a lower tax bill, which probably was the biggest help for my cost of living so I don't regret that either. Different priorities for the next election though.

At least you have admitted to putting yourself first on an election vote, which deserves respect.

 

[throwaway4372]

At least you have admitted to putting yourself first on an election vote, which deserves respect.

Does it? I just think it's the default thing to do, if everyone votes for what benefits them then whoever wins benefits the most people, which seems to me like the optimal outcome. I do understand there's a bunch of different approaches people take though, and some of them will think selfishness is bad.

Edit: My parents' approach was "people around here always vote X", which imo is a pretty bad reason to vote for someone.

 

[chrcoluk]

Does it? I just think it's the default thing to do, if everyone votes for what benefits them then whoever wins benefits the most people, which seems to me like the optimal outcome. I do understand there's a bunch of different approaches people take though, and some of them will think selfishness is bad.

Edit: My parents' approach was "people around here always vote X", which imo is a pretty bad reason to vote for someone.

Depends, the most vulnerable in the country are only a minority of people, and get shafted by that reasoning.

Then there is the question of people not understanding the tax system, not understanding the repercussions of whats been offered (budget cuts for care, etc.), and so they think they helping themselves but in reality they not, often caused by misleading press statements and the like. Voting for Brexit is a big example of this. I had to explain to family members that our taxes havent been cut as the giant consumption tax increases have totally over shadowed any changes to NI and income tax.

Me personally I will vote for things that dont help me personally, e.g. by the time social housing gets built in big enough numbers, I will likely be dead or in a care home by then. But will still vote for such a policy as it will help future generations.

I do agree with you of course the majority of people vote for what they consider to help themselves and also prioritise short gains over long term gains. My respect for you was openly admitting to it, as I dont see many so open about it.

 

[Phemo]

It is an absolutely ridiculous proposal. Not only are so many people completely unable to look after their car with knackered brakes, tyres etc that it would result in some absolute sheds being on the road, but it would surely mean that a fair amount of MOT testers would be out of work too. With less cars to test there is obviously a lower workload.

And that’s before you even factor in that if £40-55 a year is such a big deal you arguably shouldn’t even be driving a car in the first place.

 

[Rroff]

And that’s before you even factor in that if £40-55 a year is such a big deal you arguably shouldn’t even be driving a car in the first place.

For some people that is a bit of being between a rock and a hard place especially if they live a bit out of town, etc. and may be necessary for them to have any real chance of finding work, etc.

In theory the better approach, like with eye tests and so on, would be to subsidise MOT costs for those on low income, though that opens up a lot of potential contentions and other issues and ultimately won't have that much impact on those feeling the squeeze.

 

[Grim5]

I've been a tester for many years too and totally agree. It's absolutely obsurd to be thinking about making it bi-annual, if someone can't afford to keep their car road legal then this is not the fix for that problem. I've seen my fair share of damn right dangerous cars in for MOT, some of those are even at their first MOT at 3 years old.

Someone who can't afford to keep paperwork in order probably can't afford maintenance or repairs either and the vehicle shouldn't be on the road. Cars are expensive if you can't afford it take the bus

And the UK should be making cars more expensive to have not cheaper, that's how you reduce transport emissions and improve public transport use

 

[Hotwired]

Saving costs on repairs by not having MoT done so often

Yeah lets not have the issues identified and kept off the road, top plan.

 

[Rroff]

Someone who can't afford to keep paperwork in order probably can't afford maintenance or repairs either and the vehicle shouldn't be on the road. Cars are expensive if you can't afford it take the bus

And the UK should be making cars more expensive to have not cheaper, that's how you reduce transport emissions and improve public transport use

Problem with those ideas - loads of people live in areas where there is no realistic option to car or bus and don't have a nearby bus route and/or only very limited bus services. Also large parts of the population on low wages have no choice these days but to use a car for work, etc.

 

[theone8181]

This works really well in parts of america. I've seen some cars on reddit where the doors rusted through and you can see the driver. Not to mention how many people don't know their tyres are bald until told at the mot. I take good care of both our cars, but my wife's had 2 nroken springs one mot (I didn't take it in, and it was at kwikfit so I assume they were right), I suspect a manufacturing defect.

 

[Malevolence]

It means either twice a year or every two years. Which is why it shouldn't be used. I thought the same at first.

No it doesn't. Biennial means every other year, biannual means exactly what it says - twice a year.

 

[Hagar]

I don't think split gaiters and snapped springs are going to cause a huge accident as such, car might drive weird but overall catastrophic failure would be very unlucky.

When it comes to tyres though, those should be assessed annually. The state some people leave them in within 12 months is bad enough, allowing another 12 months plus our usual weather... Gonna be the cause of even more unecessary accidents in my opinion.

Tyres should be assessed fortnightly when checking pressures and not left to the MOT tester. A competent owner or driver would check his or her tyres as a matter of course. Those of family members too. Windscreen wiper blades wear down as well.

 

[Doobedoo]

Tyres should be assessed fortnightly when checking pressures and not left to the MOT tester. A competent owner or driver would check his or her tyres as a matter of course. Those of family members too. Windscreen wiper blades wear down as well.

Which will be the government stance, it up to the owner to ensure their car is roadworthy. We know though that plenty of people will happily ignore issues if it saves them money. This idea is ridiculous those that have proposed it are morons.

 

[Rroff]

I don't think split gaiters and snapped springs are going to cause a huge accident as such, car might drive weird but overall catastrophic failure would be very unlucky.

Split gaiters yeah, but stuff like springs can significantly degrade the vehicles handling and might produce unpredictable results in an emergency situation.

 

[Hagar]

Which will be the government stance, it up to the owner to ensure their car is roadworthy. We know though that plenty of people will happily ignore issues if it saves them money. This idea is ridiculous those that have proposed it are morons.

Well I have driven for 50 years and as far as I know it has always been the owners responsibility for the roadworthyness and safety of their vehicle. If not, the police should be removing them from the road and scrapping their vehicle.

 

[Haggisman]

Tyres should be assessed fortnightly when checking pressures and not left to the MOT tester. A competent owner or driver would check his or her tyres as a matter of course. Those of family members too. Windscreen wiper blades wear down as well.

Assessed properly yes, and also a quick glance around all 4 daily when using the car takes a second or 2 longer than not doing so, and will quickly identify any obvious issues such as a flat or bald tyre. The number of cars I see parked up where the driver clearly doesn't even look at them till MOT day is frightening

I think this is a terrible idea - I get the impression that for many people the only time their car gets a "safety check" is during the MOT, do we really want to double the length of time between these?

 

[lordrobs]

Cost can't even be entered as a factor when the cost of a test is about the same as 2/3 of a tank of fuel.

It is a stupid idea and one that will ultimately end up with more cars being scrapped (maybe the real intention here?) because a job or two picked up at MOT time once a year is less likely to see the owner cut their losses than half a dozen jobs picked up after two years.

 

[bobuk]

The 2 year MOT was touted around 10 years ago and it was found that it would cost more in the long run with the bigger casualty list in deaths and injuries caused by unroadworthy vehicles. most of the continent have 2bi annual MOT's with a yearly emissions test. It will effect a lot of MOT stations resulting in a lot of closures.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It isn't even £55, there are plenty of places offering tests for £30.

 

[rodenal]

Agree, it's hard to see how there is any genuine benefit to anyone in saving what is realistically £35 to skip a year of MOT check (and given it would still happen the following year the realistic yearly saving would be less than £18)

Walk more every month or take more public transport and save vastly more than this without potentially contributing to more accidents.