The MOT test is to be changed in the new year. The government has also announced that it will review the MOT test. They will look into the initial exemption period, the testing frequency, and what the test covers.

The Retail Motor Industry Federation has stated that if the changes moved to the European levels that 400 people would die each year and that 40,000 people would lose their jobs and that it would cost the UK economy billions. A better example of shroud waving I haven’t seen.

Most European countries test their cars after it is four years old and then test bi-annually. This being the minimum frequency. but there is no standard European test, just some minimum requirements. The UK likes to boast that its MOT test is the best in the world in that it is the most comprehensive. The UK’s testing frequency more frequent than the the European minimum being done after a car is three years old and performed annually. Though there are some critics of the UK test in that it has a number of loopholes such in tyre pressure where a car will pass even when all four tyres have 50% pressure. Comparisons with other European car testers show that the UK is not necessarily the best, for example in training. The UK has a two day training course whilst Germany has a full year course for testers. The UK’s annual testing sounds like it’s better, but when the UK’s tyre limit is 1.6mm whilst Germany’s TUV system says is must be 2.4mm.

The Institue of Advanced Motorists wonders if the UK’s more stringent testing environment is worthwhile. It costs the UK motorist £465m/year for the gold plated UK testing version. The UK’s failure rate of three year old cars at 21% (2007) sounds high compared to the other European countries such as France 5.61 per cent, Switzerland 17.5 per cent, Norway 19.9 per cent, Germany 4.8 per cent and Austria 10 per cent. You would think that such a high failure rate demands that a more stringent testing regime be put in place if UK motorists are so bad at looking after their cars and their safety. But then when you consider that a failure can be due to a blown light bulb you can see that the bare figure hides a multitude of sins. For instance the UK system of allowing garages to test cars as well as fix them can easily lead to false positives where the garage can make money out of the test and the unnecessary fix. Other countries require the testing and fixing to be done at two different garages. Our system is more convenient but is also more open to abuse.

As an example of gold plating and unnecessary bureaucracy of EU regulation by the UK civil service, witness the latest changes. The EU regulation states that where chipping of engine management units is illegal, it should become a failure case. In the UK chipping isn’t illegal (yet), but before the law has even changed to make it illegal VOSA are already stating that the MOT will fail such case. Even before they have worked out how it’s going to be done as an ECU can be chipped without any visible signs of modification. Such checks would require expensive equipment for each make of car at every single testing station and would make MOTs even more expensive for no real benefit. Other examples of VOSA over regulation includes the case where they stated that number plates without a postcode would be a failure case little realising that 99% of cars would fail the moment they brought in the change. This was quickly fixed.

First-time MoT failure rates (2007)

In 2007, 21.6 per cent (580,754) of three-year old cars failed their first test. Among 836,646 individual failure faults, the top 10 were:

Source: VOSA

PS. If you take you car to a MOT test centre and it fails it is recorded immediately as a failure so you can only drive it home (or to a garage for fixing) even if you have days before the end of the month. So if you drive around after failing a test and get caught by an ANPR camera (and you don’t need to be speeding to have your details recorded) you will get a fine.

SBML

Derek Reynolds
December 9, 2010 at 18:10

Just roll up to the MOT station in an Aveling & Porter steam roller.
When asked “where’s the ignition?” Give him a match.

Silverback December 8, 2010 at 13:20

I can say from personal experience that whilst the German TUV test is only
every 2 years, it’s far more stringent than the UK equivalent. Getting a 15
year old vehicle through German TUV was not a fun experience at all.

SadButMadLad
December 8, 2010 at 15:01

As I understand it and ICBW, but it’s not too bad for a new car on its
first tests but it gets a lot tougher for cars over 8 years old in Germany.
Understandable really as new cars are still in warranty and reliability is
pretty good for modern cars. It’s only old cars where maintenance tends to
fall by the wayside and things start to drop off.

Eleanor December 8, 2010 at 11:13

I was once told by a French Testing Station that my brakes had passed but
that in his opinion they would need replacing in the not too distant future. I
thought that this was very reasonable and fair. Presuming of course that no
one in their right mind would drive around for too long with possibly faulty
brakes.
But then French Testing Stations don’t do repairs.

Mike Woodford
December 8, 2010 at 10:06

I am an engine re-mapper for a living.

On all our diesel Remaps we give you a money back garentee that your car
will use less fuel.

I also have remapped my own clio 172 and seen fuel improvements.

So surly remapping in greener. And i though that was want the goverment
cared about???

Or is it there loss in fuel dutys i wonder!

William
Gruff December 7, 2010 at 19:52

Road deaths up by 400 per year?

Roadside breathalyser checks, a stricter driving test, compulsory medicals
next?

Where there isn’t a problem one can be created. The solutions are all
there, just waiting to be implemented. I work on the assumption that if I can
identify an area of my life that can possibly be interfered with or made more
irritating or annoying than it is already, or if there is a way in which even
another penny can be extracted from me on some spurious pretext, some lackey
of the state will already have thought of it.

Joe Public December 7, 2010 at 18:14

“The Retail Motor Industry Federation has stated that if the changes moved
to the European levels that 400 people would die each year and that 40,000
people would lose their jobs…..”

Offset by a small rise in the Undertaking Profession.

Bill December 7, 2010 at 17:49

My mechanic told me that as soon as the car drives away from the MOT
station the certificate you have in your hand is only of any use until 12
midnight on the day the document was created.
For the rest of the year it
is utterly useless.
It generates revenue for the government and that is the
sole reason the MOT test still prevails.

Think TV Licence on wheels and you get the picture.

Stilyaqi December 7, 2010 at 15:53

Some years back I left a garage after having and passing an MOT and was
booked within 2 miles for a faulty brake light. Mechanical and electrical
failures can happen at any time and an MOT is therefore no guarantee that a
vehicle is roadworthy in the eyes of the law.

Richard B December
7, 2010 at 14:21

I would disagree that the MoT is nothing to do with safety. It’s
inconvenient, sure – my car is off the road at present because my MoT has
lapsed. But I have no problem with submitting my car or either bike for a
yearly check by an unbiased professional. If there’s a problem, I’d rather
hear about it from them than after an accident. In general, I have found MoT
testers to be very reasonable and honest. I have a slight advantage, in that I
try to talk to the tester beforehand (if I don’t know him already) and I am
reasonably clued-up about mechanical stuff, so I tend not to get
bullshitted.

I would not support any weakening of the current regime, to be honest.
Where I would like to see a change is to make it illegal for the garage
carrying out the test to do the repairs. That would remove the only real
problem with the system, which is its propensity to find faults that aren’t
there for business reasons and con the unsuspecting.

An awful lot of serious faults can develop in two years.

Richard B December
7, 2010 at 14:10

@ Andrew – it has been a requirement for many years (since the 51 plate
year) now that new number plates carry the name and postcode of the supplier.
It may be small, faint, or even self-coloured, a bit like a hologram, but it
will be there on all new cars and all new – legal – plates since the new regs
came in.

I opted for £10 plates off the web in preference to £25 plates from
Halfords. They are the correct colour, size, font, and have no illegal
background, border or text. Because they have no postcode on, they are
technically illegal. If a copper is bored enough to do that, I admit my
criminality.

woodsy42 December 7, 2010 at 16:18

“now that new number plates carry the name and postcode of the supplier.
”

That’s exactly right. Plus the fact that the supplier must be fully
registered and must see the log book, and owner’s ID while also accounting
for all purchases of plate blanks and sales.
This obviously has nothing
to do with safety but with payment of speed tickets and conjestion charges,
intended to ensure that nobody can buy a set of false plates.
Meanwhile
my dear old Minor retains white plastic letters on a black plate, sod em

Not that it’s likely to get caught in a speed camera!

Joe Public
December 7, 2010 at 18:17

But take care not to stray into Bus Lanes.

SadButMadLad
December 7, 2010 at 18:18

And it only affects law abiding people because those who want fake
plates can still get them via the usual illegal channels.

Derek
Reynolds December 9, 2010 at
18:05

Yes, like the scrote who ripped both the plates off our Micra in
Morrisons car park. Crime number obtained – never been stopped or
checked since – so either they weren’t used or plod is more interested
in Krispy Kreems than policing.

Chipping: After market chips can improve fuel consumption, emissions,
and smoother running, mainly due to the OEM being a poor quality product
(not all cases). Regulatory stupidity once again. One MOT was failed on
an indicator bulb with a small piece of amber paint chipped off showing
white at one extreme angle. Sooo dangerous . . .

So many testers translate in different ways. It’s all over the top.
When first introduced it was steering, brakes, tyres and lights. And
before that? Well, we all just went out to kill ourselves. Who needs
brakes?

Lexander December 7, 2010 at 13:22

We need a proper TRAFFIC police force. They would also AUDIT mot testing.
Not sure it is even done at the moment. Every day I spot a vehicles that have
a faults. Every day I see vehicles breaking the speed limits. Fines would
cover the cost of the force. All profit monies from fines to got to local
authorities NOT the government. And the establishment of the force would
provide several thousand jobs. Easy. Toodle pip.

Kingbingo December 7, 2010 at 13:01

“The Retail Motor Industry Federation has stated that if the changes moved
to the European levels that 400 people would die each year and that 40,000
people would lose their jobs and that it would cost the UK economy
billions.”

Then simply introduce weekly testing. It will result in hundreds of
thousands of new jobs and billions added to the economy from little magic
purse we all carry around to pay for regulations and taxes. Why the hell did
no one think of this sooner?

JuliaM December
7, 2010 at 14:39

Plus, presumably, not only would no-one die anymore, but the birth rate
would increase!

Andrew Duffin
December 7, 2010 at 12:47

Number plates without a post code?

Where do number plates show post codes? Whose post code?

What fresh hell is this?

We all need to understand that, as in so many similar instances, the MOT
test is nothing to do with safety, but is a revenue protection
exercise aimed at ensuring cars more than about ten years old cannot
possibly be kept going, and is largely a result of lobbying by the
manufacturers’ and main dealers’ trade associations.

In these environmentally-aware times would it not make more sense to build
cars as simple and durable as possible (get rid of all electronics for a
start) so that they can go on more or less for ever, thus avoiding the
creation and disposal of all that plastic etc etc?

woodsy42 December 7, 2010 at 12:24

So I better get my 1960 Minor 1000 chipped while I still can. Didn’t
realise it might become illegal!