PDA

View Full Version : Save money by not having an MOT? Would you be in favour?



Pejazzle
04-01-2012, 05:33 PM
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. It?s January. Everyone is back at work/looking for work/watching Jeremy Kyle and soon Black Monday will be upon us- the third Monday in January when you realise it is still ages until you get paid. This is probably not the time to remind you of unavoidable and necessary costs like an annual MOT, and while the MOT itself might not break the bank, the various jobs that need doing to get your car through just might.


So would you welcome a change to the current system? In the UK we work on a 3-1-1 system, which means a new car does not need an MOT for three years, and then one is required annually. In Continental Europe though, the system is 4-2-2.


As part of its Red Tape Challenge, the Government has been consulting on changing the UK system to the 4-2-2 frequency pattern. On the face of it, this would seem to be good news for the savvy consumer like you, dear Bitterwallet reader, as the reduced frequency would naturally translate to a reduced pocket dent, wouldn?t it? The Government?s own figures estimate an annual saving to motorists of ?24.44 a year made up of:


?20 a year in saved MOT fees


?3.30 a year in saved personal time


?1.14 a year in saved fuel costs as a result of fewer visits to a MOT station


Sounds reasonable, and while ?24.44 a year isn?t a lot of money, it is still more money in your pocket than in someone else?s, right? Well, apparently not. Road safety campaign organisation ProMOTe beg to differ. They claim that, rather than saving you some pretty pennies, a less frequent MOT would actually cost you money, to the tune of an additional ?81.81, made up of:


?30.59 in additional repair costs


?46.05 in additional insurance premiums


?5.17 in additional fuel costs


Now call me a cynic, but it might just be that an organisation called ProMOTe actually quite likes the current MOT system and would therefore find figures from its ?motor industry sources? that supported its cause. The accountant in me also wonders why the ?23.33 MOT fees and time savings have been left out of the ProMOTe figures. Surely these are valid savings, and the personal time saving looks low to me, given even miminum wage is now over ?6 per hour. Could it be because including these costs would reduce the impact value of their ?extra cost??


However, ProMOTe are not just a bunch of busybodies*, the main thrust behind their argument is one of road safety- if cars are tested once a year, there is a least a vague hope that for some of that year, the car is safe to drive on the road. Pro-MOTe co-ordinator, Bill Duffy, said ?This research shows that scrapping annual MOT testing would not only be dangerous but prove very expensive too, to both drivers and taxpayers alike? and the cost to the UK economy in lost jobs and higher costs arising from the additional accidents that we would see due to less frequent testing would be significant.?


?Reducing the frequency of MOTs is a cost too far. It is time for the Government to scrap this dangerous, expensive and unwanted plan.? he finished.


But is it an unwanted plan? Clearly ProMOTe are not fans, but what about the Great British Public? Earlier this year the Government consulted on motoring red tape, which included a strand for discussion on Vehicle Safety and Standards. The results of the consultation were announced last month, and the current MOT regulations are classified as ones due to ?Improve?. But is this is line with the consultation responses?


ProMOTe analysed the comments left on the relevant section of the Red Tape Challenge website and came up with the following results:


291 responses to red tape challenge on Vehicle safety and Standards


220 mentioned MOT frequency change (75.6 % of all responses)


203 of those who mentioned MOT were against the change (92.3%)


10 people were for the change (4.5%)


7 people mentioned MOT but didn?t say whether they were for or against a change


Again, the cynic in me wanted to take these figures with a pinch of salt, but reading the comments left on the website, ProMOTe?s analysis does appear to be accurate. It seems the public are more concerned with road safety than in saving money.


Having said that, 291 people is not really a representative sample of the 60 million people in the UK. Also, a large number of respondents seemed to be in the motor trade, who naturally have a vested interest in maintaining the current schedule of testing.


So here?s a question for you- would you favour a change to the MOT system?

Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 29)

digdug
04-01-2012, 05:51 PM
I would say an average MOT costs ?40-50 these days. Some garages have offers but you dont see many cheaper than ?40. I have paid ?49.50 for an MOT the last few years

?3.30 for time is way too low. An MOT may take approx 45 mins but most people spend half to a full day sorting everything out especially if it fails. Im guessing they worked that out on the actual time an MOT test takes against the minimum wage?

There might be some reasons why 1 fault would cause another which would incur additional costs but I fail to see where they get ?30.59 in additional repair costs and ?46.05 in additional insurance premiums

and ?5.17 in additional fuel costs. The MOT is mostly to check for mechanical defects. Engine emissions could effect fuel economy but I fail to see why the majority of faults would make the car use more fuel

I would be in favour for the new 4 2 2 scheme. I believe the cars these days are safer and more reliable and dont think a yearly MOT is required. It was a good excercise to get the old cars off the road that failed emiisions or rusted to hell but whats left now I believe would be fine now to be checked every 2 years but you will always get the health & safety gurus argueing the point about tyres etc. which should be checked and maintained by the driver not by being picked up on the MOT

tinkertiler
04-01-2012, 07:34 PM
This is a very bad idea!! The amount of people who i know that just dont bother with their cars is unreal! Doing it every 2 years is just asking for trouble. But then again a MOT is not worth the paper its written on as soon as you leave the garage anyway lol

How many people have took their car for a mot to be told that it needs tires?? And how many of them people actually knew there was a problem with them? Not many at a guess. My mate for example i took his car the other day as the brakes was playing up and said the front tires are nearly dead and he said they look fine to me!! Er no Mr Policeman would have something to say about that one im afraid!!!! The only reason i knew the brakes was on there last legs was because i had borrowed it and looked and he said well they stop the car dont they??

Far too many people just dont look after or know how to look after their car for a 2 year mot to be viable. It is asking far too much of the car and im afraid that people will get seriously hurt because of the faults which would go unnoticed. And to turn around and say well they will get picked up on a service is wrong too. Alot of people in these hard times are leaving it longer and longer between services so faults never get noticed.

This is dicing with death it was set at a year for a reason and should stay that way and with the government looking into motorway speed limits getting increased why should more lives be put at risk??

cactikid
04-01-2012, 08:58 PM
ah i like a good laugh,i drive a 1989 yes that old mitsubishi as a second car,i call it my dumptruck as i can throw a single 6 foot mattress in the back and shut the tailgate.only gets looked at every maybe 18 months but not driven much to require an annual service,it has to depend on how often you use the car and if you do the basic checks yourself,checked out how to open the bonnet yet?many still dont know what to pull,check the oil [ engine off ] and level ground,coolant level,washer fluid and additive,also to know the different areas that need special fluids,check tyres and pressures and the spare and have boot unloaded,wiper blades function can you see when its raining?when was the last time you checked your lights?and why are you driving with the rear fog lights on?
oh when i leave it in i want a cheap service meaning oil and filter done,its the other things they dont worry about thinking there fine ,they are not! we had a 98 vw polo that crashed why? no front brakes to stop the car,only thing left of the brake discs were 2 rings and 2 disc flanges as there were no surface for brake pads to bite into,stupid **** should not have a car or even drive one. a car is a lethal weapon at best of times and not regularly serviced,rusted brake pipes come to mind and R.I.P.

richard77138
04-01-2012, 09:20 PM
I think its a good idea for motorcycles I have a few bikes and its a pain getting them mot'd especially since they guys testing them know sweet f all about bikes and most bikes are only doing a couple of thousand miles a year and are treated like babys

tinkertiler
04-01-2012, 09:23 PM
Come on lets be honest out of everyone who owns a car when was the last time you checked your tire pressures? Oil? Water? Tire tread depth? Condition of wipers? Condition of brakes? Brake fluid? Radiator water level? Lights? Brake lights?

Is there anyone thinking im being a bit over the top???

cactikid
04-01-2012, 10:53 PM
your car was robbed last night,have you not checked lol,yes checked mine on friday before xmas as i was doing a longer run than normal,even cleaned the windows for better vision at night its one thing people dont do.

Diablo13
04-01-2012, 11:47 PM
There is no real reason why an MOT could not be carried out every 2 years like it is on the continent.
In Germany the TUV is carried out every 2 years without allowing any more dangerous cars on the road than there would be otherwise!
That said, the 2 year TUV is more stringent in its checks, takes longer and is more expensive!
With the much better technology and anti corrosion and safety measures used in newer cars, it is quite reasonable for them to remain safe for 2 years between tests, the vehicles becoming dangerous during that time are still mainly picked up during police safety checks, as they are here.
In actual fact a far more efficient way to decide when a car needs testing would be to base it on annual mileage driven, though that would be more difficult to check it's not impossible because it is declared to your insurance company and the mot testing station. In which case your mot certificate would simply state that the next test is due in 2 years or 20,000 miles, whichever comes earliest. If you failed to comply with the rule and drove more than say 500 miles over the test limit, then you could face either a heavy fine or scrapping of your vehicle?
This could also be made to depend on the age and condition of that vehicle, so that someone driving a shed would make sure they got it tested on time, or run the great risk of seeing it definitely scrapped!
That way those who did more miles and put more than average wear and tear on their vehicles, brakes, tyres, steering, windscreens and wipers etc might need to have them tested in only 6 or 9 months if their mileage warranted it?

Does it save you time having your mot every 2 years instead of annually, yes.
Does it save you money, not really because you often need more things fixing at once.
Is the standard of the test better on the continent than here, yes because there are less but more specialized test centers, all run on government rules and the testers as well as their equipment are tested themselves more regularly to one approved standard all over the country.
Is it better or worse to test cars annually or biannually?
Well that's swings and roundabouts really.
I would be in favour of a TUV standard of testing every 2 years, so long as they adopt the rest of the continental method of doing it as well, which would do away with a lot of shoddy backstreet testers and make test prices universal, all run by the 'men from the ministry', to a higher countrywide standard!

As far as your own road worthiness checks go that's largely common sense, even if most of us don't do them as often as we should, but no mot test can check your tyre pressures, windscreen wipers or lights regularly enough.
That depends on how worried you are about breaking down, wrapping your vehicle round a lamppost, or killing someone! :-?

tinkertiler
04-01-2012, 11:48 PM
I havent even got a car but every time i borrow my mates i end up doing it because i know dam well he hasnt lol I normally get a call er the cars making a funny noise or something like that pmsl

EDIT - come on diablo when was the last time you checked all them things i listed before?? And dont say i dont need to because the car is new to me because every single one that i listed is either a weekly check or daily check. And saying well they all worked last time i was out isnt a good enough excuse either!!

Thing is i could take you down the street and i am no mechanic but i bet i could find at least 3 faults with 60% of the cars i looked at. Thats without looking under the bonnet! Its ok turning around and saying well you know a bit about mechanics and cars well yes i do but i was always told to make sure the basics are fine before i even turn the key! I bet most people dont even know how to check there brake lights when they are on their own!! And before anyone googles it look in a window that is behind the car lol

Or here is another question for you all. How many peoples cars went straight through a mot last time without any work needed doing to it? As that is the condition the car SHOULD be in every day that you drive it let alone a yearly chore that makes you spend money!!!!

Diablo13
05-01-2012, 12:39 AM
Your right I don't check tyre pressures or under the bonnet enough, but I do check the lights and wipers and do visual checks most times I take it out of the garage. I check oil, water and brake fluid levels as well, though only sometimes when I fill up.
I used to do the same with my 14 year old Fiat as well, not just this newer Peugeot.
That Fiat passed the last 2 years mot with no faults as well, not bad for an old car. :D

tinkertiler
05-01-2012, 01:01 AM
I could have been very brutal in the reply but i decided to not write it the way i was going to because it was horrific i wont deny it.

Its ok to check the lights but the tires are THE ONLY part that make contact with the road. Not the lights not the brakes not the windscreen ect ect so would you not consider that they are one of the most if not the most important part of the care which needs your attention? I know the senario you have just finished your shopping you need to get some fuel, you want to get home for a cuppa and you think that i will do the tires another day. It starts to rain hard the bloke in front of you has one brake light out and because of the poor driving conditions you slam straight into the back of the car in front! Does checking the tires still not seem as important??

Yes i did tone that down alot as i was being alot more brutal in my first responce. This is the problem now people think they have far more important things to be doing instead of checking the car amd most people you will find just dont know how to do it!

Petrol
Oil
Water
Electrics
Radial

That was the check i was always told to do everytime i got behind the wheel granted the water and oil its every week i did when i had a car and i do more checks than that now when i borrow my mates. i.e brake fluid. If its low dont just top it up check the system or get someone who knows what they are doing to check it. It is a sealed system and its low for a reason. low brake pads or a leak somewhere that needs to be sorted urgently!!! Yes as urgently as putting petrol in the car lol Power steering fluid level. if its going down it needs checking because it shouldnt use much if any. You can live without air con, you can live without the heater. Are you so safe without brakes or a dodgy tire??? I dont think so

cactikid
05-01-2012, 01:36 AM
in ireland if your car is over 10 years of age we all so lucky now,the added bonus of getting car tested every year.with the irish version of the nct.

stony
05-01-2012, 01:47 AM
2 years should be good for newer motors but some of the old rust buckets i'v seen probably need checked every 6 months

Kammon
05-01-2012, 02:38 AM
I'd say make a MOT test every 2 years compulsory but at the same time crack doen harder on those who don't get it done - if you can't get it tested within two years then what's wrong withh you? - and if people want to MOT their car more frequently then that's up to them, perhaps even arrange some sort of saving for frequent MOTers - gotta use both carrot and stick!