Search the Community

MOT TESTERS MANUAL

Tests criticised as ineffective. Researchers want the government to scrap vehicle safety inspections and focus on anti-drink driving campaigns instead. Neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) slammed MOT tests as “outdated” and ineffective and urged the government to consider ditching the inspections in favour of tackling the major causes of road traffic collisions. Alex Hoagland, author of the paper, said: “The UK has required MOT testing for decades, in order to prevent crashes and fatalities from unreliable vehicles. "Nowadays, vehicles are safer than ever, leading some governments to re-inspect these programs. “When these safety inspections were done away with in some US states, accident rates did not change. There’s no evidence that vehicle safety inspections improve vehicle safety.” The ASI estimates doing away with MOT testing could save the average driver £143 in “unneeded” repair costs. Mr Hoagland argues the measures are past their sell by date as the current tests do not take account of modern safety features. Sam Dumitriu, Head of Research at the ASI, said: “MOT Tests are meant to prevent crashes and save lives, but they’ve never been put to the test themselves. "New evidence from the US found that scrapping similar mandatory vehicle safety inspections had no impact on crash rates. "Evidence, not gut feeling, should guide policy.” The ASI suggests testing only once every two years, increasing the age of testable vehicles to five years and dedicating more resources to driverless car development. Last year, vehicle defects accounted for just 1,687 collisions out of 229,608, including 348 serious and 28 fatal accidents. A DfT spokesperson said: “Britain has some of the safest roads in the world but there is always more to do, and we are continuing our work to reduce accidents, regardless of how they are caused. “Although modern cars are better built and safer than those that existed when the MOT test was first introduced 58 years ago, there are still fatal accidents every year as a result of vehicle defects.” The government recently consulted on extending the time to a first MOT for new vehicles from three to four years but the majority of respondents did not support the proposals, with 57 per cent of people who don’t work in mechanics or MOT testing rejecting the plans. An AA spokesman said the MOT test is a classic example of “a stitch in time”, where flagging up and obliging drivers to repair defects, such as faulty tyres and brakes, is a much cheaper option than a crash with all the repair and insurance costs involved. Edmund King, AA president, said: “The MOT is appreciated by the vast majority of drivers and means that at least once a year, for cars over three years of age, there is an independent check on safety and vehicle emissions. "It would be a backward and dangerous step to scrap it.” Under the current system, the MOT failure rate has increased from 29 per cent in 2004/05 to 41 per cent in 2009/10. View On Police Oracle

For those who're unaware on Monday the MOT rules changed so that instead of just a fail the defects are now split into two categories major and dangerous. Does this have any change on the enforcement? For example a car presented early under the new rules fails on a dangerous defect, clearly it cannot be driven away from the station as it has been judged in a dangerous condition even if it has MOT remaining. However, the fact we now catagorise it dangerous doesn't mean it wasn't on the old rules and so should not really have been driven away. It is just a case that now it is far easier to put forward that they knew or should have known it is in a dangerous condition and does that mean dangerous driving will be considered in some occasions where a ticket for the defect would have previously been considered? Adding to this the new category of "dangerous" includes dangerous to the environment not just in the mechanical sense, will this negate the usefulness of this category for showing a careful and competent driver would know the vehicle is in a dangerous state?

Hello, A question regarding the validity of superseded MOTs. SMITH has a vehicle with a valid MOT. The MOT expires on the 14th March. On the 1st March, SMITH takes the vehicle to be tested at an MOT centre and the vehicle fails the test. Is SMITH entitled to drive the car 'normally', i.e. to places other than home or an approved test centre with a booked appointment? I think not, on the basis that by failing the test, the vehicle is deemed un-roadworthy... Cheers! Adam

Pretty simple question really. Are stretched tyres legal? You know, the kind that young boys in their mum's cars 'cruise' around McDonalds car parks. Thanks, Sloth