Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

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Neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) slammed MOT tests as “outdated” and ineffective and urged the government to consider ditching the inspections in favour of tackling the major causes of road traffic collisions.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

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

Perhaps it slipped their perception that an unroadworthy vehicle can be as dangerous as a drunk driver.

[Chief Cheetah 6,902]

Can't help thinking that there must be a better method than an annual MOT.  Those who drive unroadworthy vehicles often don't bother with MOTs anyway and even those that get an MOT may end up driving an unroadworthy vehicle 10 minutes after leaving the MOT centre, which they will then drive in an unroadworthy condition for another 364 days until the next test.

[Growley + 2,436]

Can't help thinking that there must be a better method than an annual MOT.  Those who drive unroadworthy vehicles often don't bother with MOTs anyway and even those that get an MOT may end up driving an unroadworthy vehicle 10 minutes after leaving the MOT centre, which they will then drive in an unroadworthy condition for another 364 days until the next test.

I agree the current system is flawed, but I don't see an alternative without being unnecessarily intrusive.

It's absolutely true that an MOT only proves the vehicle was roadworthy at that one point during the year, but at least it has been shown to be roadworthy at some point that year.