ChatterBank3 mins ago
Mot Extension?
55 Answers
It has been reported tonight that one of the topics up for government discussion at the moment is the possible extension of the need for an MoT from every year to every 2 years. I have all fingers and toes crossed for my ancient jalopy!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodgoalie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I think somewhere in Australia they did away with the requirement to have vehicles safety tested regularly and found no increase in road accidents due to un-road worthy vehicles.
We are just being fleeced by MOT stations having to fix vehicles with faults that have no bearing on safety.
A faulty brake warning light is an MOT failure – having a vehicle not fitted with a brake warning feature (by design) is not an MOT failure. If the brakes work correctly with a faulty warning light on, what is the safety issue?
We are just being fleeced by MOT stations having to fix vehicles with faults that have no bearing on safety.
A faulty brake warning light is an MOT failure – having a vehicle not fitted with a brake warning feature (by design) is not an MOT failure. If the brakes work correctly with a faulty warning light on, what is the safety issue?
TTT's "if it ain't broke don't fix it" seems not to recognise that the suggested reason for the change is to save hard-up families money:
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-polit ics-612 27622
(The words 'deck chairs' and Titanic spring into my mind upon reading that report).
However I still find myself agreeing with TTT that it's an unwise idea.
Equally though, I agree with Hymie that having non-safety-related items included in the MOT test can unnecessarily cost car owners a lot of money. For example, the steering lock didn't engage when the key was removed from my Saab's ignition. That didn't affect the safety of my car at all but it still cost me £650 to get fixed in order to get the car through its MOT!
https:/
(The words 'deck chairs' and Titanic spring into my mind upon reading that report).
However I still find myself agreeing with TTT that it's an unwise idea.
Equally though, I agree with Hymie that having non-safety-related items included in the MOT test can unnecessarily cost car owners a lot of money. For example, the steering lock didn't engage when the key was removed from my Saab's ignition. That didn't affect the safety of my car at all but it still cost me £650 to get fixed in order to get the car through its MOT!
chris, if it's about saving money for families then there are better ways but that is flawed in itself. We need to reorientate our transport choices as a nation. Motoring is far too cheap and public transport is a joke. Put the cost of motoring up, eg fuel £5 etc and transform public transport, that's what we should be doing. Not sacrificing safety to help those who really can't afford to run a car.