doc.fixit Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share Posted April 28, 2012 An MOT every two years would soon get rid of some of the crap off the roads. MOT's for humans and we can get rid of PL. Every cloud an all If the idea behind MOT tests is to remove defective vehicles from our roads, all well and good. However, only a very small percentage of accidents are caused by mechanical defects whilst nearly all the rest are caused by driver error. On that basis it would make more sense to re-test drivers every few years rather than vehicles - and it would have the added bonus of cutting down on traffic congestion since many drivers wouldn't even meet basic standards. Start with everyone over 50 and re-test every ten years. I'll volunteer to take the first test. The Isle of Man could lead the way in this new Road Safety initiative rather than just following everything the UK (and EU) does by introducing MOT tests. NB: MOT's were first introduced in the UK as a 'ten-year test' in 1960 so we are a little behind the times with that one! The insurance companies are of the opinion that males under the age of 25 are the biggest cause of RTIs..note.incidents NOT accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 We followed a red Transit van into Douglas from Ballacraine on Monday just gone, it was a shed, burning oil with smoke bellowing from it, no indicators, back bumper hanging off, rusted away at the back, no wing mirror inserts to see who was behind, it was a accident waiting to happen. Now our conversation was, what if that freakin shed had to stop in a hurry cos a kid ran across the road?? We all know the answer to that!!! FFS total devastation!!! Road worthiness checks should happen if this red Transit van of a shit heap is still on our roads!! But surely before the annual test came around, this shed is going to be on the road in the vicinity of an officer of the law who could plainly see what you saw and could take it off the road immediately. If he didn't have time there and then he can note the registration and have it followed up later. As I said; the laws already exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I would agree that there appears to be little evidence that the prime cause of incidents is vehicle condition, however I would like to see many more RANDOM, roadside checks, much better, in my opinion than MOTs and it would mean that there were no vested interest costs and because you wouldn't know when the vehicle was going to be checked it would be in your interest to keep all the basics in proper condition all the while. I would suggest the basic checks are lights, bodywork, seatbelts, steering play, handbrake and visual of the underside. Option of repair and visit to test station within week or vehicle off road and scrapped. I expect 'they' will be more interested in the number plate conforming to regulations and whether the car is polished or not !! Wow. Common sense!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 More roadside tests by vehicle examiners, not police, is the answer to this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local skeet Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 More roadside tests by vehicle examiners, not police, is the answer to this problem. Like the idea but where do they get the staff to do this on top of what they are already doing? Not going to happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 More roadside tests by vehicle examiners, not police, is the answer to this problem. Like the idea but where do they get the staff to do this on top of what they are already doing? Not going to happen! Better than setting up a whole new layer of bureaucracy for regular testing and more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 The test centre test is stricter than an MOT,because they know it is only done once. If a periodic test was brought in, would the standard change? Would they be 'under team orders' to get nasty looking cars off the road even if they passed all the tests? Remember, some of these are measurable, some are the examiners opinion. The continuous tightening of rules is another issue, driven by the EU (which, AFAIK, we are not in) with things like vehicle emissions. My mum's Sierra was in great condition, tyres, bodywork, etc, it sailed through its MOT year after year. And suddenly it failed, because of the *new rules*. The exhaust cat wasn't clean *enough*. A brand new one still wouldn't have helped. So what for years was a perfectly good car had to be binned, because of shifting goalposts. The govt gets it's fee, the motor industry is guaranteed a turnover of stock, and the electorate is told 'look at all these dangerous cars we're taking off the roads. Thank us. Or else' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin1 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 On this Island we have higher fuel cost.,higher road tax. higher maintenence cost,.and are in a financial mess,.this is surely not the time to bring in yet another burden for the normal law abiding motorist. The idea of intruducing MOT's is unneccessary and unwarranted,as the Police have the right to pull over any vehicles they may suspect are unroadworthy, and make the owners take them to the test centre to be checked. This plan is not warranted on an Island this size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 page7 in the Indy. Cretney says, 'department considering introducing roadworthiness checks'. Anybody out there bothered? I hope it includes the worthiness of some of the Boy-racers and middle aged lunatics in its checks. E.G - 'the car went out of control' No it didn't the driver lost control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishbashbosh Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 What about an MOT for some of our roads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 What about an MOT for some of our roads? That is the best comment in this thread! I can imagine most cars failing an MOT due to knackered shocks and tyres if they ever brought one in. It would be a great way for garages to make money based on the completely abysmal state of our roads. We pay massive amounts of road tax to drive on third world roads and then will have to get an MOT to correct the damage those third world roads cause. Only in the IOM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Elected leaders are like baboons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share Posted April 28, 2012 page7 in the Indy. Cretney says, 'department considering introducing roadworthiness checks'. Anybody out there bothered? I hope it includes the worthiness of some of the Boy-racers and middle aged lunatics in its checks. E.G - 'the car went out of control' No it didn't the driver lost control totally true comment. It has been argued that there is no such thing as a vehicle accident. The incidents are always caused by people's misjudgement of vehicle, road or weather conditions or their own capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 totally true comment. It has been argued that there is no such thing as a vehicle accident. The incidents are always caused by people's misjudgement of vehicle, road or weather conditions or their own capabilities. True again. It's why R.T.Accidents are now called R.T.Incidents or R.T.Collisions. "Accidents" could apparently imply that no-one involved could be to blame, as it was described as an accident (probably clever lawyer get-out clause?) bishbashbosh and sultan have got it spot on - it's time DC was equally quick to suggest starting to apply and enforce some (probably already existing) criteria to the D.O.I,s responsibilities and standard of workmanship. Then again, don't hold your breath..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 The test centre test is stricter than an MOT,because they know it is only done once. If a periodic test was brought in, would the standard change? Would they be 'under team orders' to get nasty looking cars off the road even if they passed all the tests? Remember, some of these are measurable, some are the examiners opinion. Annual tests are now required for all commercial vehicles from the very biggest arctic units down to, at present, 7.5 gross weight vans and lorries. These smaller vehicles are usually the ones that you can legally drive on a car license if you passed before a date that escapes me. From personal experience I would say these HGV and non HGV tests are just as strict as the old one when you imported a wagon to the island. It certainly keeps the islands wagons in a far better state of repair than before these tests and should be welcomed by all decent business people. The 7.5 tonne class driven on car licenses had, up to the introduction of the test, allowed some really, really dangerously under-maintained vehicles on our roads. The most common being the Iveco tipper type favored by small building company's that not only was often a death trap but was also massively overloaded with materials on the tipper bed. They may have a big area for materials on the back but to keep under the 7.5 tonne limit many could only carry about 1.5-1.75 tonnes of goods/rubble. How many times have you seen one of them with the back end close to dragging on the road with a heaped load of soil or rubble on board? Probably close to 5-6 tonnes so about 4 tonnes more than legal and poorly maintained! Like I said the commercial tests have been for the good but I am not so sure about car tests although if you plan on buying at the lower end of the market a recent MOT would give you peace of mind for a "run into the ground" 1 year life time banger/ runaround? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.