MOT's on the way?

[Annoymouse]

11 minutes ago, woolley said:

So perform more spot checks and throw the book at the guilty. Do not inconvenience the majority for a few idiots. Most motorists will not drive around in a death trap. 

But who is doing the spot checks? the police? who are already outstretched? who do a few winter checks to put the shits up people scared of getting caught, while the real offenders bypass the common spot check spots.

The only other way is to adopt some sort of highway agency outfit who would actually have a right to stop any vehicle.

[Annoymouse]

6 minutes ago, hampsterkahn said:

Accidents caused by mechanical failures are unusual  and largely  confined to  problems with the nut holding the steering wheel.

That's only one reason for an MOT though. I think as an island we could do with reducing the number of vehicles on our roads and this is probably the easiest way to do it, perhaps more people would use the buses, taxis, train and trams which have all shown a decline in recent years.

[maynragh]

I often wonder about the folks who point out the number of vehicles here that in their opinion are not up to scratch. I wonder if these people ever leave this rock. You have to assume not. Anyone who's ever driven anywhere in the UK cannot have failed to notice the number of shit boxes on UK roads. There is also no evidence that I've ever seen to show that roadworthiness here contributes in any way to increased accident numbers. Driving standards (and the enforcement of) is far more likely to contribute.

The idea that MOT style testing will somehow improve this, as anyone who has anything to do with the industry will tell you, is a joke. It is widely known that the UK MOT system is massively open to fraud, and anything based on that model here would be too - for the same reasons. Properly organised truly random testing, conducted by a fully independent agency is the only logical way to improve the situation. If done correctly it wouldn't need to significantly increase costs to taxpayers or motorists either.  

[Bobbie Bobster]

It is the very antithesis of an evidence-based policy.

[hampsterkahn]

The recent figures suggest that  over 95 % of  car accidents are down to driver error with  mechanical problems being implicated in less than 2%.

The original MOT was introduced when  cash -strapped folk, faced with 50% purchase tax and no credit  for new cars were driving cars in very poor condition.In many cases this was down to pre-war technology and zero maintenance when road conditions were becoming more demanding.

OK - Any night drive in the IOM reveals appalling  vehicle lighting - but we already have the Police   who should be able to deal with that.

The need for it passed, but the MOT , like  any Govt.Department, once established, becomes immortal. It only knows how to grow.

Don’t let it.

[x-in-man]

We cannot have an MOT test, we don't have a ministry of transport.

Did the sums a while ago, it was impossible for the test  centre to do them, local garages don't have the training or kit, it's a pointless bit of paperwork and will just make things worse because people assume that just because it has a valid test certificate it is safe to drive.

 

[NoTail]

On a slight tangent. I understand that post Brexit, among other things it will be a legal requirement to have your MOT certificate if driving in Europe.  Without one there is a risk your car could be impounded. 

[Non-Believer]

7 hours ago, Rog said:

My local garage undertakes a free MOT with every full service or replacement set of premium tyres.its not at all unusual.

It'd be very unusual over here. It's called a captive market and is the reason behind the higher prices of a great many services and commodities. Along with Govt charges of course.

[Derek Flint]

This is obsfucation on the road safety debate. 

As posted earlier, 95% of collisions are down to driver error. 

MOTs have a negligible effect on the causation factors of RTC. The ‘Safer Vehicles’ element of Safe Systems, which is part of our national Road Safety Strategy (remember that?) focuses primarily on the crash worthiness of the vehicle and encourages drivers to buy safety ones. Whereas cars that are poorly maintained will ‘crash worse’ especially if their structure is compromised by corrosion, the impact on overall serious and fatal figures. 

I cannot ever recall attending a collision caused by someone having one headlamp not working. 

The focus, drive and effort needs to be on improving driver standards, and the fatal 4 of speed, drink driving, mobile phones and seatbelts, along with making our routes safer.

Collisions have fallen for the last two years, but I think this is in spite of anything done in the name of road safety to date. We’ve seen fluctuations in the past. We have seen some good work and shit weather during TT, which has helped, and Gary Roberts is giving strong signals that more pressure needs to be applied to improving safety during the Motorsport festival periods. 

Whether he overcomes the political intransigence that is ultimately costing lives, remains to be seen.

[Bobbie Bobster]

Rather than regular vehicle tests, regular driver tests would be more appropriate and effective.

[Rog]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Ever heard the expression about free lunches?

It attracts business and additional work when any defects are found.   In a town, or in our case a village reputation is lost faster than it is gained and as a result if a local business doesn't play straight it would very soon become a business with no customers.

[John Wright]

Everywhere else in Europe has technical inspections. Vehicle safety and longevity is much improved  since the early 60’s. But just having technical inspections is an impetus to maintain to standard. It needn’t be annual, it needn’t start at 3 years old. 5 years old and every 2 thereafter would suffice.

@Derek Flint you down play by mentioning a single head light. Brakes can and do contribute, as does corrosion, or ineffective washer/wiper and then there is safety belt check and environmental checks. 

Im all in favour of regular, say 10 year, compulsory  road awareness education refresher training days, with both theoretical and practical elements, for licence renewal. 5 years after 65. Also compulsory after any motoring conviction attracting penalty points.

Im not in favour of the NI state run system of MOT which has silly bureaucratic rules, waiting times, and delays. 

[GreyWolf]

Ralphie Peaky awakes, another one whose seems to have done nowt in government , election on horizon is there,  must get me mug shot in the media and papers in case everyone’s forgot me, at least Moorhouse try’s his best,  Peaky blunders picks the wrong subject as this is just a money making enterprise for the few hitting the pockets of the many on this rock who are just getting by. Okay for a wealthy dude like him he could claim for it on his expenses that us taxpayers pay for.  Just police the excessive speed and driving whilst on the phone (see that most days) look at tyres etc etc and if they find some really unsafe vehicles straight to the crusher for them.

[Manxman2000]

10 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I would imagine there will be a number of approved garages, I for one would never go to Jacksons but for people who service their cars at Jacksons then they'll already be at serviced to MOT standard, so I would expect they would issue a free MOT certificate.

This is a joke, I have my car serviced by Inchcape each year and get a report into its condition.  This year all was fine, in very good condition, it failed its MOT at my local garage on two quite serious faults. would I go to Jacksons, no chance.

[The Duck of Atholl]

A cynical money maker for the DOI whereby they have to do all the tests?  At £50 a pop they'll soon be making a few extra bucks