MOT's on the way?

[Rog]

9 hours ago, finlo said:

As long as your happy 

As a pig in whatever!

[Rog]

8 hours ago, Kopek said:

...but in the rural area there are cars that would never be seen on the Islands roads!

Whether there is a leniency in such areas or a presumption that a 20 y/o Peugeot is OK on country roads and one might need their vote in the next Mayoral election or not, I do not know but it is so.

Not over here.  Apart from anything else the police are red hot and the mobile safety cameras including those in most patrol cars raise an alarm if the ANPR identifies a vehicle that is not insured, MOT'd and taxed. The Safety cameras are great.  It's commonplace to see cars parked up waiting to be carter off to a pound because of having an uninsured vehicle or driver if it's been pulled over for a traffic offence. 

[Rog]

9 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I can't see there being too many "heaps of shit" on southern German roads with the strictures of their national TUV testing regime?

Or France. Or for that matter in most countries that have a vehicle inspection requirement.

[Rog]

8 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

With the civil servants duly seeing and exploiting a God-given opportunity to expand their base, increase their empires and numbers and exploit further taxation revenue.

So tie it in with our DVLC.  An existing system that works very well.  That way you could have access to such things as the ANPR system and all that goes with it. Fixed and mobile safety cameras including in police patrol vehicles. The ANPR system is also very useful in tackling crime of all sorts.

[Non-Believer]

21 minutes ago, Rog said:

So tie it in with our DVLC.  An existing system that works very well.  That way you could have access to such things as the ANPR system and all that goes with it. Fixed and mobile safety cameras including in police patrol vehicles. The ANPR system is also very useful in tackling crime of all sorts.

You need to page Derek F. on this, he's long advocated it. Rather than Tynwald bodging and mutilating UK legislation in the name of having something to do, mostly.

[Derek Flint]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

You need to page Derek F. on this, he's long advocated it. Rather than Tynwald bodging and mutilating UK legislation in the name of having something to do, mostly.

Yup!

just contract it out to a massive organisation that has the capacity and skill. Why the hell we persist with our system is beyond me. It’s another area where money is unnecessarily wasted, because we are “a country”

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:37 PM, Max Power said:

The question is being asked....

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/mhk-wants-mots-to-be-introduced-on-island/?fbclid=IwAR3A7Q9ubWN8YlkycDSoUHBuc0l5nAKAKmTx1I-izGJwFs64-gEPCj-11Qc

And was then answered yesterday, also according to Manx Radio:

Quote

Introducing MOTs on the Isle of Man wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of cars with defects on the Island's roads.

That's the view of the Home Affairs Minister following questions about vehicle checks and roadworthiness in this morning's sitting of the House of Keys.

Bill Malarkey revealed 58 of the 107 vehicles stopped as part of the police's winter vehicle checks campaign this year have been found to have at least one fault.

However, Mr Malarkey says regular testing doesn't stop faults occurring

Full exchanges in the Keys aren't written up in Hansard yet (this means someone at Manx Radio did some actual journalism) but despite what is said here, it looks like there isn't DHA enthusiasm for introducing a Pointless Tests Division.

It's probably worth saying that because over half the cars stopped in the winter checks, it doesn't mean that half the cars on the roads do.  Presumably the police targeted vehicles that looked a bit dodgy rather than a carefully constructed representative sample.  Though if they restrict such a testing campaign to just one time, the same every year, it risks becoming an annual ritual like the MOT that, once passed, drivers can forget about.

[hissingsid]

Ah well we will leave it alone until next time.......

[Chris C]

23 hours ago, Rog said:

With a full service for my heap coming in at £450 plus tip throwing in a free MOT is a good loss leader. 4 tyres are close to £800 so here again it's a good pull to persuade me from going to Asda. I've never had any work identified as needing to be done though I do change my car every 20 months or so. Even though I don't need an MOT the assurance that everything is up to code is worth having.

So they charge you £450 for a service and throw in a "free" MOT. A fool and their money.........

Ah I see, so you change your car every 20 months and as such you would be uneffected by the introduction of an MOT. That explains a lot. So what's you motivation for wanting one?

If it's better road safety then surely you would agree that all the evidence supports the fact that regular testing of drivers rather than vehicles would be far more effective, albeit less convenient for yourself rather then just the great unwashed?

[Chris C]

21 hours ago, dilligaf said:

Don’t be fucking stupid. Get a life.

what class are you in ?

 

I left school over 30 years ago. Well what other explaination is there? Drivers cause the vast majority of accidents, vehicles a tiny minority - logic dictates if you're going to regularly test one in the name of road safety it should be drivers first, vehicles last.

This is not what's being proposed, so the proposal is motivated by something other than logic. What do you think it is?

[finlo]

6 minutes ago, Chris C said:

I left school over 30 years ago. Well what other explaination is there? Drivers cause the vast majority of accidents, vehicles a tiny minority - logic dictates if you're going to regularly test one in the name of road safety it should be drivers first, vehicles last.

This is not what's being proposed, so the proposal is motivated by something other than logic. What do you think it is?

An attempt to keep Jackson's viable!

[Chris C]

1 minute ago, finlo said:

An attempt to keep Jackson's viable!

Well there's definitely more to it than meets the eye, that's for sure - and money talks with the Manx Government, most of whom are well heeled enough to avoid the inconvenience of needing an MOT for their own vehicles.

It's a bit like our "climate emergency". Presumably a good start would be to encourage people via tax breaks or whatever to live a greener life - and what do we do? Give away free road tax and fuel to the tiny minority of people who are rich enough and live in a suitable location to own an electric vehicle. This at the same time as putting up public transport fares.

If logic were involved, the greatest environmental benefit would be achieved by offering incentives which a large majority of people could choose to adopt rather than just a select few. Home insulation perhaps? Free bus travel?

But logic and conventional wisdom is invariably ingnored in these decisions, and vested interests are no doubt involved somewhere along the line. 

 

[Rog]

27 minutes ago, Chris C said:

So they charge you £450 for a service and throw in a "free" MOT. A fool and their money.........

Ah I see, so you change your car every 20 months and as such you would be uneffected by the introduction of an MOT. That explains a lot. So what's you motivation for wanting one?

If it's better road safety then surely you would agree that all the evidence supports the fact that regular testing of drivers rather than vehicles would be far more effective, albeit less convenient for yourself rather then just the great unwashed?

My motivation is very simple.  Components fail.  Sometimes because of early life failure as per the bathtub curve, sometimes because of the law as defined by the almighty sod. It's an inexpensive way to get your car inspected in a very thorough way.  

[Chris C]

4 minutes ago, Rog said:

My motivation is very simple.  Components fail.  Sometimes because of early life failure as per the bathtub curve, sometimes because of the law as defined by the almighty sod. It's an inexpensive way to get your car inspected in a very thorough way.  

Yes components fail and cause accidents.

However, humans make mistakes and cause accidents with far greater frequency.

Are you in favour of regular testing for drivers?

[Rog]

25 minutes ago, Chris C said:

I left school over 30 years ago. Well what other explaination is there? Drivers cause the vast majority of accidents, vehicles a tiny minority - logic dictates if you're going to regularly test one in the name of road safety it should be drivers first, vehicles last.

This is not what's being proposed, so the proposal is motivated by something other than logic. What do you think it is?

A vehicle that falls short of being up to spec is far more likely to be unable to cater for driver error.  ASB faulty? Air Bag system fault? Brake warning bulb blown? Corroded transmission mounts?  Bushes worn? Steering linkages excess play or on point of failure?  The driver might well be. Causing an incident ecause of poor driving practice but any of the things that I've mentioned could turn a scare into something very much worse.