http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/11042011/36/mot-c...hundreds-0.html

thoughts?

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by gaz2k

It got it good points and bad points good points is yeah were save x amount for not having to have our cars mot evey year but in my eyes it can be dangerous, you think about it,there going to be more dangerous cars on the road that the police won't pick up on.

thoughts?

fucking stupid idea.

some people are so mechanically retarded that the only time they realise there's a problem with their car is when it fails the mot. currently that leaves the possibility of them driving around in a dangerous car for close to 12 months in extreme circumstances, extend the test to every 2 years and in extreme conditions they could be driving around in a dangerous/un-roadworthy car for up to 24 months

don't get me wrong i'd welcome the money this would save me and i'd be happy to only have to raise my car once every two years instead of once every year, but i think the negative consequences of this far outweigh the benefits. plus this would cost the mot trade massive massive amounts, i honestly don't understand the thinking behind this at all think of the cost towards the economy, they can't afford to knock a bit off the price of fuel duty but they can happily wipe out half of the mot stations biennial profits (and the tax that brings) in the blink of an eye?

I think its a great idea however where it says it could increase road deaths by 30% surely this could be reduced by tighter rules to get through the test. Overall I think its sensible as a 10 year old car in 2011 is a much better and safer car in general than a 10 year old car in 2001.

After seeing other peoples posts I think much tighter test tolerances would be the only way to make the 2 year gap happen. I keep my car well looked after so didnt think about how many must scrape through.

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by Justin14100

^^ Agree with you McLovin, potentially a car that scrapes through the MOT could be on the road for another 24months - by then it might be seriously dangerous.

that is a shit idea!! personally i think it should be more intense and maybe every 6 months tbh, there are some right sheds on the road, god knows how they get MOT's.

I work as a mot tester and there is no plan's to bring in the 2 year mot as far as i am aware and we get told about these sort of thing's at the seminar's we have to go to, There was rumour's of this a few year's ago but that's all it is rumour's! thankfully!

in my opinion, do the 2 year mot but make servicing compulsory :)

Totally agree with McLovin and harris.racing! My mother drives a real shit Fiat Punto and doesn't understand why it fails the MOT every year! Imagine that on the road for another 12 months!

adviosories would have to be scrapped as well other whise after two years it would definetly be fucked so minor things would fail it

agree with mclovin to be honest dangerous cars on the roads is crazy and then we'd get arse raped on insurance one way or another stupid idea

no doubt if this happens MOT prices will go up.

Political red tape is rightfully being slashed,the health and safety idiocy is being capped and the days of ever increasing rules and regulations making life hard for us have stopped in favour of a pace-setting peak to move on from. All thanks to finally getting a new government in who actually want businesses to succeed in Britain instead of milking them for all the EU can sponge.

So this looks new. Along with the re-legalisation of common sense safety boundaries.

However,this stems from Labour. Its old news and was talked about two years ago (its a re-post for sure). And it'll do no good to businesses. Why such a government would consider this,I've no idea. And why its still being considered,if it is,i also have no idea.

Its bloody stupid. Just,.. why? Its utterly senseless.

The annual one is fine. There are enough mechanical failures happening on the road (i saw a modern VW Transporter van loose its front ball joint on a roundabout recently).

Its just stupid. I drive an ancient car i maintain myself on almost entirely salvage parts,i know every nut and bolt on the car,nobody is telling me something i dont know about my car,and even i think this is stupid and totally unwelcome.

How can anyone support it?

I think its a great idea however where it says it could increase road deaths by 30% surely this could be reduced by tighter rules to get through the test. Overall I think its sensible as a 10 year old car in 2011 is a much better and safer car in general than a 10 year old car in 2001.

After seeing other peoples posts I think much tighter test tolerances would be the only way to make the 2 year gap happen. I keep my car well looked after so didnt think about how many must scrape through.

Problem with that idea is that a item could be fine on the mot but in 2 years (On average 12,000 - 15,000 miles per yer) so thats potencialy 30,000 miles on average between tests. Thats a huge period to parts to fuck up.

I think its a great idea however where it says it could increase road deaths by 30% surely this could be reduced by tighter rules to get through the test. Overall I think its sensible as a 10 year old car in 2011 is a much better and safer car in general than a 10 year old car in 2001.

After seeing other peoples posts I think much tighter test tolerances would be the only way to make the 2 year gap happen. I keep my car well looked after so didnt think about how many must scrape through.

I dont mean to single you out,but I've got a few problems with this.

1) Some people do over 40k miles a year. Even a 3yo car with an average annual mileage is gonna be in a different state two years later when its 5yo and got over 150k on the clock.

2) There are still plenty of 20 and 30yo cars on the road.

3) You may look after yours,but you wouldn't believe how some people neglect theirs.