# Industry News - MOT CHANGES COULD CAUSE ROAD DEATHS



## WHIZZER (Oct 25, 2005)

Whats your Thoughts ? 

Four-year MoT exemption proposal will put lives at risk, according to Government figures uncovered by HonestJohn.co.uk
•Proposals for extending the date of a vehicle’s first MoT from three to four years would allow up to 385,000 unsafe vehicles to remain on the road
•Analysis of more than 400m MoT records show that one in six cars fails its first test
•Brakes, lighting and tyres among the most common MoT failure points

Controversial planned changes to the MoT test will increase the number of unsafe vehicles on Britain's roads, according to Government figures obtained by leading consumer motoring site HonestJohn.co.uk.

The Government's plans to extend the annual roadworthiness test from three to four years – which is currently undergoing a consultation period - could mean 385,000 vehicles that would have failed their first MoT will slip through the net and remain on the road unrepaired.

The leading consumer motoring site analysed millions of previously unseen MoT records from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and found that one in six cars were refused a roadworthiness certificate during the first MoT, with most failing due to unsafe brakes, lights and tyres.

The revelation comes as HonestJohn.co.uk published the MoT Files for the first time in three years, following a Freedom of Information (FoI) request and protracted fight with the DVSA to make the data public. Success in this long-running battle means that for the first time in years owners and prospective buyers once again have detailed access to the latest MoT records and reasons for failure. It has been published in full at HonestJohn.co.uk/mot

The publication of HonestJohn.co.uk’s MoT Files means that consumers can easily spot common failures by make, model, year of registration and postcode based on real world data. HonestJohn.co.uk’s MoT Files provides simple and detailed access to more than 400m Government data records and represents another significant step forward for consumers who want to make better informed decisions about their next car purchase.

Broken down by model, the detailed data reveals that the worst performing car for the first MoT was the Peugeot 5008, with only 67% of cars registered in 2013 passing in 2016. The Citroen DS4 was second (73%) while the Renault Megane and Ford Galaxy were third and fourth, with a respective 74% and 75% pass rates. The Chevrolet Spark completes the list with a pass rate of 76%

The worst car manufacturers for the first MoT in 2016 were Chevrolet, Citroen and Dacia, with respective pass rates of 78%, 79% and 81%. Honda, Porsche and Subaru all hold a collective first place, with the trio showing a first year average pass rate of 91%. 

The car with the highest pass rate during the first MoT in 2016 was the Lexus RX 450h with an impressive score of 94%. The Honda Jazz was second (93%), followed by the Mazda MX-5 (93%), Volkswagen Golf Plus (92%) and the Audi Q5 (92%).

Daniel Powell, Managing Editor of HonestJohn.co.uk said: “Many of the common failure items are down to general maintenance, rather than a particular fault with the car.

“The Government’s proposal to extend the first MoT from three to four years will effectively give irresponsible motorists a free pass to drive dangerous cars for an additional 12 months, without any mandatory safety checks.”

Top five causes of failure during a car’s first MoT at three years

1) Lighting -169,000 failures
2) Tyres – 101,000 failures
3) Driver’s view of the road – 98,000 failures
4) Brakes – 60,000 failures
5) Suspension – 27,000 failures

Top five cars for passing the first MoT

1) Lexus RX 450h – 94%
2) Honda Jazz - 93%
3) Mazda MX-5 – 93%
4) Volkswagen Golf Plus - 92%
5) Audi Q5 - 92%

Bottom five cars for passing the first MoT

1) Peugeot 5008 67% pass rate
2) Citroen DS4 73% pass rate
3) Renault Megane 74% pass rate
4) Ford Galaxy 75% pass rate
5) Chevrolet Spark 76% pass rate


----------



## Big Bri (Nov 20, 2010)

Accidents waiting to happen if the four years are introduced.Like anything,it will get abused by some.I think its going in the wrong direction personally.Cars should see a garage every birthday,no excuses.

Thanks for posting.

BB


----------



## cossiecol (Jun 29, 2014)

Personally I think the whole thing needs an overhaul, speaking to a friend of mine who carries out M.O.T's I was shocked to learn that the level a car must reach is "minimum safety" i.e. there may be something wrong with the car but unless it meets a certain criteria it only gets an advisory not a fail.


----------



## Derekh929 (Aug 28, 2011)

Problem is you could have a new car doing 35k a year then one doing 3k its a crazy rule 3 years, common sense is so lacking nowadays IMHO most have no clue if their car is in good running order.
I think 4 years is crazy if im honest but a system based more on millage as well needed and also possibly two different types of test depending on millage and age.

To many warning lights for everything know people still drive them with lights on if they think car ok as well


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

The MOT test over here in NI is on the 4th birthday. It's a tough test, and is carried out by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, an agency of the Department for Infrastructure.

Have a wee look. The headlight beam alignment, brake/handbrake efficiency and suspension are all computer tested and have to be within a certain tolerance.






Cooks


----------



## DLGWRX02 (Apr 6, 2010)

Personally I think mots should not only be done yearly but possible sooner depending on the mileage the car does. Takes for instance one of these rep mobiles that spends the day clocking up motorway miles on a daily basis, theses should be made to undertake mot’s at a more frequent intervals.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

The issue is some people are capable of looking after their cars. Some people just don't care on the otherhand or do everything they can to put off a bill. 

Cars shouldn't be turning up for an MOT with bald tyres. If you're caught on the road with them you get penalty points, get caught at the MOT test station and you get the chance to rectify the issue. Maybe making people responsible for serious issues caught at the MOT test station would stop people taking so many chances?


----------



## dholdi (Oct 1, 2008)

Derekh929 said:


> common sense is so lacking nowadays IMHO most have no clue if their car is in good running order.


This, backed up by the No.1 failure being lighting.
Who doesn't check their lights before the test ?????????
Obviously far too many.


----------



## Sh1ner (May 19, 2012)

Kerr said:


> The issue is some people are capable of looking after their cars. Some people just don't care on the otherhand or do everything they can to put off a bill.
> 
> Cars shouldn't be turning up for an MOT with bald tyres. If you're caught on the road with them you get penalty points, get caught at the MOT test station and you get the chance to rectify the issue. Maybe making people responsible for serious issues caught at the MOT test station would stop people taking so many chances?


You do not get a chance to recify it.
You are responsible for the condition of the vehicle you are driving even if it is booked in for an mot and being driven to and from a testing station. It is no excuse to be driving something that is operating outside the law. If you are operating a vehicle on the road it must meet the standards applied.

I have had several people turn up at the garage, having been followed and then get nicked for driving unroadworthy vehicles, Tyres lights etc. It happens surprisingly frequently.
The police have then checked whether the vehicle has been booked in, if untaxed and sometimes waited until the mot has been completed, passed or failed, before explaining that to use the vehicle further in the case of failure for certain things will lead to another offence being committed. It is partly why we have to have mot parking.
The police are often quite surprised by how worn an item can be and still pass but that is the only way an mot test can be. A snapshot of a moment in time to a minimum standard. It is not and never should be about making people spend money. That would require a whole different set of safeguards.
It is not about roadworthiness, that is up to the driver/owner/operator to ensure, everytime they use the vehicle, not just once a year.

The mot provides for a set of conditions to be met to allow a vehicle to be identified, taxed and parked up for a year by the side of the road. The owner may be away for a year and have nowhere else to park. The vehicle will not have worn anymore when they return.

I personally have no problem with four years for a first mot because in 35 years of testing I have yet to see a vehicle of that age that would fail for anything other than tyres, lights normal everyday stuff etc all of which should be covered by normal observation and a quick walk round if anyone can be bothered.
Just because something is slightly worn does not mean it automatically requires replacement. I have seen many worn ball joints but never one so worn it popped out. The only joint I have seen completely fail was one that had no free play but so much internal corrosion that the ball became tighter and tighter in the socket until the shank twisted and snapped but that was not on a new vehicle.
More use, not less should be made of the advisory system, in my opinion, it is a very sensible part of the MOT.

Suitable routine checks and servicing are the best and only means of ensuring roadworthy vehicles. The mot obviously provides a part of that but new vehicles are generally under warranty and servicing not an issue.
The continued lack of understanding or unwillingness to grasp and understand with regard to what the mot test can achieve sometimes confounds me. It can never be all things to all people so the ultimate responsibility must fall on the person using the vehicle at the time.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

What I meant about rectify..... If your car fails an MOT test for having bald tyres you won't get penalty points and fines like you would if you were stopped on the road.

They were still driving on the roads with illegal tyres.

They have the chance to get the tyres replaced without any further repercussions.


----------



## Sh1ner (May 19, 2012)

Kerr said:


> What I meant about rectify..... If your car fails an MOT test for having bald tyres you won't get penalty points and fines like you would if you were stopped on the road.
> 
> They were still driving on the roads with illegal tyres.
> 
> They have the chance to get the tyres replaced without any further repercussions.


Sorry, I did not mean to be rude.
I understand what you meant but it is sometimes not practical to be completely in control of every aspect of every vehicle because not everyone is able to check items to mot standard and it appears to me that after all these years in the trade, self interest by garages, tyre centres etc leads me to conclude that many cannot be trusted if they sniff the chance of selling something that is not being judged and accounted for against a standard.

To me it would seem a bit counterproductive to penalise someone for decisions that can at times appear borderline and subjective.
It is far better that things are checked than not. Not everyone is trying to pull a fast one or has the resources to pay someone to check and take it for them.

You can still be checked on they way to a test and be penalised also on the way back but once advised of a problem the journey home becomes a different affair if you have chosen to ignore faults that place you the other side of the standards but bearing in mind you have the right to appeal then I really cannot see any point in penalising people for taking their vehicle for an mot when it is not their specialist subject.
Personally I welcome people asking to see relevant sections of the manual etc and asking for explanations and generally engaging and finding out about the mot.
It does get my goat however when others who know better insult me by not checking anything and then expect me to put it right when they could not be bothered.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm not talking about garages trying to rip people off. I'm talking about genuinely bald tyres and cars with serious issues.

If someone can't check their tyres to MOT standard they shouldn't be trusted to own a car. 

If someone knows they need to leave their car is gear to stop it rolling away they shouldn't need the MOT test to tell them their handbrake doesn't work. 

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure their car is roadworthy. 

I agree somethings aren't obvious, but the basic stuff is very basic and they should be able to do that as part of their duty as a licence holder.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

This is not a good move for road users at all.

If anything I would reduce the lag time for MOT requirements on new cars, drop it to two years.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Kerr said:


> I'm not talking about garages trying to rip people off. I'm talking about genuinely bald tyres and cars with serious issues.
> 
> If someone can't check their tyres to MOT standard they shouldn't be trusted to own a car.
> 
> ...


I agree, but as with all legislation we are forced to regulate everyone because of the clearly inept or frankly stupid 2% of people that are out there trying to kill everyone.


----------



## Derekh929 (Aug 28, 2011)

ollienoclue said:


> I agree, but as with all legislation we are forced to regulate everyone because of the clearly inept or frankly stupid 2% of people that are out there trying to kill everyone.


Yes fully agree its the lowest common denominator scenario in many Industries know and also with HSE some rules are great some are plain crazy


----------



## Sh1ner (May 19, 2012)

Kerr said:


> I'm not talking about garages trying to rip people off. I'm talking about genuinely bald tyres and cars with serious issues.
> 
> If someone can't check their tyres to MOT standard they shouldn't be trusted to own a car.
> 
> ...


I would suspect that most owners would have absolutely no idea how to check their vehicle tyres to mot standard or exactly what the standards are or if they have recently changed.
There is more to it than just looking at what most folk incorrectly regard as tread.
Despite how simple you appear to believe everything is there are people who, through no fault of their own, would struggle, lack the confidence/understanding or are unable to change a light bulb. They leave it to others to do the repairs or make the judgement for them. I am sorry that not everyone can meet your high standards.
Are you seriously suggesting they should be denied the right to own a vehicle or hold a driving license?

You may have a vehicle that has just been acquired and you wish to find out the full extent of what may be necessary before putting money into it despite the inoperative handbrake.
If you drive/leave it on the road then you will be liable to prosecution, if caught, just as you would be if it had an mot. With the best will in the world, a handbrake cable, or any other component, can fail at any time. An mot is no guarantee it will not snap tomorrow or last, maybe 13 months, until the next mot. Ask Vauxhall.

I would suspect your opinion of what might constitute a serious issue is different from mine. I have seen very very few things over the years that I would regard as imminently life threatening.
It is why in such a subjective arena, I feel the advisory system is a very useful and under used tool. If it is recorded and you let people know they can plan and generally get things rectified. If they don't then there is a record that they were made aware.
The mot test cannot, and will never be, all things to all people but my experience honestly tells me that a four year first mot will not be an issue.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It's not my high standards. It's the law. 

I'm utterly amazed that you consider basic things to be a high standard. 

If you can't do basic checks on your car, then no you shouldn't have a driving licence. It's part of your responsibility as a road user to make sure your car is roadworthy. 

We're on different planets to each other here. We will leave it there.


----------



## Big Bri (Nov 20, 2010)

Kerr said:


> It's not my high standards. It's the law.
> 
> I'm utterly amazed that you consider basic things to be a high standard.
> 
> ...


 Perhaps the fact they past a drivers licence test gives them some level of basic brain function.Checking a tyre should be child's play.Also part of some long lost ancient scroll,,,THE HIGHWAY CODE.
So your correct pal,they shouldn't hold a licence.If hey have one,they should be checking the vehicle they drive.

Chicken N EGG.

BB


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

> Who doesn't check their lights before the test ?????????


Last year on my walk to the train station I saw the same car from October when it is dark in the morning until some time in February with a busted headlight.

I see lots of one-eyed monsters when walking to the station.

I think some people wait for faults to be pointed out during the MOT before getting them fixed.

Some people take their car to be tested in order to find out what they need to get fixed.


----------



## OrangeManDan (Sep 10, 2012)

DLGWRX02 said:


> Personally I think mots should not only be done yearly but possible sooner depending on the mileage the car does. Takes for instance one of these rep mobiles that spends the day clocking up motorway miles on a daily basis, theses should be made to undertake mot's at a more frequent intervals.


Agree with the yearly mot's even from new.

They suggest servicing the cars say yearly or every 12,000 miles whichever comes sooner. Why not with an MoT too.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

OrangeManDan said:


> Agree with the yearly mot's even from new.
> 
> They suggest servicing the cars say yearly or every 12,000 miles whichever comes sooner. Why not with an MoT too.


Many cars are now 2 years between services. It can be in excess of 25,000 miles too.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

It very much depends on the garage and the man doing it. We have always MOT'ed and serviced our cars at the same time, mostly because I am too idle to take the cars away repeatedly.

I would expect our man to tell me if anything was majorly amiss with our cars because I would expect a proper inspection done at the time.

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that the lowest priced MOT must be the best and servicing is something involving a filter and oil change only and so are happy to use Fred's discounted MOT garage without a second glance.

I believe the DVSA actively inspect and regulate MOT testing stations and there is some level of oversight regarding testing. They even send in deliberately iffy cars as a form of spot check so there is a degree of thoroughness involved.

I would not expect the average housewife to know what constitutes a bald or dangerous tyre. In fact, I bet an average joe is incapable of changing a headlight bulb now. For some cars it literally is a dealer job.


----------



## SadlyDistracted (Jan 18, 2013)

It's all very well MOT'g a car but what about the things driving them - are they fit to be doing so? 
I find it hard to believe that people cant tell if their indicators or headlights are defective/badly set - and if they can't tell are they fit to be driving rather than waiting 1 to 3 years for a MOT to highlight such things? :speechles


----------



## Derekh929 (Aug 28, 2011)

ollienoclue said:


> It very much depends on the garage and the man doing it. We have always MOT'ed and serviced our cars at the same time, mostly because I am too idle to take the cars away repeatedly.
> 
> I would expect our man to tell me if anything was majorly amiss with our cars because I would expect a proper inspection done at the time.
> 
> ...


Very good point on headlights my sons Fiesta we had to take out headlight to change bulbs, rears remove carpet and screws in boot then outside, thank god YouTube has videos where fixings are to make it quick


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

The problem with any yearly mot and the fact if it's 3 or 4 years discussion, is it doesn't take in consideration the use of the vehicle.
A builder's van (for example) can be hard used and is totally worn out by its first MOT. 
I use to do myself 30-40K a year, by 3 years my car was still in a good condition, because i looked after it, but some of our company cars would have been complete worn. 
I have seen vehicles recovered who failed on MOT with life threatening faults (bottom ball joints collapsed, subframe loose etc) 
If you think it doesn't happen have a look here: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/category/horror-stories/

I believe, MOT after the first year (and maybe all these wrong adjusted headlights stop blinding me) and every year after that. 
Maybe a probation system executed by the MOT station, for dangerous cars to stop them from using it.


----------

