UK motorists are being reminded that a valid MOT certificate is not an indication of a vehicle’s roadworthiness for a 12-month period, at a time when the government is proposing an extension for MOT testing for new cars from 2017.
The message comes from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) approved independent garage code, Trust My Garage, which is warning that government plans to extend the period for new cars and motorbikes to have their first MOT from three to four years would risk making UK roads more dangerous.
The RMI, the organisation behind Trust My Garage, has said it will respond to the consultation on the proposal, as will the automotive industry’s ProMOTe campaign.
Fierce opposition
The ProMOTe campaign is a coalition representing road safety groups, motoring organisations and industry bodies all opposed to what are considered to be dangerous, expensive and unnecessary government plans.
DVSA data shows that even at three years old, more than one in five cars fail the MOT and waiting a further year before the first test will only increase this number.
Terry Gibson, of Trust My Garage, said: “The government should not be changing the time required for a new car or motorbike to have its first MOT test when we have some of the safest roads in Europe.
“An extension has the potential to put motorists’ lives at risk and could lead to a rise in the number of unsafe vehicles on the road, as well as a potential increase in car mileage fraud.”
Send your ‘MOT horror’ pictures to [email protected].
Endangering lives
It’s a concern that’s reflected among GW readers.
Hazel Hanley of Mount Pleasant MOT in East Sussex said: “Not only will the plan endanger lives, it will also put jobs on the line and many garages out of business.”
Meanwhile, another reader reflected on a recent first MOT for a vehicle with 11,000 miles on the clock which had badly worn lower ball joint.
Paul said: “It was in terrible state and just goes to show that this could have saved a life or prevented an accident.
“The idea that this could have gone for another year unnoticed!”
Consumer warning
As the ProMOTe coalition continues to challenge government proposals, the message to consumers is to remember that irrespective of when the first test takes place, a valid MOT is not a substitute for regular servicing, and certainly not an indication of continued roadworthiness for the 12 months that follow the test.
Terry Gibson added: “There is a belief that because modern cars are typically becoming more reliable, they do not need to be tested so frequently.
“Not only is the MOT failure rate higher than it was in 2008 many components such as tyres and brakes are likely to have become dangerous by the time a vehicle is four-years-old.
“We believe that these risks are exacerbated by the fact many motorists rely on the MOT to check the roadworthiness of their vehicle rather than to confirm it.”
Do you believe these proposals will really get the go-ahead? Tell us about the dangerous MOT failures that you’ve come across, particularly if it was on a first MOT, and leave your comments below.
ARDS ROVER CENTRE
First MOT here in Northern Ireland is from four years old.
ARDS ROVER CENTRE
First MOT here in Northern Ireland is from four years old.
Stuart Fox
I personally think it should stay at 3 years but they should bring mileage into the law i.e. 3 years or 80,000 miles like they do for servicing. Some 3 year old cars have done a lot of miles!!
Stuart Fox
I personally think it should stay at 3 years but they should bring mileage into the law i.e. 3 years or 80,000 miles like they do for servicing. Some 3 year old cars have done a lot of miles!!
Neil Lindsay
We look after a number of customers cars and light commercials and some are clocking up 100,000 miles per year and often the state of the vehicles, even after a year, are not safe and after 4 years it doesn’t even bear thinking about! Surely, if 4 years is to be seriously considered there should be some overiding mileage limit to force earlier than 3 yearly tests let alone 4 yearly tests!
Neil Lindsay
We look after a number of customers cars and light commercials and some are clocking up 100,000 miles per year and often the state of the vehicles, even after a year, are not safe and after 4 years it doesn’t even bear thinking about! Surely, if 4 years is to be seriously considered there should be some overiding mileage limit to force earlier than 3 yearly tests let alone 4 yearly tests!
Alastair Mayne
Unfortunately many members of the public think that we (the Motor Trade) are purely against this change because we will be “missing out on MOT test charges”. It is important for us to educate our customers (the public) in order for them to understand the safety issues this stupid change could create. We are all sharing our roads with other vehicles and so it is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that every other vehicle on the road is a safe as possible.
Garage Wire Editor
Couldn’t agree more. I think the initial thought for many motorists is that an extra year without an MOT will save them money. However, explain the reality of the wider implications and I’m sure the majority would tend to agree that a 4-1-1 system should be out of the question. As you say, it’s about educating people and I imagine you’ll be talking to your customers about this Alastair?
Alastair Mayne
Unfortunately many members of the public think that we (the Motor Trade) are purely against this change because we will be “missing out on MOT test charges”. It is important for us to educate our customers (the public) in order for them to understand the safety issues this stupid change could create. We are all sharing our roads with other vehicles and so it is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that every other vehicle on the road is a safe as possible.
Garage Wire Editor
Couldn’t agree more. I think the initial thought for many motorists is that an extra year without an MOT will save them money. However, explain the reality of the wider implications and I’m sure the majority would tend to agree that a 4-1-1 system should be out of the question. As you say, it’s about educating people and I imagine you’ll be talking to your customers about this Alastair?
Mr smith Pete
Really stupid idea. Four years in a new car’s life cycle would be out of the question with the road conditions in the UK these days being so bad, more wear is taken by the whole drive train. Whoever thought this one up needs a good clip around the ear hole.
Mr smith Pete
Really stupid idea. Four years in a new car’s life cycle would be out of the question with the road conditions in the UK these days being so bad, more wear is taken by the whole drive train. Whoever thought this one up needs a good clip around the ear hole.
hassen oomar
I have come across so many cars of 18 months old that require attention, tyres,ball joints,wheel bearings,top suspension mounts just to name a few, that to lengthen the time of testing to 4 years will jeopardise the life of other road users. I regret to say that those behind this idea are stupid and have no ideas about safety.
hassen oomar
I have come across so many cars of 18 months old that require attention, tyres,ball joints,wheel bearings,top suspension mounts just to name a few, that to lengthen the time of testing to 4 years will jeopardise the life of other road users. I regret to say that those behind this idea are stupid and have no ideas about safety.
Hooters
Can our over-loaded roads infrastructure really handle the inevitable increase in roadside breakdowns?
Hooters
P.s. Bet Patrick McLoughlin never thought of that.
Hooters
Can our over-loaded roads infrastructure really handle the inevitable increase in roadside breakdowns?
Hooters
P.s. Bet Patrick McLoughlin never thought of that.
alan hunter
It won’t make a dab of difference to jobs extending to four years.
alan hunter
It won’t make a dab of difference to jobs extending to four years.