M O T - Yes Or No

[sideways]

You have said the answer in your post” Now if the police bothered to check cars or did routine stop checks then there wouldn't be a problem.” ENFORCE the laws we have NOT introduce more Nanny state rubbish!!!!

 

Hey its only a MOT test not an attempt to stop you exercising some precious freedom

Maybe, given the size of the Island, the Govt could set up low cost testing stations to prevent garages from profiteering

 

i can tell that you have not had alot to do with our lovely test centre...

[Nitro]

Do you really think an MOT would stop people driving round with one headlight or their number plate lights out or bald tyres?

 

Do you not think that this type of person is not the type to not have insurance , tax or a current MOT?

 

You have said the answer in your post” Now if the police bothered to check cars or did routine stop checks then there wouldn't be a problem.” ENFORCE the laws we have NOT introduce more Nanny state rubbish!!!!

 

But in order to enforce the laws we have we need more police, Which will then still be more tax payers money.

I just think that people don't feel the need to check there car because we don't have an MOT system which forces you to check your car.

 

I just really don't understand why people don't check their lights though, Its one of the easiest things to do and only takes a couple of minutes yet so many people have lights which don't work.

[the_kitty]

I voted yes.

 

We need to do anything we can to reduce all these car accidents.

[Cret]

It's an interesting debate alright and I don't want to get too deeply involved but how many times do you ever hear of accidents being caused over here as a result of a vehicle's condition?

 

I can't remember any (although that's not to say there hasn't been).

 

The cause of most accidents here is down to people driving like berks or showing total disregard for theirs & other's safety by the way they drive. As a lot of sensible people keep saying there are plenty of rules in place to stop things like this but they are barely enforced. Sort these issues out before creating more.

[bilbo]

It's an interesting debate alright and I don't want to get too deeply involved but how many times do you ever hear of accidents being caused over here as a result of a vehicle's condition?

 

I can't remember any (although that's not to say there hasn't been).

 

The cause of most accidents here is down to people driving like berks or showing total disregard for theirs & other's safety by the way they drive. As a lot of sensible people keep saying there are plenty of rules in place to stop things like this but they are barely enforced. Sort these issues out before creating more.

 

I kind of agree with that.

 

I suppose people could benefit from it when buying used cars they would have more of an assurance that the car wasn't going to fall apart once they have handed over their cash.

[Rog]

MOT test? Absolutely YES.

 

And furthermore the self same MOT test that we have here on the Mainland with the same training for the testers.

 

Today the MOT test results in a computer printout slip that is a paper copy of the record that is held at the DVLC, as are insurance partiulars of your car and its excise tax status.

 

Consequently Blogg can sit by the side of the road with his safety camera screening each and every car as it passes not only to ascertain its speed or if its been nicked but also if it’s taxed, MOT’ed and most of all insured.

 

No tax, valid MOT certificate of insurance on the vehicle? The owner gets a call from the police.

 

Not only but also ---

 

The test is annual and of course the moment that you drive from the test centre something could fail that would result in the car no longer being roadworthy but in all seriousness what are the chances of that happening? pretty damm remote. What’s more the nature of the test gives fairly good assurance that not only is there nothing wrong at the time but also that what’s passed will in all probability survive for another 12 months.

 

Pissant faults such as bulb failures, wiper blades knackered, headlight light adjustments out – most garages that conduct MOT tests will make such minor repairs on the fly if asked or in the case of my local grease-shop offer the service at the time of booking the car in.

 

For myself I use our local garage simply because it has the reputation of being an unforgiving test centre. I WANT the confidence that my car is safe. Furthermore I don’t wait the full 12 months between tests. I get my car MOT’ed every 6 months or thereabout.

 

A lot of people do the same. It makes so much sense.

 

Oh yes --- and as regards the number of accidents on the Island as a result of defective vehicles – I can recall more than a few but that apart, how about when people bring a car over to the Mainland or even take it further afield and that car has not passed an MOT test?

 

What guarantee is there that such a car is fit and safe to drive on our roads or worse yet Continental roads that vary between cobbled surfaces (on the back road from Dunkirk to Calais – a favourite of mine NOT) or the high speed A-bahns and similar routes?

[Amadeus]

Sideways: I see where you're coming from, but I stick to my opinion - a yearly MOT would greatly improve safety.

 

Yes, most people look after their cars, and the police should enforce the existing laws, which look brilliant on paper. If - and i sincerely hope it doesn't - the speed limit does come, do you really think the police will be able to really enforce all that ? By the looks of things, there seem to be serious problems enforcing the existing laws as they are..

 

A yearly test, together with a sticker for your windscreen (just like a tax disc), would actually take pressure of the police, as there is no immediate need to take the car apart at the side of the road - no MOT sticker, no drive - simple...

 

To even take further work of the police force, the ever-present, all-seing traffic wardens can enforce it as well - disc expired -> ticket and request to report for a test.

 

And an MOT would also weed out any illegal and irresponsible tuning measures some people still tend to do and get away with at the moment.

 

I do agree, however, that a test should be straight-forward, unbureaucratic and reasonably priced - the goal is to encourage people to look after their cars, not to punish them.

 

No nanny state here - just a safety measure in the interest of every motorist, a simple test to ensure that the car in front of you is actually safe enough to be driven on a public road - instead of a blanket speed limit that nobody wants, and which wouldn't achieve anything....

[MrsTrellisfromNorthWales]

Having driven and learned to drive in a car on the Isle of Man that was clearly unroadworthy and having kept it on the road for at least a decade after it would have been scrapped in the UK, I now clearly see the error of my ways.

 

It endangered me and everyone on the roads in my way.

 

It's only thanks to lax Manx laws that this was possible. It's a charter for irresponsibilty and would only have come to light after I'd crashed and possibly maimed and killed.

 

When I moved "across", I had a (different) Manx-registered car. I know that's naughty and illegal. But conscience got the better of me and I changed after a couple of years.

 

Anyway, before that, I still took my Manx car for MoT tests in the UK even though I didn't have to. The garage didn't question the Manx plates.

 

It cost about £40 a go. Fantastic value for money. Got a professional (whom I trusted) to ensure my 12/13-year-old car was not a deathtrap. OK, I know it's not a guarantee, and it's only a snapshot in time, but it gave me peace of mind that the subframe wasn't about to collapse and that the brakes had some life in them.

[manxman8180]

It's only thanks to lax Manx laws that this was possible. It's a charter for irresponsibilty and would only have come to light after I'd crashed and possibly maimed and killed.

The point is though (and this is what some of the other posters are trying to say) is that the laws aren't lax at all. They are just not being enforced. It is illegal to drive a car which is unfit / unsafe.

 

The law isn't 'lax' as you suggest. Although the enforcement may well be classed as such.

 

Now why bring in another loop, the MOT (or equivalent) which will only serve to cost the considerate motorist more money. Inconsiderate assholes (like your previous self) will continue to flout the law and run the risk of being pulled over. So what purpose does it serve?

 

Personally, I know my cars are safe, because I regularly check them.

 

Now then, if you want to introduce some sensible measures, so that people can take more responsibility, why don't we introduce some basic maintenance / safety training into the driving test?

[Jacqueline]

You must have had an excellent role model as a parent, dear.

[MrsTrellisfromNorthWales]

Now why bring in another loop, the MOT (or equivalent) which will only serve to cost the considerate motorist more money. Inconsiderate assholes (like your previous self) will continue to flout the law and run the risk of being pulled over. So what purpose does it serve?

 

 

Accept the lax/enforcement thing.

 

But the purpose it would have served would have been to take an unroadworthy car off the road. It's one thing to ignore an unenforced law. It's quite another to not get an MoT certificate and then be unable to tax or insure the vehicle.

 

 

Now then, if you want to introduce some sensible measures, so that people can take more responsibility, why don't we introduce some basic maintenance / safety training into the driving test?

 

 

As for maintenance/safety, good idea in theory and if it was 1970 . . . modern cars are just too complicated.

You can't even lift the bonnet of an Audi A2.

 

And, Jacqueline, I was adopted. Or at least that's what I try to believe.

[manxman8180]

But the purpose it would have served would have been to take an unroadworthy car off the road. It's one thing to ignore an unenforced law. It's quite another to not get an MoT certificate and then be unable to tax or insure the vehicle.

Yes, but again, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cars that we are talking about, are neither taxed or insured at present. So, what affect will it have on these.

 

Zilch.

 

Nada.

 

Zip.

[Rog]

But the purpose it would have served would have been to take an unroadworthy car off the road. It's one thing to ignore an unenforced law. It's quite another to not get an MoT certificate and then be unable to tax or insure the vehicle.

Yes, but again, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cars that we are talking about, are neither taxed or insured at present. So, what affect will it have on these.

 

Zilch.

 

Nada.

 

Zip.

 

But if a safety camera vehicle was to periodically visit the Island ---

 

And if the Manx vehicles were to be included on the Mainland DVLC database ---

 

And if not - then as in some other countries have an MOT disk and an insurance disk as well --- every time you left your car every police officer or traffic warden would at a glace be able to tell that your vehicle was ‘legit’ and clamp it if not.

 

That has to be a step foreword.

[MrsTrellisfromNorthWales]

Yes, but again, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cars that we are talking about, are neither taxed or insured at present. So, what effect will it have on these.

 

Zilch.

 

Nada.

 

Zip.

 

 

Big bet.

 

It would have changed my ways for one.

 

And your defence in court if your car is unroadworthy is ignorance. You can legitimately say you had no idea your car was faulty. You might be a fool. But a lot of us are pretty ignorant of basic car maintenance and have no idea that our brake lights aren't working or that the rust under the car is so bad it's causing structural problems.

 

If you knowingly drive a car without an MoT, insurance or tax, you cannot legitimately say you had no idea you were doing it. It's as clear as day. You know you are knowingly breaking the law.

[Mr. Sausages]

The point is though (and this is what some of the other posters are trying to say) is that the laws aren't lax at all. They are just not being enforced. It is illegal to drive a car which is unfit / unsafe.

 

And how are 'vehicle illiterate' people such as myself supposed to know whether their car is unfit/unsafe? The only way I can see is by taking it to a garage where a qualified person tells you yes or no. A bit like... a bit like an MOT test.