Are you fit for the road?

[Non-Believer]

10 minutes ago, finlo said:

You should check the tyres and tax discs on yummy mummy fairly new Audi's on the school run, living way beyond their means me thinks.

Checking for cocaine use for Audi drivers might be more useful 😂

[Non-Believer]

5 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

They stop ones with visible defects like lights out, or which look like they are likely to have defects.

It means nothing, and an MOT wouldn’t prevent those issues anyway.  We don’t need one.

I'm not making a case for or against an MOT.

Vehicle owners will do that themselves and having 1/3rd of those selected pulled up for vehicle defects in one day isn't doing themselves any favours. We have a government hungry for cash and they will take up any opportunity for revenue.

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

A large number of defects pulled up in just one day of testing, it would appear. Although possibly also a sign of the economic times too.

11 out of 57 with "issues to rectify". It doesn't say whether the expired road tax was one of these "issues".

In any case, although a small sample, it is well below the 30% emesde says fail the MOT annually in England.

I think really you need to look at accident statistics if you want to make the roads safer. I would suggest the vast majority of accidents are caused by defective driving rather than defective vehicles (which are already illegal in any case). Logic would suggest that it would be much more productive to test, and if necessary educate, drivers every year rather than cars.

I'd be supportive of such an evidence based solution rather than the usual "we should have an MOT because that's what they do where I'm from" nonsense that seems to be the motivation now.

[A fool and his money.....]

2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I'm not making a case for or against an MOT.

Vehicle owners will do that themselves and having 1/3rd of those selected pulled up for vehicle defects in one day isn't doing themselves any favours. We have a government hungry for cash and they will take up any opportunity for revenue.

It's not a third.

[x-in-man]

There is a barrel and IOM GOV is scrapping the bottom of ever single one they get their hands on now,

MoT tests are pointless.  A regular test will not stop the sort of people who drive cars in some of the states they are in.  Just like speed limits - some people will ignore them.

The test cert. is only valid for the period of time a vehicle is on the ramp a the test centre.  It can fail as soon as it backs off the ramp.

A year test (or a test set out for any other period of time) will only make some people think their car is safe for the road until the next test.   

Disc are now obsolete.  The government could save  few quid by scrapping them.  The world and his/her/it's Mum/Dad/Guardian can check online to see if any vehicle is taxed.  Insurance can also be checked for most vehicles too (fleet coverage not so much).

A few quid saved by all.   I commend this budget measure to the forum.

 

[WTF]

  if its a vehicle that isn't taxed on emission levels are there any legal emission levels for that vehicle ?

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

But the fact is regardless of age, these vehicles were in use on the public roads with these defects; not far off 1/3rd of those vehicles selected and stopped. In just one day.

It is far off a third. A third would be 19, there were 11.

[A fool and his money.....]

4 minutes ago, WTF said:

  if its a vehicle that isn't taxed on emission levels are there any legal emission levels for that vehicle ?

Good question.

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, A fool and his money..... said:

It is far off a third. A third would be 19, there were 11.

It depends how you read it and it may be bad reporting. It could be 11 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 16 which is how I read it.

That is "getting on" for 1/3rd of the vehicles stopped (57). It's too many even if it's relatively trivial things like lights out which can be seen by a regular check by the owner. One might wonder what the fixed penalty notice was for?

In any case, it just gives the Govt ammunition.

[A fool and his money.....]

3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It depends how you read it and it may be bad reporting. It could be 11 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 16 which is how I read it.

That is "getting on" for 1/3rd of the vehicles stopped (57). It's too many even if it's relatively trivial things like lights out which can be seen by a regular check by the owner. One might wonder what the fixed penalty notice was for?

In any case, it just gives the Govt ammunition.

It's still less than the 30% which fail the MOT in England.

Are the road tax and emissions a road safety problem? 

You're right, the government will do whatever suits them. If they think they can rape more money from people by introducing an MOT they'll do it.

I'm simply pointing out that it's not the most logical way to improve road safety.

 

[asitis]

As my vehicles are well maintained, an MOT test would be just another hurdle to life ! However I think we know what the motivation would be here to introduce them and it wouldn't be road safety !

[x-in-man]

I did the figures once.   It would mean the test centre would have to do something like 25 vehicles a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to get them and the regular inspections done.  
 

The alternative is of course to sub it out to local garages.   Which would need to invest in the kit, training, updates, inspections and just like the UK, be open to, shall we say, ‘mates rates’.   Local garages won’t be wanting to spend the umpteen thousands just to put a DoT badge on the outside.  

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

  if its a vehicle that isn't taxed on emission levels are there any legal emission levels for that vehicle ?

No smoke showing.

[WTF]

15 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

No smoke showing.

plenty of diesels chuck out black smoke when you put your foot down.

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, x-in-man said:

I did the figures once.   It would mean the test centre would have to do something like 25 vehicles a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to get them and the regular inspections done.  
 

The alternative is of course to sub it out to local garages.   Which would need to invest in the kit, training, updates, inspections and just like the UK, be open to, shall we say, ‘mates rates’.   Local garages won’t be wanting to spend the umpteen thousands just to put a DoT badge on the outside.  

The RMIF tried to suggest this in the 90s, and fund test equipment for certain local garages. The government's own off island motor vehicle advisor was involved and in favour. You can imagine the response from the head vehicle tester at the time, and it was his opinion that prevailed. 

You may recall the death of a young cyclist in 2005 when the wheel came off a truck due to worn studs. Something which would have been picked up with an annual test. The cries at the time for HGV testing took 14 years to come to fruition. 

Despite annual testing being in place for taxis and HGVs, there are still a good number of test failures on safety items. These vehicles are meant to be checked daily and serviced regularly between tests. For all those ordinary drivers who say 'I maintain my vehicle properly, why should we introduce testing' there are a lot of people who don't. and don't even check their tyre pressures or tyre wear.