M.O.T. 4 year exemption for new cars ?

[t-tony]

A proposal is being put forward to give new vehicles a 4 year exemption before requiring it to under go the M.O.T. Test. Good deal or not ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708925

Another point of view is here,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27294241

Tony.

 

[MAURICE THE MARTIAN]

No .imho. cars should be tested after 1 year. Thers plenty of cars 1 yr old with dodgy tyres n brakes
M

 

[Grumps]

I think 3 is fine but 4 is pushing it. Tyres brakes etc can be ready at 3 years.

 

[t-tony]

I agree Mozz, for example if you were to buy a brand new car and used it as a private hire vehicle it would need an M.O.T. and a Taxi test at 6 months of age and at every 6 months there after!

Tony.

 

[t-tony]

I think 3 is fine but 4 is pushing it. Tyres brakes etc can be ready at 3 years.

Depending on mileage and the driver a car could easily need tyres before a year old mate. The big problem is that the vast majotity of people use the M.O.T. test as their only annual gauge of their car's condition.

Tony.

 

[andyglym]

On the basis that 1 in 5 cars fail their first MOT (various sources), I'd say it's a bad idea in that even more cars will be travelling around with some kind of "fault". Most people don't carry out at POWER check from one month to the next hence circa 40% of MOT failures are attributed to stuff that anybody should be able to fix (light bulbs, wipers etc).

 

[Redline]

You're right Tony. Many owners use the MOT as the weather vane on their cars condition. It made worse with much increased service intervals.

However, irrespective of MOT status, drivers have a legal obligation to ensure their car is safe. Sadly, it will take a few prosecutions, probably as a result of serious accidents to keep that fact in mind. Having said that I would hope that failures on sub 4yr old cars are restricted to brakes and tyres (and probably windscreens too). I would hope that the money invested in cars less that 4yrs would be enough to prompt most people to keep it well maintained.
If course it isn't good news for you. Fewer cars coming in.

 

[Shelly]

Yes I think a new car should be tested after 3 years
I think if I bought a new car I'd take it for a test after 3 years just in car anything needed doing

 

[t-tony]

You're right Tony. Many owners use the MOT as the weather vane on their cars condition. It made worse with much increased service intervals.

However, irrespective of MOT status, drivers have a legal obligation to ensure their car is safe. Sadly, it will take a few prosecutions, probably as a result of serious accidents to keep that fact in mind. Having said that I would hope that failures on sub 4yr old cars are restricted to brakes and tyres (and probably windscreens too). I would hope that the money invested in cars less that 4yrs would be enough to prompt most people to keep it well maintained.
If course it isn't good news for you. Fewer cars coming in.

Spot on Ian. But even so, I advised the the rear brake pads were almost on the limit of 1.5mm ( just how we're expected to measure that I don't know) and this was a month ago and it came in with them on the metal. Obviously an advisory item carried no weight with this particular owner.

Tony.

 

[Tfp]

I'm dead against it.

Why change it?

People are used to having their first MOT at three years, I've never heard anyone complaining about it, ever.

And I don't agree with two year service intervals either.

That bulge on the inside of a tyre that you may have got will not be noticed for that long???

I think people (politicians making the rules) forget that cars can become death traps if something goes wrong, seriously, people die due to tyres blowing out.

Rant over..

 

[t-tony]

I don't see a need to change anything just to be aligned with other countries

Tony.

 

[Redline]

Spot on Ian. But even so, I advised the the rear brake pads were almost on the limit of 1.5mm ( just how we're expected to measure that I don't know) and this was a month ago and it came in with them on the metal. Obviously an advisory item carried no weight with this particular owner.

Tony.

Are you unable to treat the overall state as dangerous when it gets to that point. They are visibly in a state where they may well fail catastrophically at any moment.

 

[t-tony]

You can't Ian, it's very difficult to see pads on most cars and now manufacturers are redesigning callipers where you can barely see the pads even with the wheels removed. You have to take the callipers right off to see the pads. I'll take some pictures next time I come across one like it.

3.5 Mechanical Brake Components 3.5 - page 1
Information
Method of Inspection
Reason for Rejection
It is acceptable to fit cable expanders to reduce maladjustment.
A visual and physical check must be carried out on all mechanical components that are visible and accessible.
1.
Check the mechanical brake components for:
a.
chafed rods or levers
b.
frayed or knotted cables
c.
free rotation of clevis joints between cables and levers (this includes cable linkages between brake pedals and remote mounted servos)
d.
security of cables, rods and clevis joints
e.
a corroded or damaged rod, lever or linkage. Wear in eyes of relay levers, clevis joints, stationary pins or pivots
f.
abnormal movement of levers, indicating maladjustment or excessive wear
g.
security and excessive wear of brake linings/pads
h.
contamination of brake discs and drums by leaking brake fluid, oil or grease
i.
the condition and security of brake drums and discs
j.
presence and security of brake back plates, wheel cylinders and calipers
1.
a.
A brake rod or lever reduced in thickness by more than 1/3rd
b.
a brake cable:

knotted or,

with wires broken so that the cable is weakened significantly
c.
seizure of clevis joint pivots which causes strain or wear to cables to an extent likely to lead to premature failure of the cable
d.
a cable, rod or clevis joint insecure
e.
serious weakening of any part due to excessive wear, damage or corrosion
f.
abnormal movement of levers indicating maladjustment or excessive wear
g.
a brake lining or pad insecure or less than 1.5 mm thick at any point
h.
a brake disc or drum contaminated by brake fluid, oil or grease
i.
a brake disc or drum in such a condition that it is seriously weakened or insecure
j.
a brake back plate, wheel cylinder or caliper securing device loose, missing or excessively deteriorated

Tony.

 

[Redline]

e.
serious weakening of any part due to excessive wear, damage or corrosion
g.
a brake lining or pad insecure or less than 1.5 mm thick at any point

Tony.

Measuring 1.5mm is impossible I would have thought - making it difficult if not practical to do an objective assessment. If it's down to the metal (rivets?) doesn't it come under e. though. At that point the friction material can become detached I would have thought.

Going back to the issues last week - I'm certain that my discs are actually now below the recommended minimum. I think both side of the disc are worn well in excess of 1mm so reducing a 12mm thick disc below the 10mm recommended minimum. Helpful that the stealer said they were down to 13.5mm. I can see your dilemma when even the dealers own people don't know what the sizes are and can't measure them themselves. They still passed the MoT though. Worn becomes subjective rather than objective.

 

[t-tony]

it does, again here I would be looking for any discernible fluctuation on the gauges while doing the roller brake test, that gives a tester a reason for rejection.

Tony.