Fuss over MOT examination - Page 2 - Renault Forums :: Independent Renault forum

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old 11th November 2008 Thread Starter
Technical Supremo

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 42,935
Nominated 16 Times in 67 Posts
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 28
Thanks: 371
Thanked 5,199 Times in 4,711 Posts
I hear what you are saying Lagdti but I don't think it is made clear enough to Joe Public that the MOT is not related to servicing or preventative maintenance. Sadly many drivers mistakenly believe that once a car has passed it examination everything is fine for another year.
I too have been shocked to find serious safety faults on cars many which are plainly obvious and require no special technical abilty to detect. These items would include tyres, wipers, lights, poor braking, etc. Whenever I have come across such situations I tend to say to the driver would you fly on a plane with such faults and invariably the answer is "No" Maybe test certificates should have large red letters reminding drivers "This is not a guarantee of quality or reliablility"
Under the law there is no comeback to a garage should a safety aspect fail after a test unless it was patiently obvious that the fault was capable of being detected at the time. This aspect has been tested in court and precedents have been set.
I would also agree that increasing test intervals would be a very unsafe move as it is obvious that many drivers don't give too much heed to the need to maintain a vehicle in a safe roadworthy condition. Yet the same people would expect airlines, bus and rail companies, etc to maintain the highest of standards. Personally I believe the test should be extended to include agricultural vehicles and private trailers and caravans many of which lie around unused for many months or even years and are then taken on to public roads without any roadworthy check
Currently in madnoel10's garage:
Honda Civic 1.4l
madnoel10 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old 11th November 2008
Platinum member
Tiggerz_SRi's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,417
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 2
Thanks: 2
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Send a message via MSN to Tiggerz_SRi
some faults though say like poor brakeing degrades over a period of time and if you only ever drove that one car, it is conceivable you may not notice.
Currently in Tiggerz_SRi's garage:
Audi a4 v6 avant, used to have bmw 525d se estate, 2001 Toyota Previa 2.4 VVTi GLS, '98 R FORD Galaxy 2.3 Ghia X a Espace III 2.2dT RXE and a Lag I 1.8RT!
Tiggerz_SRi is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old 11th November 2008
Platinum member
scatz's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,008
Nominated 0 Times in 4 Posts
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 5
Thanks: 59
Thanked 331 Times in 300 Posts
I hear what your saying Noel, I always prefer a long MOT though so that if there is anything that needs doing I've at least got some breathing space to get it done. I have never considered an MOT a guage of how good/bad a car may/maynot be though

Currently in scatz's garage:
2004 Subaru Legacy GT Spec B, a 2013 2.0 TDCi Titanium X Sport S-Max and a 2001 Honda NSR125R
scatz is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old 11th November 2008
S.M.A.R.T.(y) Pants
VelSatisfied's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,936
Nominated 11 Times in 37 Posts
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 17
Thanks: 4,549
Thanked 2,467 Times in 1,851 Posts
I've often pondered whether MOT's should be based on mileage as well as age.

Let's face it, the average company car can clock up well into six figures before its old enough to be tested - and you'd expect the tyres & brakes to have been replaced more than a couple of times - but there's no 'need' to check until its 3 years old.

Parts wear out as much through use as through age - don't they?

Conversely, a car bought new for taxi purposes must be tested every six months from the date of licensing. (yet its still the owner/operator who'd be prosecuted over defects).

It seems the law only really favours paying passengers.

I fully support the principle of the MOT, as I believe it saves a great many lifes.


This job should never be complete - the day I think I've done it all, is the day I resign.

S.M.A.R.T. Technician
Currently in VelSatisfied's garage:
2005 FIAT Ducato 2.8JTD LWB Gran Volume, 2000 Kawasaki ZZR 1100 D7 'fullpower' in black + full GIVI & KAPPA luggage, 2007 MB R-Class 320 CDi Sport LWB uprated by Brabus to 300Bhp don't know if there's a 155mph limiter - will be fun finding out! 2004 Mercedes Vaneo 1.7 CDi Ambiente 7-seater
VelSatisfied is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old 11th November 2008
Veteran Member
Technical Supremo
Lagdti's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,429
Nominated 2 Times in 20 Posts
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 18
Thanks: 149
Thanked 1,103 Times in 942 Posts
Some very points made there.

Caravans and trailers should have a yearly test,absolutely agree.We've all seen the home made trailers that look distinctly unsafe and caravans that are plainly just about to disintergrate.

All of the information and all of the test standards and regulations are freely available to the general,you can't have a system any other way to be honest,but as said many people don't really know or understand what it's primary function is.It really does get on my t1ts when people complain about having to pay 50 a year to make sure their car is safe.If you can't afford to spend that amount once a year to make sure your car isn't going to kill either yourself or another road user,then you don't deserve to have a vehicle at all.I know it only shows a small snippet of a cars condition,but it is there primarily for safety.If anyone wants to learn more about exactly what an MOT is all about it's all on the VOSA website,you can even download copies of their magazine 'Matters Of Testing' which gives even more of an insight.I have been a believer of making basic car maintenance part of the driving test for a long time,and I think I'm right in saying that a certain amount has been added.May be it would be a good idea for a new driver to sit in on an MOT test as part of their driver training,hopefully it would put an end to all the myths and untruths that abound about it.

I know it's easy for me as I am 'on the inside' when it comes to testing,but even I have had my eyes opened over the last 6 or so years since I've been an NT.The standards set by the test are pretty poor to be honest,but I still believe whole heartedly in the system.It does have it's faults,but by and large it works very well.

I'd rather push my Alfa than drive a BMW....
Currently in Lagdti's garage:
2004 Saab 9-5 HOT Aero and a 2001 Audi A3 1.8 Turbo
Lagdti is offline  

examination , fuss , mot

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Renault Forums :: Independent Renault forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome