Join Date: Feb 2007
Nominated 16 Times in 67 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 28
Thanked 5,201 Times in 4,712 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