I've seen this MOT moniker on several posts and after 2 years I finally
looked up the definition of "MOT".
It references the Great Britain "Ministry Of Transport".
I read that that particular Ministry is now superseded by
the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency which handles the MOT inspections.

Sounds like a way for the government to collect more fees (taxes).
Although the inspections can reveal possible vehicle disabling problems
that most owners would not be aware of until it was too late.

Regards and P O R - Press On Regardless

 

It does cost £45 for an annual check on all vehicles three years and older.
Useful safety check to keep poorly maintained cars off the road

 

I think it's cheap as the only mandatory safety test on UK cars over 3 years old. If we didn't have it, then we'd all be clamouring for one to keep dangerous cars off the road. Even if you keep your car well maintained, it's a great way for any obvious structural and integrity faults to be identified each year.

I don't think the government makes any money out of it as the garages all have to be paid to conduct the tests, there's a whole load of checks and balances, and then there's the compilation of all the records which are now freely available to the public. Checking the MoT record of any car that I'm thinking of buying is my first step now. It is a good indication of it's service regime and can also indicate any mileage clocking. I wish we'd had access to those records years ago.

Paul

 

Sounds like a good system and much better
than no inspection at all, or inspections only
at title transfer.

 

I think it is a great idea. There are so many rolling piles of unsafe garbage on american roads and the most that some places check for is emissions. My dads morris still had the tax disc in the window when we got it.

It also becomes part of buying and selling. I know in the UK and Australia the price for tax is considered, if it is already paid for, and passing inspection tells you the car is gtg in terms of looking to buy or sell.

 

In civilized countries that don't have annual safety inspections, how many cars per annum actually have failures that compromise safety?

Of those vehicles that did fail and where safety was compromised, was it a sudden event or did the owner have some sort of advance warning that they chose to ignore?

Of those that were a sudden failure with no warning, would an inspection performed up to 364 days prior have detected the impending problem?

Answer these and another dozen similar questions, all of which would more or less help conclude that annual inspections are not worth the bother.

The British MoT system had it's uses at one point, but the 1940's was a long time ago.

 

I agree that an MoT only indicates the status of the car at that particluar point in time. The idea that owners might solely rely on the MoT rather than consciously maintain their cars in good condition is a worrying thought.

However, the MoT does play a really useful role in forcing owners to meet that standard at least once a year. As an example, in 2013, 33% of cars taking their first MoT (3 years old) failed on illegal tyres. That's a staggering indictment of poor maintenance. And 15% of cars failed on brakes not meeting the standard. So 2 huge safety issues on cars only 3 years old.

I don't think there's many UK motorists who don't agree with the principle of the MoT test.

Paul

 

Umm, no, and that's where the fallacy of regular inspections = ensuring 'safety' comes from.

The tyres and brakes may have not met some (unknown) standard but that does not equate to an accident or accidents having being avoided. I asked above about accident rates in countries that do not have regular inspections. If you do the digging you'll find there's little difference between the two in accident rates attributable to unsafe vehicles.

I know the thought of not having a regular MoT strikes fear in the heart of many UK citizens 'cause it's always been that way and it keeps us safe' but there's little data to back that up. Again, it's not the 1940s any more and cars have come a long way.

The commercial aviation industry figured this out decades ago and adopted what is known as MSG3 methodology.

Aviation Today :: Understanding MSG-3

Too bad the car industry has not picked up on the concept.

 

Hi Paul

I would like to check the MOT records of one of my XJS's

How would I go about doing that?

 

Hi OB, type "mot history" into your browser and it'll take you straight there.
Simply type in your registration and make of car and hit enter, all your cars previous MOT's etc should pop right up

 

Cheers Jim

I will give that a try.

 

Hi Jim

That Gov MOT Check only goes back to 2005

 

Mot test standard is available, and has changed a little since its introduction.
I am sure it could be improved upon and would agree that many principles applied to aviation safety would improve automotive safety if these could be introduced.

 

OB,

Yes, it can only go back to 2006 because that's when the MoT records were centralised rather than just held on local paper records issued by garages.

So it's limited but still really useful source of info as it holds all the mileage, failure reasons and advisory reasons.

Paul

 

Hi Paul

Cheers!

Still very useful for checking on the mileage of other Cars and dodgy garages if you are thinking of buying.

 

The point is that 'automotive safety' does not depend and does not benefit by scheduled inspections. It's an ineffective attempt to fix something that's not really broken.

In talking with family in the UK yesterday, I mentioned the numbers quoted above about 33% of tires and 15% of brakes failing. Although they had not heard those precise numbers and think they are exaggerated, there was no surprised reaction over the concept. Apparently many motorists absolve themselves of responsibility towards the vehicles and instead rely on their annual test to find problems.

This article seems to confirm

Millions failing MoT tests on tyre issues - Telegraph

If that's the case the MoT test is doing more harm than good.

 

I accept your point that some motorists don't take responsibility to maintain cars as they should. When these motorists fail annual MOT with defective tyres they are compelled to rectify the matter by fitting new tyres in order to pass test , are you suggesting that if MOT was abolished these same individuals would suddenly become more responsible for their vehicles condition and make regular check on tyres and other safety issues ?

 

If the newspaper article and my family are even partially correct then yes, I expect at least some people would take some responsibility- but obviously not all would.

What I would also expect is that the rate of tire-related accidents in the UK that could have been avoided by performing an inspection up to 364 days prior to the event would rise to that of other similar countries where no safety inspection program exists and it's the responsibility of the owner. In other words, almost unheard of.

 

An interesting fact is that only 1% of car accidents are caused by mechanical malfunction. This statistic has not altered from the time before the MOT test (it was introduced in the 1960s or thereabouts) until today.


There are an increasing number of motorists with no insurance, driving cars with cloned plates that have no MOT. None of the state requirements have had any effect on this group of drivers, nor will abolishing them.


I firmly believe that the target of both governments and the car industry is to arrive at a situation where all cars are GPS tracked 100% of their lifetime, and this lifetime will be 100,000 miles or ten years whichever is the sooner. The freedom the automobile gives individuals to be independent and act so is something that governments and beaurocrats increasingly wish to restrict.


In the EU from 2018 all new cars will have to have an unswitchable-off GPS signal transmitter so their position can be constantly tracked and their speed monitored. These cars will in principle, and in fact, be able to be disabled remotely by state agencies, and of course any half-decent teenage hacker. This places great and essentially unfettered power in the hands of the police and other state agencies, and the record of probity of many of the individuals employed by these agencies is poor, to put it mildly.


This surveillance will be sold as "if you have an accident the authorities will immediately know, and know where to send the ambulance" etc etc and thus be justified as for the individual's 'own good'. Naturally those who are habitual criminals will disable their trackers. There is a question about how far the state should intrude upon/seek to control, an individual's choices. My concern is that we seem to be on quite a slippery slope towards more and more state control without anyone being asked whether they want it or approve of it. I mean for example, why make switching off a GPS transmitter a criminal offence? Why not leave it as a choice?
Greg

 

The German TÜV is very strict. My XJ-S had a fresh MOT with no issues before I bought her. Took it to the German TÜV to see what I need to do, and the list was long.

German TÜV is due every 2 years... So much to the British safety concious MOT tests...