Government to review the MOT after 3 years

The government is too review the requirement for a MOT when a new car becomes 3 years old, to save the motorist some money and move it to 4 years.  Apparently NI is already 4 years.

The AA is against it, they say that 1 in 10 three year old cars fails.  The RAC isn't against the move, but says high mileage cars should still have a MOT at 3 years.

What's your view?

Rumour is they might also look at relaxing the yearly MOT, but not holding my breath.

Robin

I think it's a bad idea. Watching some of the videos of cars brought into US garages gives you an indication of how bad things can get without regular inspections. MOT costs are peanuts compared to fuel and purchase costs. If you can afford to buy a new car, you can afford to MOT it after 3 years.

To be honest I'd ditch the exemption for older cars as well, requiring them to have a roadworthiness test each year (with exclusions for emissions and other modern requirements they couldn't hope to achieve).

I wholeheartedly agree with Gadget.

Roger

Agree with Gadget, it is just gambling with road safety. Some people can't even change a headlight bulb without blinding other drivers so I would say keep that yearly check, and keep the 3 year rule.

On the cash side of things it doesn't save the people that need it the most any money. If you can afford a new car you can afford the MOT.
The ability for it to pass an MOT depends upon how the owner treats the vehicle, rather than time or mileage. 
As the majority have no idea or mechanical sympathy, plus these days they simply don't care as it's rented /PCP,   they should be looking to MOT it every year from new. So very bad idea.
Just my opinion.
 

wrote:

I think it's a bad idea. Watching some of the videos of cars brought into US garages gives you an indication of how bad things can get without regular inspections. MOT costs are peanuts compared to fuel and purchase costs. If you can afford to buy a new car, you can afford to MOT it after 3 years.

To be honest I'd ditch the exemption for older cars as well, requiring them to have a roadworthiness test each year (with exclusions for emissions and other modern requirements they couldn't hope to achieve).

Don't agree at all. It is all about numbers...

While some cars in the US look bad. The number of accident due to car condition is very tiny and not really any different to here. The same is true with classic cars. They still need to be just as roadworthy today as they ever have been. The only change has been a mandatory test.

I suspect if you go an look up primary cause of all road traffic accidents, vehicle condition is probably way way way way down the list.

And it isn't as if having an annual check guarantees a set quality either. Plenty of ways to get around an MoT or have a car in a non roadworthy condition weeks later.


There has been talks for years about moving MoT's to ever other year.

Not again. There's been rumblings on this for years and it's not likely to change. Now if they were on about removing MOT lanes from garages that stand to profit from any work needed and instead have all tests done by independent providers be they local government or otherwise then that I can get behind as you don't have a boss looking over the lane spying out chargeable unnecessary work to relieve the unsuspecting from their cash.

Here in Norway it is every other year.
Seems fine.
Some New points came this year with more check points on Newer cars. and for some reason more rust can be tolerated.

Never had a New car so no idea on those.

Trailers and mopeds are not checked. They should be as that is where the accidents often relates to lack of maintanence.