General MOT or Training?

Discussion in 'Lounge & Gossip' started by Jonnyjohnson, Wednesday 21st Oct, 2015.

  1. Jonnyjohnson Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Jonny East Sussex
    19
    8
    Since its introduction in 1960 the MOT, was a basic inspection to asses a vehicles roadworthiness. Later emissions were included, but over the years other items that do not affect a vehicles roadworthiness have been added, number plates, windscreen, speedo etc etc. Before someone bleats on, these items do not constitute a dangerous vehicle. I am prepared to drive any car with a broken number plate.
    Vehicle defect accidents only amount to 2.8%, the most common cause of any accident is driver error. Would money be better spent on driver training or retraining?
     
    Loading...
  2. Zebster Guest

    What money? Those extra checks can't cost all that much, and they do need doing somewhere!
     
  3. Jonnyjohnson Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Jonny East Sussex
    19
    8
    The cost to run VOSA for one, facts prove vehicle examinations are not cost effective.
     
    Loading...
  4. Zebster Guest

    You're suggesting we don't have MoTs?

    What facts prove this? Surely vehicle defects constitute the small proportion of accident attribution because the national fleet is in a highly safe condition because of MOT Standards?
     
  5. Jonnyjohnson Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Jonny East Sussex
    19
    8
    If you have your vehicle maintained to the manufactures standards there would be no need for a MOT.
    The MOT checks your car meets the minimum standards only.
     
    Loading...
  6. Zebster Guest

    That's a big 'if' and cannot be relied upon.

    The minimum standards are quite stringent, aren't they? A surprising number of three year old cars fail their first MOT ( presumably after being serviced by their respective dealers).

    BBC News - The new cars failing their MOTs

    ...including 13.3% of Honda Jazz's, apparently!