2 year MOT's

Funky · Post by **Funky** » Nov 30th, '06, 01:53

I heard on the radio that pissy pants prescott is trying to put through that MOT's are to be every two years. What does everyone think?

Personally i don't like the idea as it means more deterioration for many vehicles to the state where many are unsafe. Also at least every year it'll mostly be little things that are wrong and you can keep on top of them, whereas in two years something big could go wrong that a person can't afford to repair...

andy198712 · Post by **andy198712** » Nov 30th, '06, 01:54

yh i think bad idea, as you get num nuts who just dont take any care of they're motors and they become unsafe to other users, like us

speedy(delboy) · Post by **speedy(delboy)** » Nov 30th, '06, 03:00

As a cabbie i have to have 4 MOT's a year

2 Standard MOT's by a testing station and 2 Hackney MOT's (called the Pink Slip).

Each MOT is £50 and each Pink slip is another £35 each.

So in just one year what you will spend on MOT's (£35/45) I have to spend £170, and thats without any repairs or anything.

Wish I could have one every 2 years, would save me a fortune.

But, I do agree on one point, cars (and bikes) would end up falling apart

Jonny · Post by **Jonny** » Nov 30th, '06, 10:07

They have this system in cyprus.

baskie · Post by **baskie** » Nov 30th, '06, 11:19

speedy(delboy) wrote:
But, I do agree on one point, cars (and bikes) would end up falling apart

im gonna need to buy a new bike every 2 years. i buy my bikes falling appart already.

bugger

clunk · Post by **clunk** » Nov 30th, '06, 12:27

It would be a very bad idea.
Every day just going to and from work I see at least one car with a light out.
When out walking the dog I always see cars with under-inflated or worn tyres.

Checking them every 2 years would just make things worse.

They should be retesting the drivers every 2 years, not the cars.

jason · Post by **jason** » Nov 30th, '06, 12:41

very bad idea there are enough old beater cars and bikes around that plainly shouldnt be out on public roads as it is....

I dont understand the logic behind it.

Mel Daytona600 · Post by **Mel Daytona600** » Nov 30th, '06, 13:27

Very, Very bad idea.

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Nov 30th, '06, 13:49

Well at least it will save money for the goverment so all the MPs can buy themselfs laptops and nice cars.

im gonna need to buy a new bike every 2 years. i buy my bikes falling appart already. bugger

This will save you buying another bike every year

.

Mike Daytona600 · Post by **Mike Daytona600** » Nov 30th, '06, 19:14

What about the stuff that only just gets through it's MOT. If left for 2 years any advisories would make the vehical unsafe by the next test. And like Funky said, at least if you have them yearly you can keep on top of it. MOT's are for safety so surely a yearly test is a good thing. The radio said it was to keep in line with Europe and someone texted in saying why can't they keep in line with us. They had a point, I mean we are talking about the numpties who wanted straight cucumbers

I think we should tell Europe to F off, we were doing alright by ourselves. Sorry I'm drowning on so am gonna shut up now.

Mervin · Post by **Mervin** » Nov 30th, '06, 19:26

I gotta agree with you all, having seen some of the heaps being driven around in rural france (they have 2 or 3 year mot,s) at times it makes me shudder to think what would happen if they were involved in and accident, saw a load of scrappers/pieces waiting to be loaded on a ship at Roscoff once you would not beleive the state of some of the brake discs/pads on them most had no meat left on the pads and grooves in the discs where thay had been running on metal, also alll trucks have to undergo tests from year one,
maybe company cars that cover high mileages should be tested from year one, one good thing is i suppose most are on contracts with maintenance included so they do get cared for
merv

zuki · Post by **zuki** » Dec 2nd, '06, 12:55

wont happen, possibly introducing the MOT at 2 years as opposed to 3, but no way will they let people go 24 months at a time without retesting.

jason · Post by **jason** » Dec 2nd, '06, 16:39

zuki wrote:wont happen, possibly introducing the MOT at 2 years as opposed to 3, but no way will they let people go 24 months at a time without retesting.

yes that makes more sense - I think we are barking up the wrong tree and your right there probably just talking about reducing the length of time until a vehicle needs its first MOT.

age · Post by **age** » Dec 2nd, '06, 20:48

It's a very bad Idea !

I use to do MOT's on cars and it would be the only reason that the cars would see a garage.

Some of the junk that we used to fail mot each year was unbeliveable !

Every two years would just end up with there being alot of UNSAFE cars on the road.

Age

Little Loris · Post by **Little Loris** » Dec 7th, '06, 18:06

Has '2 Jags' ever sat through an MOT? Maybe he thinks they're a waste of time as his brand new Jags have never had the privilage of a grease-monkey* sifting through rusty bolts and squeeky suspension.

*No offence. Without them we'd have MOT's every 2 years - BAD IDEA!

South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

2 year MOT's

Good or Bad Idea?

2 year MOT's