Road Safety News
 

Drivers could avoid MOT fails with simple checks and maintenance

Thursday 23rd February 2017

Nearly 50% of all faults found on MOTs could be avoided by carrying out regular, simple checks and maintenance, new DVSA figures have revealed.

Published on 13 February, the DVSA stats show that in the year ending March 2016, nearly 20% of cars taken for their MOT had problems with lighting and signalling - including simple problems such as blown bulbs.

Other reasons for MOT failure included suspension (13%), brakes (10%), tyres (7.7%) and issues affecting the driver’s view of the road (7.2%).

DfT stats published in September 2016 show that in 2015, car defects were a contributory factor in 1,131 collisions. More than 75% of these defects were either braking or tyre issues.

The DVSA says the MOT is there to help keep vehicles safe to drive, and is urging drivers to carry out regular, simple checks on their vehicles to avoid MOT fails and the collisions that defects cause.

The checks the DVSA is advocating include: making sure that brakes work smoothly and that the vehicle doesn’t pull to one side; that tyres are correctly inflated, have no cuts or bulges, and have at least 1.6mm of tread; and that headlights and other lights work.

Gareth Llewellyn, DVSA chief executive, said: “Don’t wait until your MOT to find out if your car needs attention. Make sure your car is properly maintained and safe to drive at all times.

“Carrying out regular checks on lights and tyres will help you to stay safe and legal, as well as saving you time and money when your car’s MOT is due.”


Related stories

Government to extend new car MOT-free period to four years
23 January 2017


 

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Ah, yes, basic maintenance. I would like to do that, but when cars are designed in such a manner that one needs to remove the fusebox and the battery to access a lightbulb, and to remove the entire front of the car to access a sidelight, one realises that cars just aren't built with "basic maintenance" in mind.
David Weston, Corby

Agree (11) | Disagree (0)
+11

Talking about vehicle maintenance and blown bulbs its my experience that one in four cars have at least one rear light not working. It's mainly one of the obligatory rear lights but on some its one of the brake lights. If both brake bulbs blew one would never know if a car was stopping or not. As most cars built in the last 10 years have instrument warnings when bulbs blow there is no excuse for them to be on the road and defective.
Bob Craven Lancs

Agree (6) | Disagree (1)
+5

Of the reputedly 1131 collisions where vehicle defects were supposedly a factor, did the vehicles in question have (if old enough), current MOT certificates? I suspect most did.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Some years ago I owned a Ford Galaxy with a bulb failure warning system. Even so, just prior to taking it in for the MOT, I checked the lights and found them OK. When I went to pick it up I was told that it had failed on a blown dipped beam filament. The garage had replaced it for £20 and it had then passed. It was of course impossible for me to challenge this as the bulb could have failed during the test itself, but I had a very strong suspicion that I was being conned. Needless to say, I have never been back to that garage.

The experience does make me wonder just how many of the minor lighting faults in this article are invented by the test centre in an unscrupulous attempt to boost their profit.
David, Suffolk

Agree (13) | Disagree (0)
+13

Nothing gladdens my heart more than when driving away from the garage clutching my new MOT and secure in the knowledge that the 'worn anti-roll bar bushes' they've just replaced to enable the certificate to be issued, has made my car safe again. Phew. Good job they spotted them in time.
Hugh Jones,Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3