Reducing MOT frequency “a dangerously bad idea”

12.58 | 22 September 2022 | | 4 comments

Drivers have serious concerns about Government plans to relax the frequency of MOT tests, with many believing it will lead to a rise in the number of unsafe vehicles on the road. 

That’s according to the RAC, on the back of the results of a new survey taken by 1,435 drivers.

In April, it was reported the Government was considering a move to change the annual MOT from every year to every two years.

The aim is to cut costs for households, easing the impact of the rising cost of living.

According to the RAC survey, 55% of respondents felt changing the MOT to every two years was a bad idea. Just over a fifth (22%) said they thought it was a good idea while a similar proportion (23%) were unsure. 

When asked why they felt it was a bad idea, the overwhelming majority (98%) said it would result in more unsafe vehicles on the road while a fifth (20%) thought it would lead to an increase in the number of collisions on the road. 

Almost two-thirds (61%) believe it would result in more vehicles breaking down. 

Meanwhile, more than half of respondents (58%) believe the changes could end up costing drivers more in the long run due to problems or defects going undetected and becoming more costly to repair.

Among the drivers who believe the changes would be a good idea, three-quarters (74%) say modern cars are more reliable and do not need annual checks, while more than half (54%) believe it will save them money. 

Nicholas Lyes, RAC head of roads policy, said: “Many drivers look at the MOT test as an important tool to see if their vehicle is in a safe and roadworthy condition. 

“The idea that changing the MOT to every two years will save drivers money in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is met with huge scepticism as our research shows many have rightly identified that it may end up costing them more in the long-term if faults go undetected and as a result get worse or cause other defects. 

“But cost is secondary to road safety. 

“There is a real danger that if the Government proceeds with these proposals that we could see an increase in the number of collisions and more injuries and deaths due to more unroadworthy vehicles using our roads, and an overall reduction in road safety.”


 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    If there’s a defect most likely to affect the driver’s control over a vehicle, it’s a damaged tyre… and tyre damage can happen at ANY moment, even minutes after a fresh MOT is delivered. It can be difficult to spot tyre damage without getting the car up on a ramp even if the driver does check regularly.

    And don’t get me started on blown bulbs – yes, easy to check… and increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to fix. I’ve had a Mazda where a special tool (only available to dealers) was required to replace a standard halogen bulb which meant driving around for several days with only one headlight. And now with LED headlights, the entire unit is sealed and has to be replaced, and at considerable expense too.

    Yes, the MOT will catch poorly maintained vehicles, but let’s not pretend that all vehicles that have a defect are owned by couldn’t care less individual.


    Kevin Williams / Survival Skills, London
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    IS this the right way to go about saving money !!!
    Currently any new vehicles is MOT exempt for the first 3 years from registration. After this is is generally accepted that vehicles can deteriorate and frequent checks need to be undertaken.
    Having been a Traffic Cop for a number of years i have stopped countless vehicles with tyres well below the legal minimum, often no tread, when speaking with the driver they always say “I didn’t realise” or its a pool vehicle and no one checks the state of it.
    Whilst it is then easy to apportion blame once the accident has occurred it wont PREVENT deaths.
    Also consider the actual cost to the tax payer:
    At most collisions one or more of the Emergency services have to attend, the road network is compromised especially if one of the main roads, this creates loss of revenue and frustration if in the tail back creating further risk of collision.

    The cost to the individual if the vehicle is not checked can be high following a simple break down which could have been prevented.
    Average cost of an MOT is around £50 to £80, call out charges for breakdown can be as high as £150.

    None of this make the road safer or actually save money and lives


    Stephen Hughes, Derby
    Agree (2) | Disagree (0)
    +2

    I’ve never seen a vehicle on the road which was being driven or was moving in a way which would suggest it had some mechanical defect affecting its control – the only thing that could affect its control is the driver him or herself, who never get ‘tested’ at all, from one year to the next.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (2)
    --2

    Most days I will see at least one car with a light or two out – if these things that are easy to check, it makes you wonder what else is being missed.


    Ben Graham, Reading
    Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
    +3

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close