Skip to main content

Deferred MoT tests mean MORE dangerous cars

By 4th August 2017No Comments
Steph Savill MBA, FIMI Chartered MarketerEntrepreneur & consultant improving motoring services for women and gender balance in auto industry

Deferred MoT tests mean MORE dangerous carsApr 20, 2016

After lurking in the motor industry wings for several years, our Government is once again discussing changes to the first MoT test. To defer this from three years to four.
There will be some motorists who will celebrate this possibility as a means to save them time, money and even garage visiting stress. 
And we can expect the motor industry to rail against this on behalf of the many MoT centres that’ll be adversely affected by fewer MoT tests for them to earn out of. After investing in the necessary and expensive facilities the DVSA required of them.
But what other issues might be afoot I wonder?
The purpose of MoTsSurely the main purpose of the MoT relates to road safety?
Which it seems the Government doesn’t get.
For example, they don’t seem to get the significance of licensing ALL mechanics, despite the level of complaints about garage services and the common-sense link between mechanical incompetence, business ethics and dangerous cars.
And clearly they don’t get the message that the latest MoT statistics are spelling out. That 40% of cars fail their first formal road worthiness check, aka the MoT, as is (DVSA 2014 stat) – with safety related defects including lighting and signalling (30%), suspension (18%), brakes (17%) and tyres (10%).
Neglected cars are dangerousIpso facto, if these cars were allowed to drive for a further 12 months, regardless, they’d be potentially dangerous for longer on our roads.
Add to this the increasing number of motorists buying cheap PCP fuelled cars encouraged by sales messages like ‘Just add fuel and go…’ As if new cars don’t come with maintenance responsibilities for the car driver or that new cars don’t use consumables like tyres in the same way as M0T-aged cars do.
Rest assured I am no fan of any nanny-like state but when it comes to road safety issues, I am no fan of any Government that applies blinkers in this area.
But then I remember that fewer MoTs also means less VAT for our Exchequer?
MoT Sanity Will Surely Prevail?I no longer believe that sanity always prevails when it comes to legislation. The EU Gender Directive, for example, and its impact on car insurance premiums for safe women drivers has taught me to look at future such initiatives with a high degree of cynicism.
Could lengthening the MoT period shore up new car sales in the UK by shortening the life cycle of neglected cars? Or is there unfathomable EU involvement in the UK wings I wonder?
Over to the UK motor industry to make a solid business case for ALL motorists to preserve the road safety status quo. We’re counting on you to put us first guys. Or to tell us the REAL behind the scenes issues we might not know enough about yet…
FOXY Steph
PS: One of our major concerns is to do with tyre safety awareness levels among women drivers. Please read our advice in this respect and by all means get in touch if you would like to support our promotional plans for Tyre Safety Month in October 2016.

Go to to find out more about Steph Saville and Foxy ladies owners club.

Tim Kelly

Tim is a highly qualified Independent Engineer with over 20 years experience as an Engineering Assessor of damaged vehicles.

Leave a Reply

Knights Hosting