Adjustable Driver's Seat - New Mot Reg Coming In

[Guest Stuartl]

While taking one of the tin tops for MOT today I had an interesting chat with my trusted MOT man about the MOT testable items that are changing or have recently changed.

This came about because my car has an airbag warning light illuminated which as far as I was concerned was NOT an failure point but apparently from 1st April it will be.

The MOT man who has owned and run the business for many years said that while some new items would soon be testable, others were being relaxed such as condition of brakes which seems astonishing.

 

When he jumped in the car to drive it onto the ramp he moved the seat back which I thought was normal as I have short legs but when I got back in (I always sit in the car and rock steering etc while he does test), the seat was back to my position. All became clear when he said that a new testable item was (or was soon to be-cant remember) was that the driver's seat must be adjustable.

 

I asked about the kit car which he knows I have as he always MOT's it and he said that was a grey area but he said that it maybe that only if the seat was designed to be adjustable and fitted with runners then it would fail if it didnt adjust, I guess in a similar way that a motorcycle will pass with no indicators fitted but fail if they are fitted but dont work and similarly pass with two mirrors or no mirrors but fail with just one!

 

I am not too worried as this chap is old school and whilst being very thorough he also applies common sense but I wonder how many testers would fail a kit car if the seat was not adjustable?

 

Chris N will no doubt have something to say on this due to his love (not) of seat runners!

[Guest russell555]

Been aware of the changes for a while in the rallying community.... Similar questions were asked as regarding racing seats

 

The vosa line seems to be that if there is a sensible reason why they cannot be adjusted.. I.e. bolted straight to floor in a competition car or kit car this is acceptable,but if sliders are fitted they have to work correctly..

We got a nice letter regarding how the changes would affect the competition car community and it would appear a bit of common sense is being applied ..

[Andi]

I also heard a distant rumour that MOT`s may be every 2 years.. Like Germany

Nice..........

[Guest MarkB]

If an adjuster is fitted it has to lock in position and do what it is designed to do..... That is pretty much the top and bottom of it, if it aint got one... we cant test it, so it passes, no grey area, there are quite a few new items added Jan 1st and more to come in april, the new testers manual is on Vosa's site. I will try and scan the changes tomorrow and post them on here.

[Guest MarkB]

The government has been trying to bring in the 4 and 2 system for a few years now, the plan behind it is the government are feeling sorry for ripping the drivers off with high fuel tax and road tax and now feel they should give something back...... that dosent cost them a penny... excellent lets save them 25 to 55 quid a year and let them have a 2 year test, forget the dangers and the people who do not maintain their cars unless they break down or fail a test. The fail rate for the uk is currently hovering around the 30% mark, can you imagine what it will be like on a 2 year turn around. If you saw the state of some vehicles that get presented for test you would all understand why as testers we are totally against the proposed plans.

[Guest Tim Norman]

Got to agree with the MOT every year. Don't like the idea of letting things go unchecked for more than that. I am going out to the car this weekend to take the tow bar off as I haven't got round to connecting the wires up yet!

[megadodo]

Devil's advocate here.....discuss!

How many accidents are actually caused by mechanical failure. Do we honestly think that if the test went to 2 years that the accident rate would increase significantly? Is the reluctance of testing stations to accept the switch due to the potential halving of revenue?

Personally if Germany accepts 2 yearly testing then I suspect their safety stats don't perceive it as an issue. I'm pretty certain 99.9999% of accidents in the UK are driver error and not something breaking or falling off. Anyone know of where that data could be found on gov.org! I would however like to see a yearly tyre check, the number of those that I see bald or near bald is astonishing.

[richardm6994]

A quick 10 minutes on google;

Around 10% of car accidents on motorways are caused by mechanic faults or vehicle defects.

That equates to 182 deaths, 1300 serious, 8,800 slight.

 

I know you can use statistics to prove almost anything, but most mechanical potential failures are picked up during an MOT. If MOTs were every other year, it results in twice as much time passing before potential mechanical faults are idenitifed.........surely this could only lead to an increase in the above figures? I hate MOT's as much as the next person, but surely this is the lesser of the two evils, given it could be someone else's faulty car crashing into you or family/friends?

 

Also 1 in 6 cars currently on the road doesn't have an MOT, and probably no insurance or tax. Imagine how that figure would rise if MOT's was every other year............and who'd end up paying for the mess..........us law abiding tax payers!!!!!!!

[chris n]

Damm

 

 

If i fit seat runners i would never see the Hood again as swmbo would be off like a shot.

 

As Mark B said if it's not fitted can't test it

.

 

Anyway the seat in my Hood are adjustable for her with a pillow as was found out last year at Stoneleigh

[Guest MarkB]

Megadoo, I agree with some of the points you make and ti ne fair the government have asked VOSA to do exactly what you have said, they want numbers not possible's. I do admit one side of my defense for keeping it at 3 and 1 is financial based, the other half is what I have said before, we see cars that the owner must know there is a problem...either by noise or feel but they choose to turn the radio up or ignore. What it boils down to is that the rule is being questioned to try and make the boys at the top look good, no other reason, they havent gone down this route because the fail rate has dropped dramaticly or because anybody has produced figures to say cars are less likley to develop faults.

 

If the government sorted our disgraceful potholed roads out, removed speed bumps, made sponge kerbs for girls to park against..etc then suspension fails maybe a thing of the past.

 

Tyres are a concern because even the folks who do check there own now and again fail to check the inner tread which is the main wear on most tyres, under inflated tyres are harder to spot due to small nut much stronger side walls.... Inturn this causes the tyres to split, normally on the inner edge.

 

All in all the test scheme pretty much works well as it is..... Why change it? If owt we needto make the test much more stringent to level with our euro partners.

 

 

Sorry for any spelling or gramer errors, my phone keeps wagging school.

[fry61]

Have to agree with MarkB, we build our cars to the best of our ability & we are confident we've got it all screwed together correctly/safely;then after SVA/IVA we happily whizz down the road at dozens of miles an hour. I believe I built a good car;IVA said I did,& although an MOT is not needed for 3 years,Florin is going in for an "MOT test" without paperwork when her first year is up just for the peace of mind & second opinion that all is still well. It's a quid a week on annual cost & worth every penny.

[megadodo]

I would agree that a regular test is needed and that it's frequency is under debate. The problem is that a lot of bureaucracy doesn't actually address the problem and "appears" to be fatuous in nature. As has been pointed out 1 in 6 cars doesn't have an MOT and I'Il bet those are more dangerous than most cars as their owners don't give a monkeys, what is being done about those? A lot of tested faults have been on the car car for several months with the owner ignoring them so not increase the frequency of the MOT? The addition of tow bar electrics (it's often the trailer and not the car that causes the lights not to work anyway!) and seat runner tests will be seen by many as not required. I despise the "nanny" state and see it only as a way for lots of people especially lawyers to make money and I believe the responsibility should sit squarely with the individual. Where this has been proved to be lacking e.g. driving around in an an unsafe car, untaxed car etc then the individual should be heavily punished. I for one do not rely on the MOT to tell me my car is safe at a particular moment in time. I check mine and my wife's cars regularly for all aspects of safety.

How about a compulsory extended MOT every 2 years with fines for those seen to be driving around in cars that clearly have had long term issues? For those unable to check their own vehicles they can book themselves in for MOT style check up as often as they want. I would still want a compulsory annual tyre check. This is a suggestion and I don't state that it's the best solution I am just trying to start a debate. I still can't find anything on t'internet that actually says what mechanical failure caused a particular accident. Funnily enough a friend mentioned that he had a slight accident when his front spring broke and the suspension collapsed! no warning and no sign of rust on the spring! Would an MOT have spotted that, maybe?

The other issue I have is the ability of some garages to deliver an "accurate" MOT. This is clearly a sweeping statement and does NOT APPLY TO THE MAJORITY OF GARAGES but the number of times I have seen faults missed or "added" in the attempt to gain work cannot be limited to just me! I know of several people who have had second opinions at local council testing stations where the don't repair and have no incentive to "make up" faults only for their cars to now mysteriously pass!

[Longboarder]

Oddly Western Australia does not have an MoT system or equivalent. I haven't researched their figures but armagedon on the roads there has not yet happened. Over here I suspect the figures would not change as much as at might seem they should although I imagine there would be some rise. Most people maintain their cars. If there were no MoT I imagine many of those would spend more on maintainance for their own peace of mind. Those that don't make up the majority of faults I imagine and would still do so and the 1 in six who currently are outside the system would not change.

 

It's very reasonable to assume greater surveillance leads to better detection but it is not always true. Would 9 monthly tests make cars safer? How much? Would 15 monthly tests be worse? The only way to tell is trial it in a big enough trial. It's like the 20 mph urban speed limit trialled in portsmouth a while back. Accidents increased. Perverse yes. These sort of systems are complicated. Maybe we all have a natural limit to the problems in cars we drive that we tolerate. Perhaps many of the cars which currently fail on majors might be repaired by their owners at about the 9 months stage but they currently leave them to be detected at MoT which works for them. The mistake is in assuming the MoT only has good benefits and the only way to get people to do the right thing is to legislate and punish. Glad I got that off my chest.

 

I still support annual MoT and greater use of the traffic police in pulling unroadworthy cars and more cameras doing checks on tax/insurance/MoT to find those 17 cars in a 100 and get them off the roads.

 

Nigel

[Guest mower man]

On the australia bit Nsw use a scheme where to get road tax you pay for the eqivalant of an mot if the car does not pass then you don't get tax or rego as they call it and the car is impounded untill it's fixed, the tax disc is a transfer which I believe is fiited by the tester and is not removable with out destroying it and rego covers basic ins [some thing like bare 3rd party here] sounds good to me mower man

[richardm6994]

I'd imagine that everybody in this forum is of a mechanical mind, and as such we all dislike the fact that we have to take our cars to a garage, and pay to have a mechanic declare it safe for another year….especially when we all could easily do this ourselves.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunate depending on your point of view), kit car builder and other car enthusiasts only represent a small percentage of the UK’s population. The rest of the general population wouldn’t be competent in identifying potentially dangerous faults on their own cars. This eliminates the argument that it is an individual’s responsibility to check their car given that the individual is not capable, and as such, it leads us onto my second point regarding the expectation of the general public paying to have a non-compulsory check-up…………..

 

The suggestion of a non-compulsory check-up during the 2 year MOT period in my opinion is a non-starter. Given the choice, do you really thing that the cash-stricken population would pay to have this done when they don’t have to? Most of the population don’t pay to get their car checked over right now when an MOT is annual, so do we really think they would do it if the MOT was every 2 years? This is a great idea on paper, but in the real world it just would work because people would simply wouldn’t have it done, especially given that policing safe car’s on the road would be extremely impractical……….how is Mr. plod in his police car going to spot corroded brake lines????? And this now leads me onto my third point (I’m on a roll here lol)…………….

 

The suggestion of heavily fining people who drive unsafe cars? Isn’t this supposed to happen currently????? Let’s be honest, it’s proving hard (and costly) enough for the government to monitor which cars have current MOT’s, tax, and insurance……..and this is all done with a computer data-base with people sat behind desks! What chances do you this they have of policing “safe” cars on the road??? Random spot check would work at vehicle check points (as with lorries) but this would only scratch the surface of the problem given the volume of cars on the road at any given moment, not to mention the traffic congestion problems this would cause.

 

On a final note, and putting to one side all of the financial and practical issues, the important thing in my eyes which is NOT to be overlooked is that the death rate due to mechanical fault is high, and in my opinion a 2-year MOT would increase these figures which is simply NOT acceptable!

 

I agree that this is a good topic for debate and I’m sure that my opinions will probably split the board.

 

My solution would be to keep the annual MOT, but enforce cars to be tested at an MOT-only testing stations in an effort to drive out all of the the dodgy-money grabbing MOTers which give the MOTs thier bad name! and also focus more efforts and funding on getting unsafe/insured/taxed cars off the roads……….oh and completely agree with the statement of implementing a safe-tyre checking system!