A serious EU threat to our motoring safety

[foxysteph]

A campaign called ProMOTe was launched on Thursday last because of a serious and life threatening proposal to replace the UK's MOT model with an EU version instead.

As things stand, one in three of our cars fail the UK MOT when they are 3 years old and for many busy motorists the MOT is our only annual safety check after that. The EU wants to change this to their MOT testing regime ie checking cars for the first time after 4 years and then every 2 years.

The ProMOTe campaign provides the evidence, if needed, that when cars are tested less frequently they are less safe and more likely to cause accidents. And then there is the likely loss of '000s of jobs in the motor industry.

I realise that MOTs aren't a girl's favourite topic of conversation and that we aren't always the target of such communications but...
PLEASE SIGN THE ePETITION at ProMOTe in support of the status quo here.

The real worry is that with a very new Transport Secretary (Justine Greening replaced Philip Hammond when he moved over to replace Mr Fox) and lots of other matters on her agenda (like speed limits on motorways ??) the lurking EU proposal might just slip in unheeded via the UK's back door. With the safest roads in Europe we'd like to see this remain so hence my request.

If you are interested, by all means read more about this at the FOXY Lady blog.

Thank you SO much.

Will this affect your business?

Will this be for new cars only or across the board?

Also, given that "girls" have cars too these days and in many families have the task of checking they are MOTd, serviced, taxed etc along with all of the other paperwork, I think it is not a given that "girls" won't want to know about this.

New cars don't need an MOT for the first 3 years, I think.

Definitely another stupid EU rule. There will be even more cars that aren't taxed and insured, as currently you need an MOt certificate each year for getting tax and insurance, so people will find it easier to lapse.

The link to me to a strange website!

You don't need an MOT for insurance - only to tax your car.

"I realise that MOTs aren't a girl's favourite topic of conversation"

Patronising crap. New cars are better built these days, need servicing less often and, even if they fail an MOT, are not automatically 'dangerous'. Bad driving, excessive speed and failure to take account of road conditions causes more accidents than poorly maintained cars.

Agree. I'm guessing that this perhaps one of the reasons that you don't need proof of an MOT for insurance purposes.

Interesting different perspective. I have read an article (sorry, can't remember where - may have been in Which?) which says that the proposals would mean more rigorous testing, 'cos it would include things like the Traction Control braking (or whatever it's called) and the airbags - things that aren't currently included in the MOT but which in modern cars are an integral part of the safety of the "driving experience" and that because of that, it could cost motorists thousands of pounds to fix such things.

But surely you'd rather know that such things weren't working properly and therefore not be driving a car was that was not as safe as you thought it was? (sorry for all the negatives in that sentence )

Actually if you don't have a current MOT and you have to make an insurance claim your payout is reduced by 25%. Found that one out the hard way...

I'm prepared to believe this is a case of EU regulations making something less safe because it wouldn't be the first time. I don't know anything about MOTs but my example would be a case where two people were killed by an incompetent doctor thanks to EU regulations. When the directive that means qualifications in one EU country are automatically recognised in another was extended to doctors, it meant UK medical employers were unable to test the competence of EU doctors - even though the way medicine is practised differs between countries. if you are qualified in Romania, you can work in the UK. Even if you can't speak English and have no experience of UK general practice, for instance. Hence the deaths of at least two people treated by a German doctor who had never handled morphine before, because German docs doing the equivalent of general practice don't use it. Turns out he was not a real GP anyway, he mostly does cosmetic treatments. Daniel Ubani, IIRC. He gave a man who just needed some pain relief a massive, lethal, overdose of morphine.

What's more, the German authorities refused to hand him over to our medical authorities, so he couldn't be prosecuted or struck off - the EU says 'you have to treat other EU professionals as equivalent' but they can escape the sanctions that applies to anyone else doing that job over here. He got a slap on the wrist in Germany instead and is still able to practise medicine.

The General Medical Council warned that this would happen when the Directive was extended to doctors, but the EU went ahead anyway - what does it matter if a few patients are killed as long as the bureaucrats are happy?

Of course, checking windscreen wipers and brake lights is just the same as checking the comptence of a practising doctor Edam...

Both are about safety, both are situations in which people could die, and the medical analogy is about EU intransigence in the face of clear warnings that applying the same regulations across different countries with different systems could put people in danger.

As it happens, a senior EU civil servant came to see me this week, and I happened to talk to him about the democratic deficit - how remote EU decision making is from the citizens of EU nations. He shrugged it off. For once the Daily Mail is right - his attitude (and like I say, he's very senior, in charge of a whole arm of the Commission) was that the EU is in charge and ordinary people have no right to question it.

It's not legal to drive in a car without a valid MOT so on that basis I'm not surprised weblette!

Well anyway

If it's on all new cars going forward the I don't think it's a bad idea

If it includes all cars including the clapped out 15 year old golf doen the road that's belching black fumes then I'm not so sure!

I wonder how many drivers in places like london bother with MOT anyway, given that so many (a quarter?) aren't insuredf.

Sardinequeen - the article I read said that it would be retrospective, ie it would apply to all cars - if a safety feature is fitted to the car, then it would be tested as part of the MOT. Hence the possibility of big bills.

'If it includes all cars including the clapped out 15 year old golf doen the road that's belching black fumes then I'm not so sure!'

Why single my car out?

Given that it's illegal to drive without a valid MOT, you would think that insurance companies would ask to see a copy of the certificate before insuring you - but they don't. I can't understand that.

I think modern cars are more reliable than older cars and need less attention generally, have more built in safety features and electronic warning systems and all the rest of it.

Which is why I'm OK with it applied for new cars but not sure about all cars - some of the older cars out there need checking over more frequently than every 2 years - and if there is no compulsion some owners will not carry out basic essential maintenance.

In lots of countries they don't have any sort of MOT system at all either do they.

I have to say I like having lots of checks and rules and regulations for cars.

My car passed MOT in spite of having an extremely dangerous safety fault (and would do again). MOT provides false sense of reassurance. So I really don't care how often it's done.

That's true as well ragged and there used to be a big business in "dodgy" MOTs - I wonder if that still goes on.

IIRC 97% of collisions are caused by driver error, not road conditions or unsafe vehicles. I doubt changing the MOT rules will have any measurable effect on our road safety record.

The road conditions in the UK are vastly different to other European countries hence the safety regulation should be designed to reflect the local area. I will happily agree to adopt these EU directives when we can vote for the leaders of the EU. Until that happens I refuse to support any of their directives, no matter how good they might be.

Other than their charming practice of driving on the right, how are road conditions in other European countries 'vastly different'? Refusing to support a measure, even if it's a good one, purely because it has originated in Brussels is ridiculous.

I'm also interested to know what is so different.

There are probably less potholes in other European countries.