Philip Hammond will get rid of many MOTs

[longfingernails]

The exact reduction in frequency is yet to be decided, but isn't it fantastic to see a government on the side of the hard-pressed motorist? Labour saw motorists, especially in rural areas, as cash cows.

www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jLN2IYEXq4elIIORKWZjBZHoQ0WA?docId=N0503031302430581787A

Not really no. How is compromising safety being on the side of the motorist?

This is fantastic. The news just gets better and better. This is without doubt the party of the people. First on the side of the public against the bin police and now on the side of the motorist. What next? Will they side with the people and stop the socialist 'carbon tax' and give the boot to the 'carbon footprint'?

This will make no difference to me since I have never owned a car that was less than 5 years old when I bought it :(

As there are always checks and balances in these initiatives, I now await the announcement that older cars will therefore cost £x more to MOT.

Mmm. In real terms, the cost of motoring fell 13% between 1997 and 2009.

But one should never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh, lfn?

(The cost of travelling by rail rose 7%, buses by 17% in real terms)

I would be interested to see a link Boulevard, is it because initial purchase costs are lower now?

I think that the mot system in the U.K needs to be brought into line making the mot testing the same in all parts of the U.K and the driving test also needs to be the same in all parts of the U.K. The mot testing in N.I is far too strict and too expensive with long waiting times for a test (sometimes months) and the crazy and dangerous restrictions placed on motorists are plain daft.

To be honest it's not something I've ever given much thought to but in theory it's something I welcome.

Modern cars are much better designed and way safer. Having them checked at 3 years is pretty much a waste of money.

Obviously for old cars, they need to be still checked but 3 years is hardly an "old" car is it?

well, my car failed it's MOT at 3 years. I can imagine lots of people 'winging it' until it's MOT time and thus driving in potentially dangerous vehicles. I don't think it's a good idea.

I don't see the point of this change. Its not like the MOT test costs that much. The only people who will save any serious money is those who are inclined not to service and maintain their cars. That doesn't sound like a great policy to me.

I agree with mumtoone.

so, it's good news for those rich enough to keep buying new cars every 3-years?

honestly, I just googled phillip hammond, only to find he's worth several million and he took tax payers cash to keep up his second home in london whilst only actually living in woking ! and he spent over 1k on newspapers at our expense and £24 on teaspoons.

so, now he want's to avoid having a MOT done for his Land Rover I guess? It's called feathering your own nest isn't it?

Excellent words from David Mitchell on Philip Hammond and the "hard-pressed motorist" here.

Another issue is that the MOT limit (3 yrs) usually coincides with the end of dealer free servicing often given as part of the package on new cars. If they extend the MOT free period to 5 years, then there is a risk that people start getting shoddy about maintenance after the free servicing runs out.

However, I think the MOT limit should be on mileage rather than years. Some cars are barely worn in at 3 years whilst others have done 100,000 miles.

I don't dislike the proposals because they are presented by someone who has the audacity to be rich, but because the government's own statistics suggest that they will cost lives.

Even the most conservative proposal - MOT after four years and then every year thereafter - sees an extra three lives lost every year. This might not be much at a population level, but it matters if it is your child killed because someone didn't bother changing a bald tyre.

The AA says that 60% of motorists they polled want to keep things as they are, and I agree.

It is also bad news for garages that get a lot of reliable business from MOT testing at a time when motorists may be cutting back on servicing and other routine - but not essential - checks, and will only benefit those wealthy enough to buy cars that are less than 3/4 years old.

However, I can see why they thought this needed looking at again - as has been said, cars are significantly safer than they were when the MOT regime was first introduced.

aren't they also changing speeding fines, giving people more 'choice' and having more peolpe doing a day course instead of paying fines? Oh great, so they can speed as much as they like in their new massive 4 by 4s and not have to pay out for an mot.

It seems they are putting their greedy views on cash before everyones safety. Just like their greed before everyones health service, their greed before everyones decent education etc etc.

I don't dislike him or his ilk for being rich alone, but I do dislike people like him, who are then greedy on top of that. Who have prospered off the likes of everyday people and then has the audacity to make decesions on those peoples behalves which penalise the very people who made him rich whilst theirown policies have little impact on how they have to live-and that is across the board.

A car that is three years old can easily have very worn tyres and/or worn brakes which would be dangerous and could have holes in its exhaust, worn out windscreen wiper blades, cracked windscreen ...
There are probably lots of other potential problems - I think that an annual check is no bad thing (apart from having to pay for it!)

Jeez, talk about not being able to do right for doing wrong.

So "rich" politician would like to help "hard pressed motorists" by reducing the need for so much red tape and is instantly pilloried for not understanding common folk and that actually we should all pay for MOT's in case a few decide not to bother fixing their cars.

I mean how DARE he want to make our life easier.

Lego, the one day courses have been around for a while now and are only offered to offenders in certain circumstances, such as being only slightly over the speed limit.

The cost of the course is the same as the cost of the fine, but you avoid points.

I know several people who have been on the course (none drive 4x4 vehicles) and they all say that it is very informative and works hard to change attitudes, making it a better response to minor offences than points I would argue.

Indeed, the cost of the course must be greater than the cost of the administration associated with points surely? I don't think that this is a greed issue.

I think the MOT should stay as it is with the first test being due at 3 years old though the mot testing should either change to the much stricter N.I mot testing or that N.I could use a garage for testing instead of the slow and expensive goverment testing that is in place now. The driving tests and restrictions should also be the same in all parts of the U.K instead of the dangerous 45 mph cap on learners and 1st year drivers that imo is very dangerous when driving on a motorway.

DH also pointed out that going on the course, you have to take a day's holiday or a day off without pay, so there's an additional cost to it.