Discussion in 'General car Chat' started by T9 man, 22 January 2017.
And not before time. The vast majority of new cars don't need to be tested until they're four years old - the proof already exists in Northern Ireland and numerous EU countries. Matter of fact in most of mainland Europe they operate a 4 - 2 - 2 system so why should the poor old British motorist continue to be penalised with this archaic 3 - 1- 1 system, it's costly, labour intensive, time consuming and utterly outmoded. Of course you can hear the bleatings (again) of the fat cat aftermarket test stations and parts fitters as they continue to salivate over huge profits from fitting new over-priced wiper blades, shock absorbers (sorry OG - dampers), tyres etc etc.
I read about the Motor Industry toads lobbying the Gov't last year bleating that they "offered their customers a valuable service in performing these essential checks and reducing death and carnage on our roads" blah blah blah. Can it really be - at last - a shaft of light for the motorist that is not an approaching train or a badly adjusted headlight?
I tend to agree with gladrags up to a point.
However, is £40 a year really a bad deal to make sure that your car is safe?
There are cars which would fail an MOT after just 2 years. The MOT test is useful and keeps dangerous cars off the roads but more should be done.
Look at the tyres in a car park, you'll be surprised to see how many are at or below the legal minimum yet nothing is really done about it and it is IMO one of the single most dangerous lapses in car maintenance after brakes.
Separate names with a comma.