MoTs 'every two years' under proposed changes to system

[#1]

Again,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8441028/MoTs-every-two-years-under-proposed-changes-to-syst...
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/3724567/Two-year-MOT-plan-scrapped.html
confused

[#2]

It's about time that changes were made to the test.  I'm in favour of the second option:

Quote

The favoured option is understood to be for an initial MoT after four years, a second after another two years, then annually after that.

I think this best reflects the reliability of modern cars.

[#3]

My new 2nd hand motorbike is an 07 reg so under the 4 year rule would be having it's first MOT this year, it however had it's first one last year... and failed with quite a few dangerous defects (before I bought it), it did pass the 2nd time with 2 warnings, wait, 3 warnings, so even a pass with warnings if there were 2 years left till my next MOT I'd be looking at (within a pretty short time) a dangerous motor vehicle. 
Of course, I have the bits needed fixed (worn sprockets, chain at the end of service) but really all an MOT is, is a note saying "it's road worthy right now, tomorrow, not so sure".  I say keep it at a year and three years, well, experience is telling me to keep it at a year and three years.

[#4]

Would changing it make that much difference?
I wonder how many unroad-worthy vehicles are out there with dodgy MOTs, that won't change.
As David says, the certificate just proves it was road-worthy when the certificate was issued and is not a guarantee for the next year.

[#5]

@Mav & David good point (road-worthy when the certificate was issued )
Slightly off topic: But have often considered that the technology behind speed camera’s (number plate recognition and automatic look up on DVLA database) with links to MOT and Insurance Database could better be spent in identifying cars driving without MOT, Road fund licence or insurance and help in the identification of false MOT’s and registration plates.

[#6]

[quote=Mav]...the certificate just proves it was road-worthy when the certificate was issued and is not a guarantee for the next year
I wonder how many drive around thinking all's well without a further check on water, brakes, lights, etc. within the ensuing year feeling safe in the knowledge they have a certificate.

[#7]

Quote from: journeys

Slightly off topic: But have often considered that the technology behind speed camera’s (number plate recognition and automatic look up on DVLA database) with links to MOT and Insurance Database could better be spent in identifying cars driving without MOT, Road fund licence or insurance and help in the identification of false MOT’s and registration plates.

This is what is done with ANPR cameras.
ANPR

[#8]

Bear in mind, it's also based on the test centre too.
I'm not even referring to back handed deals, simply the inconsistency between test centres.
I used two centres and I know for a fact that one would have failed me three years ago, the other would have passed me (I went to the one that failed me, and I know the mechanic more than the one that would have passed me). This was down to a missing LPG fuel cap, which happened to still be sitting in the forecourt I left it in, but a missing cap is a fail.
This is one of the things you could explain in advance, but there are a whole host of other things that danger assessment could very.
I am however in favour of the proposals, but would also like to see VOSA spot checks.

[#9]

Also done the two centres thing in the past too. One failed the car on emissions, straight round to the other one which passed it (after checking the emissions first to see if they were really a failure or not and then begging to be slotted in).
Never been back to the failing garage since but the one which passed us has been our choice since. They have failed our car once in that time and we were glad they did when they pointed out the shock absorber could fall off thanks to a dodgy repair from a well known kwik chain. The chain did agree to put it right at no extra cost and the car then passed the retest but it was inconvenient.
I'm happy with the yearly test tbh as driving older cars there is always the risk of something serious popping up that we don't know of. Admittedly the cost is a pain but for older cars i would say its a required minimum. To be honest i've never understood why new cars get 3 years with no MOT needed as the car could still do 60k a year and be a death trap after two.

[#10]

agree,
My car is 10 years old and I feel more reassured with the annual MOT check.
Although I check what I can myself on a regular basis I am getting a bit past rolling around under a car on the driveway.
Very true that MOT test centres vary but I also wonder if some actually find things that don't really need doing ?

[#11]

When I lived in London I used a garage that only did MOTs. I then when to another to have things put right but never the one they originally recommended.
Often they would 'put right' some minor things like re-aligning the headlights which, AFAIK, they weren't supposed to do.

[#12]

I've known of testing stations that will correct minor problems so they don't have to fail the car.