Industry United Against MOT Changes -
May 2011
If Transport Secretary Philip Hammond was looking to provoke a reaction when he suggested that the interval between MOT tests should be extended, then he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams - the idea has been universally condemned by industry bodies, trade associations and consumer organisations alike.
Hammond's point of view is that car technology has advanced since the 1960s, when the rules were introduced, and that servicing periods have steadily lengthened. As such, he is believed to favour a regime where the first MOT test will take place when the car is four years old and every other year thereafter; the so-called 4.2.2. option. Hammond says that adopting this system, which is common in mainland Europe, would save the motorist money - maybe up to £100 over two years.
Amongst the sternest critics of 4.2.2. is Halfords Autocentres, the national network of quality MOT, car servicing and repair centres. Halfords Autocentres Chief Operating Officer Bill Duffy believes that Philip Hammond is missing the point – while it is true that cars have become more reliable, components such as brakes, steering and suspension and tyres are still subject to constant wear. In addition lighting failures on cars continue at very high rates despite improving technology. Indeed, lower profile tyres and more powerful vehicles accelerate tyre wear rates. The very poor road surfaces and millions of potholes add to wear and tear on all vehicles.
Safety concerns
Surveys of the motoring public continually reveal that the vast majority of motorists do not inspect their lights or tyres regularly – if at all – and for many, the annual MOT test is the only time that they are examined. Motorists tend to regard an MOT pass as a green light for another 12 months of trouble-free motoring. Under 4.2.2. all components could go two years between checks.
What evidence is there that tyres are so neglected? Firstly, figures from the Tyre Industry Federation show that 12% of tyres are illegal when they are replaced and secondly, under the present 3.1.1. MOT system, there are already 2.3 million tyre-related MOT failures every year (meaning almost 10% of tests have a tyre related failure).
Bill Duffy comments: “We recommend motorists should regularly service their cars to keep them safe, legal and to avoid the larger repair bills which inevitably arise if maintenance is reduced... even on modern cars.
“A move to 4.2.2. would inevitably lead to more lights, brakes and tyre-related failures and an increase in accidents, injuries and fatalities. Already many people are killed or seriously injured every year in cases where tyre defects are reported and this figure would be bound to rise."
In 2008, a comprehensive review was carried out for the Department for Transport on the effect of reducing the frequency of MOT testing. Its conclusions were that this would lead to a significant number of road traffic accidents and injuries – in fact, the figures were 400 extra deaths and 2,500 more serious injuries a year.
However, a recent report from the Transport Research Laboratory, commissioned by the Department for Transport concluded that the effect of moving to 4.2.2. would result in ‘only’ 30 additional deaths a year. This report has been rejected by many aftermarket organisations as being both flawed and simplistic, compared to the very thorough 2008 study. "What has changed over the past three years to have such a dramatic impact on these figures?" Bill Duffy asks. “Well certainly not the standard of cars as MOT failures are now 40.6% compared to 29% in 2005.”
Environmental and economic factors
So, 4.2.2. would mean more unsafe vehicles on UK roads and more casualties, but what about other effects? A poorly-maintained vehicle means increased pollution and it is a fact that many motorists only have their car serviced just before or at the same time as an MOT test. Adopting 4.2.2. could mean two years between services for these cars with no checks or adjustments.
Philip Hammond says that one of his aims is to save the motorist money. The current maximum charge for a car MOT, set by VOSA, is £54.85, although many offer MOTs at around half this price. By moving from 3.1.1. to 4.2.2., over the first six years of a car's life, the motorist would save the cost of two tests, or just over £100.If the government genuinely wants to save the motorists money, it has been said many times, then they should reduce the duty imposed on petrol and diesel.
It also appears that Hammond thinks the motorist values saving money over safety, as a survey of 4,200 motorists by the MOT Forum, of which Halfords Autocentres is a member, revealed that a staggering 92% said that cars should be tested annually and not every two years, while 93% did not believe that the cost of the MOT was an unnecessary burden.
Another economic factor to consider is the effect of 4.2.2. on the aftermarket, with a reduction in the number of tests being carried out leading to an increase in redundancies and business failures.
The MOT Forum has met with Mike Penning MP, Under Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss the whole issue of MOT testing and has produced a number of recommendations that would toughen up the test, rather than reduce its frequency. The Test needs to be brought up to date with modern vehicle systems. For tyres, for example, it is suggested that the minimum tread depth should be 2mm across the entire tread (the legal minimum is 1.6mm across the central three-quarters). The rationale is that the extra depth would provide a few weeks or months' more motoring – at present the MOT test merely shows that the car complies on the day of testing.
Summing up, Bill Duffy says: "Practically everyone involved in the vehicle aftermarket is dead set against 4.2.2. Its introduction would seriously compromise safety on our roads - the trade doesn't want it, the motoring public doesn't want it and motoring organisations such as the AA and RAC are against it. I am at a loss to know why we are even considering the introduction of such a retrograde step for motoring safety and standards in the UK. You can’t trade some small alleged savings in MOT fees for the loss of any number of lives."