Another day, another IAM Poll

This time it's about MoT tests. The Government is considering bringing MoT testing into line with the minimum European requirements, which would be:

• First test after four years from new (currently three)
• Subsequent tests every other year after that (currently annual).

Personally, I have no problem with MoT testing. I'm glad to ride around knowing that there is a scheme in place to make sure that other vehicles sharing the road with me are at least of a minimum standard of roadworthiness. I know the system is fallible and can be got around, but it's better than nothing. Also, I'm glad to put any vehicle of mine to an independent test every twelve months. Two sets of eyes are better than one, and occasionally an MoT tester has spotted something that I either hadn't seen, or had underestimated the seriousness of. In those circumstances, I have been very glad to be told.

I use any one of three testing stations, and all of them know that I will be taking the car or bike away, doing the work myself, and re-presenting it, so there's no danger of the make-work brigade finding faults that aren't there, although I appreciate that this is a problem with some places who might see a gullible or non-technical customer as an opportunity to get some workshop time when things are slow.

As for reducing the fequency of testing from 3+1 to 4+2, I am not sure. Most modern vehicles will still be in as roadworthy a condition after four years as they are after three. The regs were brought in when vehicles were much less reliable than they are today, and I doubt if that extra year will make much difference. Once a vehicle gets to 5-6 years old and has perhaps 60-70k miles on the clock, however, my instinct tells me that an annual check is a good idea. That's when things start to fail, and some of them are safety-critical.

Anyway, go and have your say. Unlike Mr Cameron, the IAM are keen to get the opinions of as many people as possible. You don't have to be a member, etc.

UPDATE: Having done the survey, and learned that 27% of cars fail their first MoT at three years old, I am inclined to say keep things as they are. Getting a 3-year-old car tested, and then testing every year thereafter, is hardly onerous.

Headlights

Is it me, or are car drivers less concerned than they used to be about having two working headlights? On my evening commutes recently, I seem to have noticed more than the usual number of cars with missing headlights, so a couple of nights ago I decided to do a completely unscientific survey.

I counted 100 cars travelling in the opposite direction, in a space of about 2 miles. Of these:

4 had one headlight not working
1 had no headlights working (he was driving in the dark, and heavy rain, on sidelights, and I assume that was not from choice; in a long line of vehicles, you can probably get away with it, although heaven help him if he had to finish his journey up a country lane).

So that is 5 in 100, or 1 in 20, whose cars would instantly fail an MoT test as unroadworthy.

You can add to that 2 out of the 100 who had those 'fog' lights mounted below the bumper which point up and therefore dazzle everyone, and 6 where the lights were adjusted to be pointing straight ahead and into everyone's eyes. That makes a total of 13 in 100, or almost 1 in 7, whose lights were causing discomfort or danger to everyone else.

I wonder if some people just let their cars deteriorate over the year, and then take them for the MoT and say "if it's wrong, fix it". Once a year.

I can't remember seeing as many as this before. Is it the recession?

Or just typical car driver stupidity?