murphwiz wrote:
>
> "Mother" <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:18:40 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, the MOT is a mere trivial indication (scuze
>> pun) of a vehicle meeting the barest of safety standards. I know I'll
>> not make any friends by saying it's a totally inadequate way of
>> judging a safe vehicle and in some ways, it encourages a false sense
>> of security.
>
> I'm so glad someone actually see's it like that!
> As a tester myself I'm constantly irritated by the crap I have to pass, I
> know even though I advise items 95% of people will not have the faults
> rectified!
> The MOT should be a trivial matter if you keep your car in any sort of
> reasonable condition.
> Roll on stricter testing... sooner or later it will be here!
It is interesting to note that the state I live in has annual testing - the
adjoining state does not, but has generally lower accident statistics than
this state (probably explained by the higher population density means
better roads). But the annual test would seem to have very little influence
on safety. (emissions may well be another story)
There are two reasons for this - in the first place, only a very small
proportion of accidents are contributed to by vehicle condition, and - in
most of these cases the problem is either one that will not be detected by
a typical annual test, or more commonly, the problem is one that cannot be
expected to stay fixed for a year.
On this last point, a survey of roadworthiness of cars at random was carried
out several years ago in a supermarket car park. From memory about half the
cars involved failed, and of these about 90% were failed on tyres, and most
of these were either underinflation or cuts to the tyre.
This is supported by the suggestion that in most accidents where vehicle
defects are identified, the defect is tyres.
JD
