Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt Brown on November 30, 2011 at 22:59

glad to see they are going to incluse the dazzling headlights. the amount of cars that blind people with headlights that are too bright and just as bad the ones with defective bulbs. i had one behind me the other week he or she passed 4 petrol stations with only one headlight why not pull in and for small pocket change replace the bulb.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by choughman on December 1, 2011 at 7:53

i read somewhere that these tests only apply to newer cars. Now, obviously the mot charge is going to increase significantly because of all these new checks. What i want to know is, will there be two teirs of charges? my 1998 van wont be subject to many of these new tests so the mot should be cheaper! bet it wont be tho!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Brierley on December 1, 2011 at 8:34

Ive just had one of my vans MOTed and the tester told me that as of next year the light sockets on your towbars will also be checked for faults. so make sure they work...

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Gary RK on December 1, 2011 at 8:45

In the arcticle, the implication is that we will only be MOT'ing every two years once the tougher laws are in and I guess this harmonises us with the EU.

Therefore, we might save money?, or perhaps we wait to find out true costs first ?

Separately, 

- I'd love to see another vehicle scrappage system bought in to get more older polluting cars off the road... 

- why not implement the system used in many European countries to display tax/insurance and vehicle test on the windscreen/number plate? Cut down on uninsured drivers or those intent on keeping outside the laws the rest of us have to comply with. One more way to level the playing field ?
choughman said:

i read somewhere that these tests only apply to newer cars. Now, obviously the mot charge is going to increase significantly because of all these new checks. What i want to know is, will there be two teirs of charges? my 1998 van wont be subject to many of these new tests so the mot should be cheaper! bet it wont be tho!

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Phil Voice on December 1, 2011 at 9:37

Yep, we only need an MOT (Controle Technique) every two years here (although my Ford Courier van, because of its age [1998] has to have an intermediate emissions test.

As Gary says, we have to display our current insurance and MOT (CT) in the windscreen.

We don't, however, have to pay road tax (although I'm sure everyone is aware that there are tolls to pay on may of the French roads).

Gary (mr. rk) RK said:

In the arcticle, the implication is that we will only be MOT'ing every two years once the tougher laws are in and I guess this harmonises us with the EU.

Therefore, we might save money?, or perhaps we wait to find out true costs first ?

Separately, 

- I'd love to see another vehicle scrappage system bought in to get more older polluting cars off the road... 

- why not implement the system used in many European countries to display tax/insurance and vehicle test on the windscreen/number plate? Cut down on uninsured drivers or those intent on keeping outside the laws the rest of us have to comply with. One more way to level the playing field ?
choughman said:

i read somewhere that these tests only apply to newer cars. Now, obviously the mot charge is going to increase significantly because of all these new checks. What i want to know is, will there be two teirs of charges? my 1998 van wont be subject to many of these new tests so the mot should be cheaper! bet it wont be tho!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Dearden on December 1, 2011 at 11:39

I've never understood why trailers aren't included in MOT's Pointless how good the brakes are on the van if the trailer isn't contributing ! In the past I've worked for companies where the maintenance hasn't been that good.

Clive

www.thehandmadegarden.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by choughman on December 1, 2011 at 12:05

No no no! scrapage was a farce. dressed up as an enviromental initiative when in reality it was a boost for dealerships ( not that thats bad, whats bad is dressing th idea up as something good for us!). It is obvious to anyone that running a vehicle until its no longer fit for purpose is far better for the enviroment, despite increases in emmisions. Yes if you told everyone with a range rover to scrap it and buy a fiat 500 you might get some gains but that didnt happen.

Its about time we looked on air travel as a complete luxury and not something to be used at will. With online conferencing ( business) and amazing places ( holidays) in this country we certainly wouldn't miss out.

 

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Gary RK on December 1, 2011 at 12:18

Scrappage was good for the recommit as it help a key industry thru a difficult patch.

From my understanding 1 badly maintained older vehicle outstrips aany such vehicle as a range rover. Out of any cars now comes a carefully controlled emission. Not so on an old oil burner.

Also look at it in a different light, those driving such vehicles are subsidising you and me thru higher road tax, proportionally higher petrol costs and hence duty, increased car tax as a BIK, service revenues to dealers and hence jobs.

It's easy to focus on just one aspect when in reality it is a very complex circle.


So I would rather see 10 range rovers on the road than 10 old bangers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by choughman on December 1, 2011 at 12:25

you raise a few good points gary and i do agree. financially and employment wise scrapage was great. However it was sold to us as a great thing for the enviroment. It wasn't! i shall dig out some facts and figures but if you look at the build process of the average vehicle it certainly isnt better to destroy a perfectly useable older vehicle.

Yep, bring on the range rovers, lambos, etc etc if you care more about immediate financial gain rather than longterm enviromental cost.

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Gary RK on December 1, 2011 at 12:36

A pre-cat car emits more noxious fumes than a modern 3l turbo fuel injected car was stated.

If you want to get into the recycling debate, just wait 10 yrs for the issues of recycling current electric car's batteries. It's a time bomb...

Along with the craze for low energy home bulbs that contain some nasty stuff

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Dan Frazer Gardening on December 1, 2011 at 13:47

Maintaining a car for as long as possible reduces the demand for new cars which has massive environmental benefits, regardless of emissions whilst driving. The energy, chemicals and oil that are required to build a car are significant. If we keep cars on the road half as long this does the industry good but has a massive negative impact on the world's resources.

I think a 2-year MOT would be a good thing, but perhaps once vehicles are a certain age this should be annual. We all know a 12 year old vehicle can degrade a LOT in 12 months if bad weather and bad maintenance come together.

Cars in general should all be built as economical as possible. I hate the thought of people cruising around in 20mpg trucks to drop off the kids at school.

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Gary RK on December 1, 2011 at 15:29

Here's something I read a while ago which shows there is no simple answer.

Many older vehicles took more engery to build and consumed more engery to drive than a modern car takes - so the net difference calaculated in the article can help decide the question - scrap or keep. The sums are complex and somewhat simplified in this article. While not containing THE ANSWER, it does get your mind thinking about whether to scrap and old gas guzzler and buy a modern vehicle - which ultimately may better for the environment.

The last paragraph make an interesting summary.....also some "so typical" american comments afterwards ;-)

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-the-envi...

 

Interesting comparison from VOSA website:

Clearly big strides are being made on engine efficiency & pollution, yet people still cite inaccurate figures:

2001 Transit 85ps (lowest power model) - emissions 218, combined fuel cons 32.8, cold fuel cons 26.4 (ie short jouney)

2011 Transit 140ps - emissions 208, combined fuel cons 35.8, cold fuel cons 28 (ieshort jouney)

2011 Range Rover Diesel - emissions 224-253 (dependant on engine size), combined fuel cons 30.1, cold fuel cons 24.6 (short journey)

the point I'm making is that old vehicles are so inefficient compared to modern 'super cars'.

So all those Range Rovers that everyone complains about are not so bad (and clearly they could and must do better - don't get me wrong).

It is not quite as clear cut as it seems...I guess it's the Daily Mail effect ;-)

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page