Scrap the mot test

Adam Smith institute, are a collective of nutters .

I'd imagine they would be the least of the worries DVSA have to think about. The major problems with the mot scheme as I see them are that;

1 / There is no decent money in it,

2 / The average age of people in the mot scheme are now on the wrong side of 50 +

3/ There is little interest in the next generation moving forwards into the scheme

4/ The skills are being lost

5/ The Adam Institute probably have nothing to worry about as number (3) above will probably see the mot scheme off in the future anyway.

and just why do they think that 2% of accidents are mech related?yup cos we test the fooking things,elsewise it wud be 15/20%.the mot test was introduced for good reason,that reason being that left to their own devices a significant percentage of the great british public will do zero/bad maintenance and in a desperate attempt to keep the weekly death toll below 3 figures the mot was IMPOSED.and that was in the days of less technically complex vehicles.the current crop can puzzle qualified techs doing relatively mundane stuff let alone the punters.I APPLAUD THE IDEA OF TEACHING THE SLACKWITTED MUPPETS TO DRIVE CORRECTLY!but that requires investment/training from government level so lets be honest it aint gonna happen.

What question should be asked about the Adam Smith Institute here is, where exactly are they collating their data from?

Something I have been thinking about since these forums started many years ago...

If, and this is very much true, a discussion starts on any topic on the forum and a handful of testers disagree with each other sometimes quite vigorously, and there are not that many members that become involved, how can DVSA accurately collate their data and keep it consistent so that the National failure rate stays around 35% most of the time?

If the Adam Smith Institute don't take their figures from the mot scheme because they are not reliable enough, then the only other places they can get figures from are the Police Forensics in collision investigations, and any recognised and trusted expert witnesses that can record this data. Now the problem becomes, it can take months if not years to reach a legal conclusion in these cases and by then the world has moved on. Many years ago the police figures quoted 7% of vehicle accidents were caused by mechanical failure. 

7% of how many vehicles!!!

5, 10, 15...

Data is very much designed to fit what the statistics want to show, not what is actually real. 

I think he has a point we all want to die young😂😂

I would agree with you, except for the fact that one the U.S. states has just abandoned it's MOT equivalent, or so I've heard on the radio.
Now, if they don't have a massive upsurge in mechanical failure related death and injury, then our mob will be looking to follow suit, and it would have to be a massive increase, because if it's 'just' a couple of thousand dying, then politicians will find that a small price to pay to save the public 50 quid a year as a vote winner.

the other problem is that stopping(lets say)the mot wouldn't have an immediate effect,it would take 3-4 years to start filtering thru to the figures (so the opposition that were probably elected after implementation would be stuck with removing it and the attendant loss of popularity so if a govmnt thinks theyre getting bombed out it could be a smart pre election move,if you doubt this cynicism just think back to labours"weve spent all the money,unlucky" jibe pre austerity)in the same way it took a while to start having an effect in the first place.it also begs the question how many accidents caused as opposed to how many injuries(no injuries tends to not get looked at as closely or even reported in the first place) cos airbags/crumple zones etc will skew those figures on their own.