That prejudice you mention is well founded. Just take a look around and you
will notice all kinds of junk vehicles on the road spewing
smoke and liquids, with lights that either don't work or are pointing every
which way but where they are supposed to be, with tires
balder than michael Jordan and pieces falling off.
These are the cars that are driving the legislation that requires annual
inspections. The real travesty is the way exemptions are
given freely because the politicians feel inclined to "protect the interests of
If I may be so bold, I state categorically that you can't have it both ways.
If the governments want to control safety and emissions,
there must be laws that are strict and unwavering. Otherwise, in the future,
the cars we all enjoy driving may be forced off the road
in favor of electric (or other polution-free) forms of power!
Soap Box Mode off.
Laura Gharazeddine wrote:
> I haven't any problem with making sure that cars are safe and roadworthy.
>But, I know our state government and the departments which would oversee these
>sorts of things. And I know the prejudice Sacramento has against older cars.
>(Remember that lister who sent a copy of the letter he received offering him
>$500 to get his 'old' car off the road--and his reply?)
> I don't trust Sacramento and either the state or federal governments to be
>fair to older cars regardless of their condition. And I don't trust them to
>enforce a law like that fairly and equally with all vehicles both from the
>private sector and the business sector. (As emissions controls are biased
>against privately owned vehicles now.)
> We also have a problem here in that SUVs and truck follow a different
>emissions standard than cars do. (Though there is talk that that's being done
>away with.) Would it be that way with an MoT. Yes I know that in Britain it's
>the same across the board. But, here for emissions, it's not and I would think
>that it an MoT wouldn't be straight across the board either.
> There was a battle a few years ago against roposed 'junker' bills- they just
>wanted to get old cars off the road. Period. I would be afraid of the
>government tryong to use an MoT as a way to get rid of these cars. Which would
>be bad for us enthusiasts who aren't well to do and be bad for the working
>poor (Of which there are a great many) who couldn't afford a newer model car.
>(I sometimes have thought that must be a lobby of car salesmen involved in all
> Until we have a fairer government, one that won't be so swayed by lobbyists
>looking to line their own pockets; one that will actually put the good of the
>people first, rather than profit for themselves, I don't see how an MoT could
> Well...you asked.
> (Never ask a political activist to explain anything, eh?);-)
> Laura G.
> >From: Richard B Gosling <Gosling_Richard_B@perkins.com>
> >Date: 04 Jul 2000 06:19:57 -0500
> >To: "Laura.G" <Laura.G@141.com>, spitfires <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: MOT Time...
> >Laura (and others),
> >I'm not entirely sure what your objection to ensuring that all cars are
> > roadworthy is. Some might see that the MOT seems stringent, but there is
> > really nothing in there that is not an essential part of ensuring that the
> > is safe to take on the roads - apart from emissions, and that you Americans
> > (and particularly Californians) are much more strict on than the UK. If a
> > fails, it is because it is genuinely unsafe - I do not want to have cars
> > around me where no-one has looked at the brake pipes for 10 years, and they
> > are so chafed they could give way at any moment. I don't want cars around
> > with 3 bald tyres on, so that when they hit the brakes on a damp dual
> > carriageway because there is a jam up ahead, they slew round and slide into
> > (I started to lose the back end of Daffy, on a damp dual carriageway, at 75
> > mph, a month ago because of my bald rear tyres, and it scared the s*&^ out
> > me). Worse, I don't want the cars behind me not to even see that I am
> > because their wipers don't work. I don't want to be dazzled by oncoming
> > with badly adjusted headlamps. These are all essential items.
> >I will admit that the structural stuff is a bit over-stringent, and I object
> > the law that requires you to wear a seatbelt, and that the check includes
> > - seatbelts are an excellent idea, but wearing them should be a personal
> > choice, not law, as you are risking no-one but yourself.
> >The only true extra expense of the MOT test is the 32 pounds the test itself
> > costs. Everything else is stuff that you should be doing anyway, and if
> > your car is not safe to be around others on the road. The MOT test cannot
> > guarantee that every car on the road is safe, without being a weekly check
> > rather than annual, but it definitely keeps the number of unsafe cars to a
> > minimum. This has got to be a good thing for everyone.
> >The MOT test applies to every vehicle over 3 years old - no-one has a get-out
> > clause (except agricultural vehicles), no industry, no big business. It is
> > enforced by the fact that all vehicles on the road must buy an annual road
> > disc - a central computer keeps track of these, to ensure everyone has one,
> > and they will not be issued without the presentation of a valid MOT
> > certificate. Yes, if you are desperate they can be forged, and I'm sure
> > are appointed garages that can be bribed, but most people wouldn't bother.
> >OK, I'll get off the soap-box, who wants to get on? Come on, if you dare...
> > :-)
> >Richard and Daffy
> >P.S. apologies for seeming a bit behind in this discussion - I subscribe to
> > Digest, so I've only just got all the messages on this one!