When New Jersey repealed its requirement for periodic auto safety inspections, there was no statistically meaningful rise in the frequency of accidents due to car failure, or to road fatalities whether linked to car failures or not. Alex Tabarrok: “It’s time to ditch the annual safety inspection and either move to no inspection system at all or like Maryland move to a system that requires safety inspections only at transfer. I’m not convinced that is necessary either, since at transfer is precisely when the buyer will run an inspection anyway, but at least that system would reduce the number of inspections significantly.” [Marginal Revolution, New York Post editorial; Alex Hoagland and Trevor Woolley]
7 Comments
When the UK introducedthe vehicle testing scheme it reducuced accidents due to dangerous vehicle defects.
I’d suggest that the lack of effect is largely due to the short period of no testing. After all, most tested vehicles were ok at their last test – most defects take time to develop.
See link for more info..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7859018/MoT-tests-50th-anniversary.html
Colin
I don’t think that article demonstrates that testing led to increased safety.
Cars and roadways alike are safer for a variety of reasons today than they were 50 years ago. Are there studies that account for and exclude these other variables?
When the UK introducedthe vehicle testing scheme it reducuced accidents due to dangerous vehicle defects.
Correlation does not imply causation.
The article cites the number of deaths and injuries in 1960 and compares them to today. The problem is, of course, that cars from the 1950’s and 60’s are not as safe as cars are today. Seatbelts weren’t even part of required equipment in those days, much less crush zones, safer steering wheels, air bags, ABS, traction control, safer road designs, tire design / materials, etc. The idea that the MoT test itself reduced accidents is without proof and as the article states, is an estimate.
We might as well be saying that the increase in the cost of bread from 1960 to now affects car safety.
I’d suggest that the lack of effect is largely due to the short period of no testing. After all, most tested vehicles were ok at their last test – most defects take time to develop.
Doesn’t that mean that the MoT test has no effect at all? If when the defect appears during the year between testing is more of a contributing factor than the actual MoT test, what is being accomplished?
As your cited article states, the MoT test is big business. It’s a cash cow. The article goes on to state that the test is so comprehensive that people think their cars are safe for a year. They aren’t, but that is the thinking that people have.
After all, why should people worry about things like car safety when the government can take care of it, and you, instead?
But cars have drastically changed over the years since 1960, as have the MOT requirements. MOT requirements have generally increased, but the article doesn’t reflect any real analysis as to how each required inspection is actually likely to impact public safety. Simple things like how many accidents per year were caused by unsafe conditions in 3-5 year old cars since, say, 2010. Certainly things like accident causing tire blow outs seem far less frequent than when I was young (though I don’t know the statistics). The MOT is huge business, but how much of it really impacts road safety and how much of it is just maintaining the income stream. One number I saw was the 41 percent of vehicles tested failed the first time. Are there really that many unsafe vehicles on British roads?
Here are the top five simple reasons for an MOT fail, according to research published by What Car? Magazine in April 2014:
1. Screen wash not topped up.
2. The car was dirty or full of clutter.
3. A registration plate problem.
4. Stickers on the windscreen blocking the driver’s view.
5. Lit-up warning light on the dashboard.
The MOT business just seems a lot bigger than the public safety interests it serves warrants.
My wife and I moved from PA to Ohio and then back. Ohio had no state inspections at the time. We would joke about the “Ohio flyers” as the salt used to clear roads rusted away the door panels (no longer attached on the bottom because of rust) that flapped in the wind.
Perhaps if the testing was evidence based.
On this, a truly unbiased opinion should come from the insurers. Just what are the top 10 maintenance related things that contribute to accidents. Can’t ask mechanics, because their bias is toward what fixes are most profitable to offer their ‘customers’.
Though in reality we all know the greatest defect in the car that contributes to accidents is the driver. Take away the cell phone, texting, in-car touch screens.
“Take away the cell phone, texting, in-car touch screens.”
Also take away, food, beverages, pets, passengers, illnesses, arguments with the spouse 5 minutes before you left…
Attempting to ban every possible source of distraction is an exercise in futility and would end in effectively mandating single occupancy vehicles.
The reality is a driver doesn’t need anything beyond the contents of his/her own head to become distracted enough to cause an accident.
By the way, my 2015 Ford F150 has a built in Bluetooth speaker phone, and all the controls I need to use it are right on the steering wheel.