Remove Red Tape

Vehicle Safety and Standards

These regulations aim to ensure that vehicles, including bicycles etc, meet certain safety standards. These include design standards, safety standards, and assurances on the way in which the vehicles have been manufactured.

You can find all the regulations that relate to Vehicles safety & standards below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

291 comments on “Vehicle Safety and Standards”

1. K Ford on June 17, 2011 at 5:05 am said:

   With regard to MOT testing 4-2-2 debate, being involved in the MOT scheme myself it shocks me at some of the items cars fail on that are of a reasonabley obvious nature, the memorable ones are young mothers driving children around with tyres totally worn out, when this is brought to there attention and demonstrated to them the nature of the problem they are alarmed at the risk they have exposed there children to, there is also the risk to the wider unsuspecting public. As we all have a responsibilty for both our own and others health and safety I beleive the goverment should accept their responsibilty and not change the present system.
2. david whittle on June 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm said:

   The MOT frequency 3-1-1 should stay the same, many vehicles are only maintained so that they can pass the MOT as it currently stands. To reduce the MOT frequency to 4-2-2 would only result in many more dangerous vehicles on the road, car owners will still have to have the same repairs done- just all at once, and there will be more deaths due to an increase in things like poor brakes, bald tyres, broken springs and brake pipes. If anything the MOT should be much more thorough than it is- owners should have to have advisories done within a time limit and high mileage vehicles should have MOTs more frequently. To reduce MOT frequency I believe is wilful neglect of all people who use a road, Have the government ministers consudered the cost of more accidents on the road to the already overstretched services like hospital A &E & rehab, police & fireservices etc, It beggars belief that at this time when government is telling us to ‘tighten OUR belts’ they are happy to waste so much time & money reviewing something that the last government reviewed and came to the conclusion that MOTs should stay the same.
3. Annette Ball on June 16, 2011 at 9:24 pm said:

   As a car owner with scant knowledge about car mechanics, I rely on the annual MOT for a thorough safety check. With motoring being so expensive (petrol & insurance) which is leading some people to risk skimping on servicing,replacement tyres etc, why is the government hell bent on wanting to increase the risk of road casualties by moving to 2 yearly MOT’s. ?????
   I and many of my friends , some of whom are mothers with young children want the roads to be safer not more dangerous. £50 a year for an MOT is a small price for motorists to pay keep our cars safe – please leave it alone.
4. Simon Warburton on June 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm said:

   Submitted on behalf of Transport for Greater Manchester

   Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR – 1998/2010) and Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR – 2000)
   We would view with concern and recommend against any consideration of removing regulations in relation to bus and rail. Both Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR – 1998/2010) and Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR – 2000) contain standards by which vehicles are made accessible for disabled people are promoted. Although both Regulatory Standards are now dated, it could be suggested that rather than removing the standards that they promote, a review of the appropriateness of RVAR and PSVAR content would be desirable.
   Regulatory design standards are the means by which public service vehicles are designed to be what was known as ‘Disability Discrimination Act’ compliant. If these regulations are removed, there will be no standards by which public service vehicle designers and manufacturers can produce accessible public transport. Due to the nature of differences between heavy rail and light rail, and bus design and manufacture, RVAR and PSVAR could not be reformed, simplified or merged. If anything, we would recommend that a review of RVAR and PSVAR regulatory standards should be considered in light of advances in accessible design solutions since introduction in 1998 and 200 respectively.
5. David Mair on June 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm said:

   I would like to see the legal minimum tread depth for cars increased to 3mm as this is the recommended minimum depth from many motoring organisations and could help reduce accidents.
6. Roy Collyer on June 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm said:

   I pride myself on being rational and open minded and have read an awful lot about the proposed changes in the frequency of MOT testing, but have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why it would be an improvement on the existing system. The idea that it will save motorists any money is fundamentally flawed, in the first place the amount saved is insignificant (assuming that the price of an MOT stays the same the saving will be £27.42 and a half P per year, wich works out at less than 0.54p per week, wich is less than the amount of VAT & duty levied on ltr of petrol – BIG DEAL) However that saving would soon be negated by the increase in insurance premiums that would follow the inevitable increase in accidents caused by unchecked and poorly maintained cars. The other scenario to consider is the amount of claims that insurance companies refuse to pay out on because the car that caused the accident wasn’t roadworthy because it had a bald tyre,malfunctioning ABS,broken coil spring,worn ball joint etc. Leaving how many innocent people out of pocket and trying to chase through the courts to recover the cost of their written off car from someone who didn’t spend the £27.42 they saved on a new tyre/spring/ABS repair. So much for the case for 4-2-2 testing, as for the case against I can only reiterate what other people have said about the safety issues involved. I run a busy garage/MOT station and can personally confirm what other people have said about the condition of some the cars that we MOT. I also know that if it wasn’t for these defects being picked up on the MOT test they wouldn’t be rectified until they either broke, with potentially hazardous consequences or were noticed by some vigilant police officer, wich is getting less likely as their diminishing resources concentrate more more on using Number Plate Recognition technology to spot Road Tax dodgers and uninsured vehicles.
   Then there is the impact on the motor trade to conside, other, more knowledgeable people than myself are quoting figures of 40,000 job losses and £500 million pounds lost VAT receipts on repairs that won’t be done. Some even try putting a figure on the extra loss of lives and serious injuries.
   Sounds like a really good idea……………….
7. Doug Greenall on June 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm said:

   It needs to stay as it is.
   Current stats show a failure rate of almost 30%. This is a false reading due to a large proportion of vehicles being pre-prepared in advance of the MOT Test. Increasing the time between tests can only increase the number of dangerous vehicles on the roads!!
8. Zoe Calliste on June 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm said:

   It’s outragous! It should not be changed, its worrying seeing the state of some cars on the road. A brand new car leaving a show room can have its faults just as much as a car thats 10 or 15 years old! Some drivers can be really careless with their vehicles not maintaning them properly and to have the legislation changed there will be alot more death traps on the road.People might think its more affordable changing it, i think well dont have a car then! because as well as putting your self at risk you are putting other road users and padestrians at risk. My partner is an mot inspector and the cars that he comes across for mot’s daily are very worrying, if this legislation changes he could be at risk of losing his job as well as all the mot garage’s going down hill.
9. John on June 16, 2011 at 4:09 pm said:

   The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations: Given that these are matters germane to the design and certification of vehicles, these provisions could be included in the regulations defining such matters in any revision of the “Construction and Use” Regulations as described in the response to the Buses and Taxis element of this consultation. For preference there would be one Regulation bringing together the provisions of the PSVAR Regulations, the European Bus Directive and domestic “Construction and Use” regulations, together with the VOSA papers on Categorisation of Defects and the “Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness”. All inconsistencies and duplications between these documents should be addressed to provide a single clear and concise document.
10. Clare Lunt on June 16, 2011 at 1:29 pm said:

    The legislation should be left as it is. Like every organisation, the government needs to make sure the people they employ are actually doing the job they are supposed to be not what the employee thinks it is.
11. Unite the Union on June 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm said:

    All of the Road Transportation legislation listed has taken years of campaigning at times by Trade Unions and other stakeholders and has successfully made it through both the House of Parliament and the House of Lords before taking their place on the statute book.

    The ‘Red Tape Challenge for Road Transportation’ should not be used as a sounding board for the Government of the day to remove and change legislation as they feel based on ad hoc website comments. This is undemocratic and completely ignores the democratic process that we already have for law creation, change or removal.

    Therefore Unite the Union does not consider the Governments ‘Red Tape Challenge for Road Transportation’ as being proper consultation and rightfully expect the Government to conduct full comprehensive consultation, with Trade Unions and other stakeholders on any areas of proposed change.

    In addition Unite would like to take this opportunity to state how extremely concerned Unite are with the Government’s drastic cuts programme, which is jeopardising the recovery and may even lead to a ‘double dip’ recession.

    Continued investment in transport infrastructure is crucial to delivering and maintaining economic growth. It will not only help build the UK out of recession by providing jobs and attracting investment, but provides an essential element for long-term, sustainable growth.

    Every transport mode makes a substantial direct and indirect contribution to the UK economy and Unite will protect its members and their terms and conditions vigorously across all these modes of transport.

    Unite the Union
12. Alastair Grant on June 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm said:

    * ESC, ABS, air-bags should be mandatory for all commercially produced vehicles.
    * All commercially produced vehicles should meet a minimum NCap rating to be sold or imported to the UK.
13. Chris Peck on June 16, 2011 at 10:56 am said:

    Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 – These Regulations control both the type of lighting permitted on cars (which CTC feels should be further restricted to prevent dazzle and help reduce dangerously high speeds at night) and on cycles.

    CTC’s view is that these Regulations should be simplified to remove the need to pedal reflectors and replace that requirement with a simplified requirement for reflective material to be applied where appropriate.

    This avoids the current problem that exists whereby many cyclists are using clipless pedals without reflectors or riding recumbent machines – in these circumstances the Regulations must not unnecessarily impose demands on these users that puts these users at a disadvantage.

    In addition, few of the lamps available on the market are approved for cycle use. CTC would therefore wish to see the Regulations amended to simply demand a need for a front white light and a rear red light. Detailed information on this complex topic is available here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071
14. Steve Hood on June 16, 2011 at 9:01 am said:

    We carry out quite alot of M.O.T.s and some cars that we see are in a perilous state. The annual M.O.T. can be the only time a vehicle comes into a garage especially in the current economic climate as people tighten thier purse strings. Broken coil springs, tyres and lower suspension joints are among the most common causes of failure all saftey related. Just imagine the potential safety issues should the M.O.T. become bi-annual. The proposed 4-2-2 would certainly put peoples lives at risk as well as impacting on the Motor Industry with the loss of jobs
15. Ruth Barrett on June 16, 2011 at 7:15 am said:

    If anything cars should be checked every year from new, not after 3 years, as anything can go wrong and with the increased average mileage per year there is more wear and tear. And then every 6 months after 5 years. I am not in the motor trade but have a family member who is and he says it is frightening the condition some of the cars are in and how surprised their owners are when these death traps fail the MOT test. And on the subject of the owners, they should have an MOT in the form of a medical at least every 5 years in line with vocational drivers ie. coach and lorry etc. Having worked in the coach industry I know that if a coach company had too many MOT failures they could expect a visit from VOSA because it was clear that regular servicing was not being perfomed as required by law. With cars this test is the only way of making sure that the car is checked for safety as there is no legal requirement to service a car at regular intervals. And MOT’s should be enforced vigorously and remain with VOSA and don’t dumb down how serious this issue is.
16. Christopher Camm on June 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm said:

    The proposed changes to the MOT regulations from 3.1 to 4.2 would definately compromise safety on our roads. The state of our roads adds to the daily damage to vehicles suspension and tyres, and bearing in mind that most people only bring their cars in to a garage for its compulsary MOT test once a year, it would be ludicrous to change that to an even more infrequent period. This would mean that as well as the roadworthiness of the vehicle being compromised, the emissions would not be checked for two years at a time, leading to increased polution.I have been a garage owner and MOT Tester for over 30 years and am still amazed at the state of some cars when they are brought in for their annual MOT. Most people never even check their oil, lights,
    tyre pressures or tyres. In my view this change would most certainly lead to more accidents and deaths on our roads. It is, after all, our governments responsiblity to keep regulations in force which maintain our safety and protection, not reduce them at the expense of cost cutting. I very much hope that common sense will prevail and cannot emphasis enough the importance of keeping the current MOT frequency as it is.
17. chris jones on June 15, 2011 at 9:00 pm said:

    I really dont agree with this at all. My reason being as a mot tester i see alot of cars every day, and to this day im still shocked at the conditions of the cars that have been tested and thats on a yearly mot. I couldn’t imagine what condition the cars would be in after two years without a mot. we need to think of the saftey of every family because after two years these cars will be death traps. Although servicing can look after alot of these saftey items, some cannot afford servicing due to a variety of reasons but as, by law, you are required to have an mot, so people rely on this as a check over. what we really need to ask ourselves is, whether this new legislation will lead to an increase of road incidents.( both minor and major). and is this going to lead to an increase in redundancies within the motor trade. (skilled workers unemployed).