Roadworthiness Condition of Cars and Light Goods Vehicles

Introduction

1. The Minister for Transport asked the Motorists' Forum to review a report containing the results of a survey carried out by DETR's Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) in September 1999 on the roadworthiness of the car and LGV fleet. The report was produced jointly by the DETR and the Government Operational Research Unit (ORU).

2. Ministers were concerned that the survey showed that 12.4% of cars and 17.5% of LGVs failed to comply with minimum standards of roadworthiness. The Forum was asked to consider what could best be done to help improve the roadworthiness of the car and LGV fleet. The Forum's consideration of the survey was limited to cars.

3. Following preliminary discussions on this matter at the Forum's October Plenary, the Forum also asked whether the sample of vehicles tested was representative of the vehicle parc.

4. This task was delegated to the Forum's Rights and Responsibilities Working Group, chaired by Sir Christopher Foster, which met on 6 December 2000. The group comprised members from the Association of British Insurers, Environmental Transport Association, Gwent Consultancy, Institute of Advanced Motorists, PACTS, RAC Foundation, RAC Motoring Services, Retail Motor Industry Federation, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and University College London. The AA had submitted comments prior to the meeting. A representative from ORU also attended in an advisory capacity.

5. The WG's recommendations were subsequently submitted to the Forum Plenary on 22 January. Plenary members ratified these recommendations at that meeting.

Background

6. Currently, among the duties of the police is to enforce standards of car and LGV roadworthiness, although VI examiners also carry out roadside enforcement. For this survey, VI examiners checked a total of 3,304 cars and taxis and 2,085 LGVs for roadworthiness defects. The checks were carried out at sites selected randomly throughout Great Britain. ORU developed the methodology used, and analysed the results of the checks. Motorists with defective vehicles were liable to a range of penalties.

Views of the Group

7. There were two main questions for the Group to consider:

• whether the sample of cars tested in the roadworthiness survey was representative, and,
• what action to recommend to Ministers to help improve the roadworthiness condition of the car fleet.

8. ORU stressed that the checks were random and the survey was designed so that for each mile travelled, each car or LGV had an equal chance of being stopped, regardless of age or condition. Nevertheless, it confirmed that, proportionally, a higher number of older cars were tested in comparison with their younger counterparts. The survey appeared to be geared disproportionately towards older cars that were more likely to have defects - though to an indeterminate and small extent. Therefore, for most purposes, the sample could probably be regarded as reasonably accurate.

9. The Group wondered how soon following the MOT test cars were developing faults and whether this was a cause for concern. However, this information did not appear to be held centrally. It was felt that people who maintained their vehicles also tended to drive responsibly and that evidence supported the view that older vehicles and those kept in less affluent regions were more likely to be defective. Defective cars were a problem - borne out by the fact that around 35% failed the MOT test (defective lamps were the major cause of MOT failure).

10. The Group asked how significant defective vehicles were in causing collisions. The latest study was carried out in the late 1970s. It had revealed that 5.9% of fatal crashes involved defective cars, although the defective car may not necessarily have been the cause of the accident. Moreover, in 15% of all fatal crashes, poor road conditions were an additional causal factor. DETR has recently let a contract for an on-the-spot accident study involving the Transport Research Laboratory which would provide additional and updated data on the matter.

11. The Group accepted that the proportion of collisions attributable to defects was comparatively small. However, it felt that it would be helpful to know the nature and extent of those defects that caused accidents to enable roadside enforcement to be channelled more effectively. It might then be possible that enforcement could be targeted at achieving the most significant improvements in road safety, perhaps helped by assistance at the roadside from the police and traffic wardens. There were limits to the powers available in providing effective support from persons other than authorised vehicle examiners, although the Home Office had been considering for some time whether Traffic wardens ought to be given powers to play this role.

12. The Group considered that an increased level of enforcement would be ineffective if it was not backed-up with education. There was an educational gap in motorists' understanding of the importance of maintaining and servicing their vehicles. The trade often placed articles in the local press giving advice on servicing and maintenance but the trade view was that the media could assume a more prominent role in educating motorists' in this area. It was also suggested that it might be helpful if an assessment of competence in basic vehicle maintenance could be included in the driving test.

13. The Group also considered it would be helpful if similarly representative vehicle condition surveys could be repeated, perhaps annually. Vehicle Inspectorate examiners already carried out regular roadside checks of vehicle roadworthiness - both random and targeted - and recorded the results. It would be desirable if additional data, such as vehicle mileage, was included.

Conclusions and Recommendations

14. The Forum was interested in the roadworthiness survey and report findings. This was the first such survey of its kind and it would be easier to comment on the extent of the problem if similar surveys could be run in the future, compiling additional data such as mileage.

15. The Group considered that the sample survey did appear to over-represent older cars to some degree but probably not excessively. Overall, it was felt that the survey provided a relatively accurate portrait of the condition of the car and LGV fleet. Concerns therefore existed in relation to the overall standard of vehicle roadworthiness - though it was accepted that the percentage of defective vehicles involved in - but necessarily the cause of - fatal collisions (5.9%) was comparatively small. It was noted this figure was being updated.

16. In exploring the options on the way forward, it was clear that there were no easy answers. But increasing the number of vehicle inspections was not recommended.

17. Recommendations put forward by the Group included:

• Establishing the most common defects that led to collisions through better analysis of road accidents. This would enable vehicle examiners to target their enforcement activity more effectively.
• Improving education, persuasion and training in respect of vehicle maintenance and servicing. This was a key issue and might be covered to some extent in the driving test.
• Tailoring the introductory 'Voluntary Pass Plus Scheme' to include vehicle maintenance.
• Using the DSA-published magazine (circulated quarterly to newly qualified drivers) to act as an educational mouthpiece in respect of what constitutes 'adequate' vehicle maintenance.

18. Finally, the Group felt that even if more forceful and effective measures could be found to improve maintenance - which it doubted - the relatively few road accidents caused by defects meant that it was probably hard to justify the introduction of difficult and expensive maintenance measures as long as there are other more readily adaptable and cost-effective methods to reduce accidents.