On 27/07/2011 16:17, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most people
would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great danger or
doing things the way they were taught that have changed over the years.

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the road.

SteveW