"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
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.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police from
the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care or
being blind.


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.

They still are, the cameras are in addition to police.