The investigation into possible changes to the United Kingdom’s Motor Vehicle Test (MOT) system was carried out as part of a broader project led by the Department for Transport’s Motoring and Freight Team. The study combined a systematic review of the literature, a nationwide survey of 499 vehicle owners, and four focus‑group sessions that sampled drivers of different ages and vehicle ages. The project ran over a twelve‑month period and was funded by the UK government, with academic collaborators from several universities and industry partners providing expertise on vehicle safety and consumer behaviour.

The evidence review examined 17 peer‑reviewed papers that addressed the relationship between inspection frequency and vehicle safety. The findings consistently showed that shorter intervals between inspections are linked to fewer faults and a lower incidence of fault‑related road incidents. In particular, studies from Belgium demonstrated that an annual MOT from the time of manufacture is “more than justified” for reducing collisions, emissions problems and other safety‑critical failures. The review also highlighted that brakes and tyres, the most safety‑critical components, experience significant wear during the first few years of a vehicle’s life, reinforcing the need for early and regular checks.

The public survey revealed that a majority of respondents preferred to keep the current annual MOT schedule. While some participants expressed a willingness to accept a two‑year interval to reduce costs and time commitments, most believed that a longer interval would compromise road safety. The survey also uncovered a general lack of understanding of vehicle warning messages. When a malfunction indicator light (MIL) appeared, most drivers reported that they would address the issue immediately or as soon as possible, but their decision was moderated by the perceived severity of the fault, the expected repair cost, and the proximity of the next MOT or service appointment. A minority of respondents admitted that they would continue driving despite a fault if it was close to an upcoming MOT, indicating a potential gap in proactive maintenance.

Focus‑group discussions echoed the survey results and added nuance to the behavioural insights. Participants who were older or owned older vehicles tended to rely more heavily on the MOT as a safety check, whereas younger drivers who owned newer cars were more likely to trust automated warning systems such as tyre‑pressure monitors. Some focus‑group members suggested that a reduction in MOT frequency could motivate them to take greater responsibility for routine checks, but others expressed reluctance, indicating that the public’s willingness to self‑monitor would vary widely. Across all groups, there was a consensus that delaying the first MOT beyond three years would be unacceptable, given the early wear of critical components and the potential for undetected faults.

Taken together, the technical evidence and behavioural data suggest that any move to reduce or delay MOT testing would likely be poorly received by the public and could lead to a measurable increase in vehicle faults and road‑safety incidents. The study therefore recommends maintaining the current annual MOT schedule, particularly for the first three years of a vehicle’s life, while exploring complementary measures such as enhanced driver education on warning lights and incentives for regular self‑checks. The project’s findings provide a robust evidence base for policymakers to balance the benefits of frequent inspections against the costs and logistical challenges of enforcing them.