Foolhardy or a welcome cost saving for motorists?

of living can be offset by cutting the MoT to every two years. This will lead to more unsafe vehicles on the road and insurance premiums will surely rise.

S. WHITWORTH, Gorleston, Norfolk. KEEP the MoT, but reduce car tax by £50.

GEORGE CLEMMIT, York. I’VE worked in the motor trade and seen how some drivers allow their cars to deteriorate. An MoT only every two years might help with the cost of living, but what of the danger to life of bald tyres and dangerous emissions?

NICK SMITH, Blandford Forum, dorset.

CARS used for commuting and business should have an annual MoT while those used purely for social purposes could be allowed a MoT only every two years.

LAURENCE FREEMAN, Luton, Beds.

IF THE Government is considering MoTs every two years, why has it ever been necessary to have an annual test?

BRIAN BEST, High Wycombe, Bucks. CHANGING the MoT to every two years is a good idea, but only for low-mileage vehicles. Any car doing more than 5,000 miles a year should continue to be tested annually.

COLIN ALEXANDER, Eastbourne, E. Sussex.

HOW ridiculous to even consider biennial MoTs. Drivers’ safety is already compromised by the not-so-smart motorways without having unroadworthy cars causing more chaos. With an increase in accidents due to unsafe cars, insurance costs will rocket for all. It would be better to reduce road and fuel duty tax.

BARBARA DIXON, Pontypool, Mons. MOTORING organisations have proved the MoT is a lottery by taking the same car to several garages to be tested, with varying results. There should be government testing stations. A. GREENHALGH, Newport, Gwent.