-
No valid MOT/Insurance/Tax means you are not meant to drive it. I know this wouldn't have stopped the foolish but in the eyes of the the pedant its enough, you know the types the ones that take a YT video of an accident then profess the law and say who is at fault.
Here is what the UK MOT tests,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-inspection-checklist-vt-29
With the USA comment about the need to drive, you need to get out more buddy, there is a whole world out there.
-
No one here would even imagine that rust on a quarter panel would downcheck a car for safety reasons
This psychosis that a single patch of rust or a scratch is "dangerous" is wrong and is only making poor people poorer.
MOT should be failed only by the things dangerous to others, environment (leaking fluids, rollin coal) and a few exceptions for own safety. Anything else noted and recorded in government database just like the mileage is done. So the owners (and their buyers) are informed and inspectors have CYA. -
No one here would even imagine that rust on a quarter panel would downcheck a car for safety reasons
This psychosis that a single patch of rust or a scratch is "dangerous" is wrong and is only making poor people poorer.
MOT should be failed only by the things dangerous to others, environment (leaking fluids, rollin coal) and a few exceptions for own safety. Anything else noted and recorded in government database just like the mileage is done. So the owners (and their buyers) are informed and inspectors have CYA.
I don't know about other countries, but in the UK rust is only an MOT failure if:
a) it's sharp and protruding, likely to injure someone who touches it
b) it's likely to affect brakes or steering, e.g. key suspension components
c) it affects load bearing areas like where the seats, seatbelts or other crash safety components are mounted
A friend of mine brought in a car to be MOT'd which had severe rust on the bonnet and front bumper, likely to injure someone. A proper junker, 20 years old. The mechanic said, that will not pass an MOT, and handed him a roll of duct tape and told him he could make it right in the car park if he chose to do so, and then the test could begin. He drove into the test bay with a bumper covered in duct tape and left with a pass.
It's really not that onerous, and it targets safety, not cosmetics or long term reliability. -
Legally, a valid MOT certificate (electronic these days) is only proof that the car was roadworthy on the day of the test, so if a brake, seatbelt or emissions warning light comes on the next day, it is no longer deemed roadworthy.
If the MOT has expired it is only legal to drive it to a pre-booked appointment at an MOT testing center. -
If the MOT has expired it is only legal to drive it to a pre-booked appointment at an MOT testing center.
Or to have it repaired at a garage (if it is roadworthy enough to do so), provided the appointment has been arranged in advance.
The definition of what is roadworthy and what is an MOT failure varies. For instance, having the wrong font on a numberplate is an MOT failure, but does not make a vehicle not roadworthy. However it does make a driver liable for a £100-1,000 fine if stopped by a police officer. Similarly, running out of wiper fluid can make a car not pass an MOT, but few would agree this makes a car not roadworthy. -
but a car not passing a test doesn’t stop anybody from driving it. Rafel Jeanne was aware the car shouldn’t be driven, yet he made a choice to do so. I see no reason to think his choice would be any different if that “shouldn’t be driven” was delivered in a form of a failed MOT test.
But a car driving round without a valid MOT has a potential to receive attention of the blue lights variety, which can lead to the vehicle being seized. -
BTW, there is no anything like MOT for a non-commersial cars in Russia. It's a responsibility of the owner to decide if the car is road worthy or not. The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
-
The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
Yes, this is the argument used by most of the US as well. What is proven is that corruption and lack of moral responsibility is widespread, not that inspections don't work. -
The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
Yes, this is the argument used by most of the US as well. What is proven is that corruption and lack of moral responsibility is widespread, not that inspections don't work.
so instead of some cars not being road worthy because the check was corrupt, every car will be driven until and past it is not longer road worthy
-
BTW, there is no anything like MOT for a non-commersial cars in Russia. It's a responsibility of the owner to decide if the car is road worthy or not. The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
That is more like a political problem than the inspections being worthless. In the end the biggest potential victim is yourself as the inspections touch many safety related areas. One of our cars didn't pass MOT recently because a bit of one of the springs had a bit broken off. Like 5cm at the end. Not a big deal but a broken spring is a broken spring and needs replacing. -
That is more like a political problem than the inspections being worthless. In the end the biggest potential victim is yourself as the inspections touch many safety related areas. One of our cars didn't pass MOT recently because a bit of one of the springs had a bit broken off. Like 5cm at the end. Not a big deal but a broken spring is a broken spring and needs replacing.
If you're unable to inspect your car by your own eyes, what prevents you from asking a professional to provide a paid service for you? On you own will, not on a government's will.
In some countries, it's illegal for a house owner to put a nail to his own wall by himself. The only option is to hire a qualified certified and registered professionals to do that work. Total victory of the proletarians. I don't think it's the right direction either
-
That is more like a political problem than the inspections being worthless. In the end the biggest potential victim is yourself as the inspections touch many safety related areas. One of our cars didn't pass MOT recently because a bit of one of the springs had a bit broken off. Like 5cm at the end. Not a big deal but a broken spring is a broken spring and needs replacing.
If you're unable to inspect your car by your own eyes, what prevents you from asking a professional to provide a paid service for you? On you own will, not on a government's will.
What prevents you from ignoring it until it gets someone else hurt? -
What prevents you from ignoring it until it gets someone else hurt?
I certainly know what. But you better ask americans about that. Perhaps they can explain better -
What prevents you from ignoring it until it gets someone else hurt?
I certainly know what. But you better ask americans about that. Perhaps they can explain better
Nothing, then. Hence why we use laws to keep track of the responsibilities given to people with their privileges. -
That is essentially what I heard from the co-owner of a U.S. car dealership: that their state eliminated safety inspections because too often it was cheaper to pay off the inspector than to fix the car.The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
Yes, this is the argument used by most of the US as well. What is proven is that corruption and lack of moral responsibility is widespread, not that inspections don't work. -
That is more like a political problem than the inspections being worthless. In the end the biggest potential victim is yourself as the inspections touch many safety related areas. One of our cars didn't pass MOT recently because a bit of one of the springs had a bit broken off. Like 5cm at the end. Not a big deal but a broken spring is a broken spring and needs replacing.
If you're unable to inspect your car by your own eyes, what prevents you from asking a professional to provide a paid service for you? On you own will, not on a government's will.
In some countries, it's illegal for a house owner to put a nail to his own wall by himself. The only option is to hire a qualified certified and registered professionals to do that work. Total victory of the proletarians. I don't think it's the right direction either
Plenty of people know nothing more about cars than how to start them, press the pedals and steer. They are the ones who the MOT targets best. The rest, well, the law is universal, and it ensures a common standard. I think it's a good idea. And I've had to pay hundreds of pounds to fix a car up to get it through an MOT. Just part of the responsibility of owning a car. -
The problem is that people need to be forced to spend money on keeping their car safe to operate. Annual inspections have reduced the number of dangerous cars on the roads significantly in the Netherlands. I'm not saying the system is perfect but it helps a lot. Personally I'd like to see even more points to be checked like the age / function of shock absorbers and a ban on tyres which perform very poor.That is more like a political problem than the inspections being worthless. In the end the biggest potential victim is yourself as the inspections touch many safety related areas. One of our cars didn't pass MOT recently because a bit of one of the springs had a bit broken off. Like 5cm at the end. Not a big deal but a broken spring is a broken spring and needs replacing.
If you're unable to inspect your car by your own eyes, what prevents you from asking a professional to provide a paid service for you? On you own will, not on a government's will. -
BTW, there is no anything like MOT for a non-commersial cars in Russia. It's a responsibility of the owner to decide if the car is road worthy or not. The mandatory checks were dropped a long time ago, on the ground that it just provides a large surface for corruption while any good effect on the road safety is doubtful. And that was proven right. I don' think they will re-introduce the requirement any time soon, to don't infuriate the public further.
If corruption is widespread, such mechanism may not work. In the same spirit the law doesn’t work if law enforcement and courts are plagued with rampant corruption. Equally, healthcare is inefficient with corruption. Does it mean that the law, medical service, or tests are worthless in general? No, it means Russian Federation has a problem with corruption. That doesn’t apply to all places.
Corruption is not reduced by removing affected parts. Neither it should be reduced without healing the entire state at the same time.If you're unable to inspect your car by your own eyes, what prevents you from asking a professional to provide a paid service for you? On you own will, not on a government's will.
One can’t inspect a car with own eyes. Even if they could, it would rarely be objective. So from start one already has to hire a car mechanic, and one with a suitable equipment to perform the tests. Well maintained tools, so the test itself isn’t fake, and without an incentive to find fake failures. That last part occassionally happens even in state-licensed testing stations in Poland.
Why it’s not on car owner’s own will? Because they don’t do it. As simple as that. Mandatory testing if a car is roadworthy didn’t came up because somebody was bored. It got introduced because owners notoriously not checking their cars is the norm. Unless forced to do so either by the government or, worse, insurance companies or corrupted road police officers.
The other part to this equation is that it’s a systematic problem. Systematic problems can’t be tackled by individuals, by definition.In some countries, it's illegal for a house owner to put a nail to his own wall by himself. The only option is to hire a qualified certified and registered professionals to do that work. Total victory of the proletarians. I don't think it's the right direction either
In which countries exactly government forbids putting a nail in owner’s own wall?
-
Reading various non-AI sources, the average failure rate of new cars at their first MOT (3 years after first registration, annual thereafter) is around 15%. These are mainly down to excessive (under-inflation) or uneven tyre wear and damage, blown bulbs, and suspension damage - potholes, kerbing etc (explaining the uneven tyre wear). I think the figure has come down from what I remember, probably due to most lights now being LED.
This implies that a significant proportion of new car owners never bother to perform even a minimal 'inspection with their own eyes'. Without the MOT testing requirement, the figure would increase exponentially as the car ages.
It sounds as if the Russian Federation, and the US from the sound of it, really need to get their corruption under control. From my own experience local garages and main dealers tend to be scrupulously honest. I'm sure there must be a few dodgy ones (as the subject of this thread) but the way the system works, it is the individual testers who are licensed to perform the MOT, not the garage. Any funny business and they face prosecution, losing their testing license for good and being fired, all at the same time. -
Reading various non-AI sources, the average failure rate of new cars at their first MOT (3 years after first registration, annual thereafter) is around 15%. These are mainly down to excessive (under-inflation) or uneven tyre wear and damage, blown bulbs, and suspension damage - potholes, kerbing etc (explaining the uneven tyre wear). I think the figure has come down from what I remember, probably due to most lights now being LED.
here is it first time after 4 years and then every other year, with some Teslas something like 45% failed their first MOT on worn out suspension or steering
-
Meanwhile in germany a 3 year old cars can't pass MOT due to emission tests (3,4% of total MOTs). Manufacturers are of course denying warranty because "law doesn't require them to sell cars that will pass emission tests".
-
There is No safety/emissions tests for cars, SUVs and light trucks here in Ontario, Canada. I guess we are corrupt, too.
-
Meanwhile in germany a 3 year old cars can't pass MOT due to emission tests (3,4% of total MOTs). Manufacturers are of course denying warranty because "law doesn't require them to sell cars that will pass emission tests".
That seems odd to me. Manufacturers are required by the regulators to guarantee that a vehicle will remain compliant with the relevant standards for a particular period of time, or a particular mileage.
Euro 6 (Europe) - 100,000km or 5 years
CARB (California) - 150,000 miles
Tier 3 (USA) - 150,000 miles or 15 years
Since emissions are determined by measuring them, it seems silly to say that their cars don't have to pass emissions tests.