No its actually the opposite. The have no financial gain and they are grateful for the work due to the numbers of cuts the councils are making.
They have increased their workload by about 40% since people got wind of it.
No its actually the opposite. The have no financial gain and they are grateful for the work due to the numbers of cuts the councils are making.
They have increased their workload by about 40% since people got wind of it.
G
geraint
I
imamartian
What a good idea.... thanks again.
L
LooPrEvil
Who cares if they find more? I would rather know my vehicle was safe.
J
joinerjohn
The whole (pointless) point of the MOT is ,, that the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of the test. This doesn't mean it's roadworthy 1/2 mile down the road ,, does it???
I know someone who was pulled by traffic police , less than a mile from the testing station (after just passing the MOT). He was fined for a brake light not working, that had been working 5 or 6 minutes earlier.
My point being that the MOT in this scenario is absolutely worthless. Not worth the paper it's printed on, far less the actual cost .
I know someone who was pulled by traffic police , less than a mile from the testing station (after just passing the MOT). He was fined for a brake light not working, that had been working 5 or 6 minutes earlier.
My point being that the MOT in this scenario is absolutely worthless. Not worth the paper it's printed on, far less the actual cost .
L
LooPrEvil
But for many motorists, the only time the safety of the vehicle is checked is at the MOT. Without the MOT many more vehicles would soon become death traps.
I would rather my car be subject to a very stringent MOT that picked up anything that may be amiss and get it repaired professionally than think I may be driving my grand children round in a potential death trap!
There are enough vehicles out there that look as though they have not passed an MOT in years, why aren't MOT's on a data-base the same as licences, insurance details and road fund licences, (tax discs)? You can't tax your vehicle without a current MOT but who is to say it is not a fake one?
Oh, Immi, your hazard lights are the same units as your indicators. If your hazards don't work your indicators won't either and so it will fail the test. If it doesn't fail then the garage should be reported immediately, by not reporting it you are condoning their actions which could result in the death of an innocent person. Can you live with that on your consience?
There are enough vehicles out there that look as though they have not passed an MOT in years, why aren't MOT's on a data-base the same as licences, insurance details and road fund licences, (tax discs)? You can't tax your vehicle without a current MOT but who is to say it is not a fake one?
Oh, Immi, your hazard lights are the same units as your indicators. If your hazards don't work your indicators won't either and so it will fail the test. If it doesn't fail then the garage should be reported immediately, by not reporting it you are condoning their actions which could result in the death of an innocent person. Can you live with that on your consience?
They are.
P
Paul_C
And you can even check the status on the database yourself, so long as you have either the reference number on the registration certificate or an MoT certificate number to go with the vehicle registration number:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_10020539
R
RedHerring2
Interestingly, in France the 'MOT' (CT) is only every two years, yet you don't seem to see any worse vehicles in France than in the UK. Moreover there is not the same problem of illegal drivers here that appears to be in the UK.
From memory, about twenty years or so ago, in Australia the 'MOT' was only necessary when the car was sold or 'changed keepers'. I don't know if that is still the same these days, but again there did not appear to be the same problem that the UK seems to suffer from, ie, illegal cars.
Maybe too much legislation is self-defeating?
I remember someone stating the difference between UK & French legislation:
The Uk legislates for what is allowed, whereas the French legislate for what is not allowed. Although the amount of paperwork required in France seems to exceed that required in the UK.
From memory, about twenty years or so ago, in Australia the 'MOT' was only necessary when the car was sold or 'changed keepers'. I don't know if that is still the same these days, but again there did not appear to be the same problem that the UK seems to suffer from, ie, illegal cars.
Maybe too much legislation is self-defeating?
I remember someone stating the difference between UK & French legislation:
The Uk legislates for what is allowed, whereas the French legislate for what is not allowed. Although the amount of paperwork required in France seems to exceed that required in the UK.
P
Paul_C
There are various ideas floating around here at the moment about whether the test should be changed to every 2 years, extending the age at which the first test is required to 4 years, or variations thereof such as testing at 4 years initially, then every 2 years up to a certain age, then every year. It's being argued partly under the usual umbrella of "Eureopan harmonization," which of course is something of a joke when no two countries actually do it the same way to begin with.
The Irish Republic only introduced vehicle inspections about a decade ago, and I believe currently operates something along the lines of inspection at 4 years, then every 2 years until the car is 10 years old, then every year. Again, it seems that the Irish NCT (National Car Test) was introduced only in order to comply with an EU directive mandating such tests, but Ireland took advantage of the part which allows "classic" cars over a certain age to be exempt, and doesn't require an inspection for any vehicle registered as such (over 30 years old).
I always thought that was the other way around. English Law has always followed the principle that anything which is not specifically prohibited is, by default, allowed. It does seem that many in authority these days try to apply a principle of making up their own rules as they go along and adopting the approach of "It's permissible if and only if we say it is," but ultimately it's still a basic underlying principle that it's legal to do anything which is not specifically made illegal by legislation.
