MOT out of date

Flyboy152

mikey72 wrote: »

Well, it was all fine at the mot this week, so probably better than most that may have been checked last August.
You had your brakes inspected this week, if not maybe the same question applies?

But then there is the scale of increasing risks. If you assume that the risk of brake failure is fifty per cent at six months, then it is a hundred per cent at twelve months. If it were to presumed the risk at one month is two and a half per cent, the risk at twelve months is thirty per cent; which end of the risk scale wold you prefer to be?

keystone

Eliza wrote: »

Goodness, I've lived this long with so much innocence. I had no idea these ANPR cameras recorded every number plate and checked them for wrongdoings against a central database.

They don't because thats not the way they work but thats not really relevant. ANPR is used for all sorts of different applications. Traffic monitoring systems like Trafficmaster don't actually record the data and are only connected to their own database. SPECS is only interested in speeding offences. London Congestion Charging System is only interested if peeps have paid the charge (from a TFL perspective) but you can bet the Met have access to the video and will use it quite differently.

Do they really check every one or maybe one in ten or something?

Every single one that passes through the FOV of the camera. But no systems is 100%.

Cheers

Eliza_2

keystone wrote: »

They don't because thats not the way they work but thats not really relevant. ANPR is used for all sorts of different applications. Traffic monitoring systems like Trafficmaster don't actually record the data and are only connected to their own database. SPECS is only interested in speeding offences. London Congestion Charging System is only interested if peeps have paid the charge (from a TFL perspective) but you can bet the Met have access to the video and will use it quite differently.

Every single one that passes through the FOV of the camera. But no systems is 100%.

Cheers

Goodness me, who'd a thunk it. I shall have to wave next time I see one. However none of those above seem to connect to MOT, so if you're not speeding or in London or in a traffic jam, maybe they're not interested. (Just wondering, I have now arranged a van!)

Haven't been to London in years, nor do I speed, so probably wouldn't be spotted. I shall certainly look at them differently now though. The only things round here with cameras are pesky tourists - I live a sheltered life!

Really going now..thanks again to all for contributing to this thread.

Flyboy152

Eliza wrote: »

Goodness me, who'd a thunk it. I shall have to wave next time I see one. However none of those above seem to connect to MOT, so if you're not speeding or in London or in a traffic jam, maybe they're not interested. (Just wondering, I have now arranged a van!)

Haven't been to London in years, nor do I speed, so probably wouldn't be spotted. I shall certainly look at them differently now though. The only things round here with cameras are pesky tourists - I live a sheltered life!

Really going now..thanks again to all for contributing to this thread.

The ANPR system flags cars without current and valid MOT certificates.

raskazz

Another day, another "no MOT" thread full of nonsense/

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

burtons

JezCooke wrote: »

If it's just a rear seatbelt issue then borrow a child's car seat from a friend/family member, install it in the problem seat and take the car for a new MOT before the weekend (you need a new MOT anyway after all). MOT test centres will skip the rear seatbelt test if a child seat is installed (it will be listed on the advisory notice that the test was skipped). You then would have the car legally MOTed in time for the weekend. Hopefully it goes without saying not to use the seat in question until it the belt is fixed of course!

I took my car for a mot this week and there was a child seat in the back and i was told i would have to remove it or they would have to fail the car as they are not allowed to remove the child seat.

s_b

burtons wrote: »

I took my car for a mot this week and there was a child seat in the back and i was told i would have to remove it or they would have to fail the car as they are not allowed to remove the child seat.

they were wrong

Child seat(s) retained by seat belt(s) must not be removed. A visual examination is required of only those parts of the seat belt(s) which are readily accessible.

mikey72

From the manual

"Child seat(s) retained by seat belt(s) must not be removed. A visual examination is required of only those parts of the seat belt(s) which are readily accessible."

vaio

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But then there is the scale of increasing risks. If you assume that the risk of brake failure is fifty per cent at six months, then it is a hundred per cent at twelve months. If it were to presumed the risk at one month is two and a half per cent, the risk at twelve months is thirty per cent; which end of the risk scale wold you prefer to be?

Interesting bit of maths/statistics there, is your day job with the Treasury or RBS?

scheming_gypsy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But then there is the scale of increasing risks. If you assume that the risk of brake failure is fifty per cent at six months, then it is a hundred per cent at twelve months.

if your brakes deteriorate at a rate of 50% over 6 months then the risk of failure at 12 months would be 25% wouldn't it......