Change in MOT rules?

bod1467

Bad example ... one would (or should) have been aware of speeding, as the speedometer is right in front of you. So being aware or otherwise of a speed camera is irrelevant.

A slightly better example would be driving around on worn or defective tyres - whilst they're not in front of you whilst driving you should have checked they were OK before starting to drive. But even this example doesn't correlate with "unseen rot" as you would have had a reasonable opportunity to make the inspection.

A similar example to "unseen rot" could be worn suspension bushes - not something the someone would regularly check, and not something you could use as an excuse to a cop ("I couldn't be expected to know" ... erm, yes you could). If you were pulled over for a vehicle check then you could get a fine for worn bushes. (I know - this exact thing happened to my wife. Having a "defective" vehicle is an absolute offence, there is no mitigation unless the cop is feeling generous).

jase1

bod1467 wrote: »

A similar example to "unseen rot" could be worn suspension bushes - not something the someone would regularly check, and not something you could use as an excuse to a cop ("I couldn't be expected to know" ... erm, yes you could). If you were pulled over for a vehicle check then you could get a fine for worn bushes. (I know - this exact thing happened to my wife. Having a "defective" vehicle is an absolute offence, there is no mitigation unless the cop is feeling generous).

I would think though that if the suspension bushes were bad enough to be noted by a roadside check, they'd be noticed by the driver before that.

Whereas a small hole buried deep in the chassis somewhere wouldn't be noticed by the driver nor would it be by a police officer (as they wouldn't be subjecting the car to an MOT-level check).

Some welding work can be quite minor in terms of structural integrity but terminal because of the cost of repairing it. If we are going to be this picky when describing roadworthiness then we might as well say that a car with any signs of corrosion should be taken off the road as one cannot be sure there isn't something lurking underneath at any point in time.

bod1467

jase1 wrote: »

I would think though that if the suspension bushes were bad enough to be noted by a roadside check, they'd be noticed by the driver before that.

Not necessarily ... the vehicle can appear to operate quite fine even with worn bushes. Perhaps the suspension may seem a little "noisier" going over bumps ... but even this doesn't mean there's a problem. My car makes a noise (that I think is noticeable and fairly new) but it's been in for a check and the suspension etc. is fine.

marlot

bod1467 wrote: »

A similar example to "unseen rot" could be worn suspension bushes...

A few years ago, I was pulled over by a policeman who advised me that I had something amiss on my car. I hadn't been aware of an issue, but he could see something was wrong. I must have passed the 'attitude test' as it was just given as friendly advice.

Sure enough, it was a couple of worn bushes. I'm sure they would have been picked up at the next MOT or service, but I was happy to have them done earlier.

almillar

Of course, and I'm a little offended that you feel the need to point this out to a member of 11 years' standing to be honest.

Don't be - you're not the only one reading this thread and the advice isn't necessarily only for you.

bod1467

jase1 wrote: »

a member of 11 years' standing

What has forum membership duration got to do with knowledge of vehicles and maintenance?

jase1

bod1467 wrote: »

What has forum membership duration got to do with knowledge of vehicles and maintenance?

Just the fact that I'd have thought people would have taken my other posts regarding maintaining cars into account.

Mercdriver

jase1 wrote: »

Just the fact that I'd have thought people would have taken my other posts regarding maintaining cars into account.

One of the largest difficulties in English grammar is the difference between first and third person singular...

Retrogamer

Driving a car with defects that make it unroadworthy constitutes and offense whether the car has a valid MOT certificate or not.

Failing an MOT test doesn't render the previous MOT certificate invalid if it is still in date.

custardy

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Try giving that excuse to a cop.

One may have been unaware of a speed camera whilst speeding.

Sorry, won't wash.

How is that even comparable?
If we break it down.
You are required to have passed a test.
Be aware of speedlimits
Have a working speedo etc.
How is that comparable with having corrosion on parts of the car not visible through normal checks?