Change in MOT rules?

Quentin

jase1 wrote: »

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

Excuse us if we don't all follow your activity like harry styles fans follow their hero - but there are so many posters no-one can possibly take your words of wisdom in other threads into account before posting anything!

salubrious

jase1 wrote: »

I think that's unfair to be honest -- it's clear from this thread that VOSA did issue an update consistent with what the garage said, and so it's not unreasonable to carry that information forward even though VOSA later clarified what was bad information on their part.

Fair enough, maybe a tad harsh,

It was corrected in December last year though, so your garage have been giving duff info out about this question for all of this year at least

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

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?

Agree that the comparison is tenuous, but the fact stands that driving round with unseen rot (bad enough to fail an MOT) IS an offence. It's also a strict liability offence, so legally it doesn't matter whether or not you could reasonably see it "with normal checks".

In fact, because it's strict liability, you could have an MOT on Monday, where the MOT tester missed it for some reason, have an accident on Tuesday because something (that you didn't know had rotted) collapsed, and be charged and convicted for driving an unroadworthy car - even though it had been inspected the day before and passed.

That's the whole point of strict liability offences. Guilt doesn't hinge on you knowing you're committing them, so you can be genuinely and reasonably (by any normal standard) unaware anything's wrong but STILL be guilty.

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agree that the comparison is tenuous, but the fact stands that driving round with unseen rot (bad enough to fail an MOT) IS an offence. It's also a strict liability offence, so legally it doesn't matter whether or not you could reasonably see it "with normal checks".

In fact, because it's strict liability, you could have an MOT on Monday, where the MOT tester missed it for some reason, have an accident on Tuesday because something (that you didn't know had rotted) collapsed, and be charged and convicted for driving an unroadworthy car - even though it had been inspected the day before and passed.

That's the whole point of strict liability offences. Guilt doesn't hinge on you knowing you're committing them, so you can be genuinely and reasonably (by any normal standard) unaware anything's wrong but STILL be guilty.

sigh,and once again how is it comparable?
Do speed limits suddenly appear?

In fact don't bother replying. The fact you are even arguing the point means its not worthy of my time.

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

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?

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agree that the comparison is tenuous, [...].

custardy wrote: »

sigh,and once again how is it comparable?

Sigh. You obviously don't understand what tenuous means. I was AGREEING with you that it was a bad example!!!

But, since you ask, the rest of my last post went on to show how the situations ARE comparable:

Speeding is a strict liability offence. If you drive over the speed limit then you're guilty, regardless of whether or not you know you are (missed a sign / speedo failed unexpectedly etc) and regardless of your reason for doing it (late for work / being chased by the paparazzi etc).

Those things may affect the penalty (you might even get an absolute discharge if you're lucky) but they won't affect the guilty verdict you're going to get.

Driving a car in an unroadworthy condition is a strict liability offence. If you drive a car in an unroadworthy condition then you're guilty, regardless of whether or not you know you are (hidden fault / new MOT that day etc) and regardless of your reason for doing it (taking a chance / rushing your pregnant husband to hospital in the only available car etc).

Those things may affect the penalty (you might even get an absolute discharge if you're lucky) but they won't affect the guilty verdict you're going to get.

See the comparable points yet?