Query re MOT Expiry Date and Early Fail

Car_54

Geoff1963 wrote: »

I think the MOT refusal certificate has a space for "In my opinion, this vehicle is dangerous to drive because . . ." so the owner has no excuse. I've also heard ( anecdotally ) of a garage cutting some rusty brake pipes, so that the owner couldn't drive it away.

Of course he could drive it away. Stopping is another matter.

Rover_Driver

Geoff1963 wrote: »

The only reasoning that makes sense to me, is that the MOT tries to forecast how the vehicle will be in 12 months ( excluding normal wear and tear, and fluid consumption ) .

The MOT requirement is an annual test of the state of the vehicle only on the day of the test, nothing to do with what happens to the vehicle or how it will be in the following 12 months.

chrisw

Geoff1963 wrote: »

I understand the rules, about what is legal and not. What I'm trying to do, is make sense of them ; to understand the higher purpose, that the rules are intended to achieve.

This is where you are going wrong - you are over thinking it.

It is a procedural thing, some people e.g. Car A, may get round the procedure and others eg Car B, may not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. At some point the positions may be reversed.

There is no forethought or anticipation (other than the advisories), it is simply a statement of the condition on the day.

Retrogamer

Geoff1963 wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test
Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You can take your vehicle away if your MOT certificate is still valid.
If your MOT has run out you can take your vehicle to:
have the failed defects fixed
a pre-arranged MOT test appointment
In both cases, your vehicle still needs to meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times or you can be fined.

Stating that a car which has not met the MOT standard, might nevertheless meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness ; must mean the MOT standard is higher.

As cars degrade and are repaired, their performance follows a sawtooth profile \l\l\l\l. I expect that the standard and frequency of MOT testing has been chosen such that vehicles are generally still above the threshold when presented for a test 12 months later, rather than only just meeting it after repairs are done.

Tyres can easily be checked by someone with little competence, and are renewed as necessary, We would not say that a vehicle must have several thousand litres of fuel in its tank at the MOT, in the hope that it won't run out of fuel in 12 months. Ditto the washer fluid.

I'm trying to rationalise why a person is allowed to drive as normal, a vehicle which has failed its MOT, if it passed the test less than 12 months before ; but another person, in an identical car, without such a previous pass, would not. If you tell me the government is irrational, and I'm foolish for trying to find logic it it ; then I plead guilty.

There are certain things that could cause your car to fail an MOT, but not be an issue with making it unroadworthy and there are certain things that would make your car illegal to use on the road, but it could still pass an MOT.

Geoff1963

If I were an electricity supply company, wanting to keep my wires off the ground, I would install pylons of a sufficient height and spacing, to allow for the sag in between. I can only be sure of the height of the wires, at the pylons ; but if certain assumptions are true, they will always be high enough off the ground.

I expect that the Minister of Transport applied similar logic, when he thought up the MOT in 1960.

Rover_Driver

Geoff1963 wrote: »

If I were an electricity supply company, wanting to keep my wires off the ground, I would install pylons of a sufficient height and spacing, to allow for the sag in between. I can only be sure of the height of the wires, at the pylons ; but if certain assumptions are true, they will always be high enough off the ground.

The difference between that theory and the MOT test is that there may be an allowance and consideration that the cables will be high enough off the ground in the future.
The MOT test is the condition of the vehicle only at the time of the test, there is no allowance or consideration in that test for what may happen to it in the future, although there may be an advisory note about matters that may need attention in the future, but they do not affect the actual test.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote:

It fails on - say - a rear seatbelt. You have no rear passenger. It's legal to drive.
It fails on - say - a headlight bulb. It's daylight. It's legal to drive.

On a slightly pedantic point, both of those faults would actually make the car illegal to drive, though your chances of actually getting into trouble for them would be very low.

Another reason why a car which has failed an MOT is not automatically illegal to drive is because MOT testers are not infallible (apparently there are even some dodgy ones who fail cars on dubious points to drum up business for repairs) and the offence of driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition is determined by whether your car actually is in a dangerous condition - not whether a bloke in a garage told you it was in a dangerous condition two weeks ago. If your car fails its MOT and the tester tells you that it has four bald tyres, brake pads worn down to the rivets and a steering column which is about to snap then if you think he's taking rubbish you can drive it away perfectly legally - so long as you're right of course.

Geoff1963

I was once stopped by the police for having a failed headlamp ; but they only noticed that filament was out, because I was kind enough to dip the beam as I drove past them.

A friend tells me of an MOT test station which charged : £35 if you brought the car in, or £100 if you didn't.