Would my car fail its MOT?

jeannieblue

anewman wrote: »

I have seen many cars with rear fogs obviously added, so it should be possible for those cars to pass the MOT with a little work

Oh they do - once we've fitted them! Keep them in stock as we get so many

gazza975526570

masterkay wrote: »

Why do you need a car if you only drive two miles a day? Could you maybe walk, cycle, skatboard, jog? If you don't feel energetic why not take a taxi? I think if you worked it out it would be cheaper to taxi than to run a car.

I see i opened a whole can of with this one!!!

To be fair its probably more like 3-3.5 miles per day hence too far to walk each day. I live in a little village with no buses and getting taxis is an absolute nightmare - hence the need for the car.

Thanks everyone for your help tho - ill run it through to a guy i know who does bodywork and see what he says.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

You will find that you are wrong on this....

I think you'll find I'm not.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_6.htm#nschiobligatorylampreflectorrearmarkingdevice

[SIZE=+2]Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 1796[/SIZE]
The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

Table 1 lists the statutory requirements and the exceptions. You'll find you're wrong as the vehicle isn't exempt. No car is exempt from having front or rear position lamps. Non of them.

Difference between you and me is that you seem to think the MOT manual is the law and that if it states that if a car isn't fitted with lamps that they're not testable and therefore it'd pass and to mean that the car is legal to use. Problem is RVLR 1989 makes those lights compulsory and therefore if they're not there, it'll fail an MOT and also be illegal to use on the road.

Conor_3

dad-of-4 wrote: »

its not wrong atall, the ability to have no lights on vehicles is because hand signals are still a legal and acceptable way of giving signals.

It is wrong because it's not exempt under Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_6.htm#nschiobligatorylampreflectorrearmarkingdevice

Conor_3

jeannieblue wrote: »

We get alot of import vehicles in for MOT's and most of them come over without rear fog lights..... and therefore, fail the MOT.

Not sure where that leaves this no lights required discussion - just thought I'd add my halfpence

They fail because the RVLR 1989 requires that vehicle to have rear fog lights. A point that Wig seems to have missed.

masterkay

gazza975526570 wrote: »

I see i opened a whole can of with this one!!!

To be fair its probably more like 3-3.5 miles per day hence too far to walk each day. I live in a little village with no buses and getting taxis is an absolute nightmare - hence the need for the car.

Thanks everyone for your help tho - ill run it through to a guy i know who does bodywork and see what he says.

3.5 is not that far at all. Roughly speaking you're supposed to walk 10,000 steps a day for a healthy lifestyle and that's about 5 miles.

gazza975526570

masterkay wrote: »

3.5 is not that far at all. Roughly speaking you're supposed to walk 10,000 steps a day for a healthy lifestyle and that's about 5 miles.

Yeah maybe - but not to get to the train station for 6am!!!:cool:

Wig

Conor wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_6.htm#nschiobligatorylampreflectorrearmarkingdevice

[SIZE=+2]Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 1796[/SIZE]
The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

<snipped rubbish>

Difference between you and me is that you seem to think the MOT manual is the law and that if it states that if a car isn't fitted with lamps that they're not testable and therefore it'd pass and to mean that the car is legal to use. Problem is RVLR 1989 makes those lights compulsory and therefore if they're not there, it'll fail an MOT and also be illegal to use on the road.

Hi Conor, Derrick, Northern Monkey, and anyone else who thinks what I said was wrong.

I think you should look again at your
Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989
and I suggest you start at the beginning, it's usually the best place to start any journey, even journeys of enquiry.

Please take a good look at regulation No. 4 "General Exemptions" paragraph (3) subparagraph (a)

(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall require *any* lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to-
(a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp,

Such a car without lamps whatever the age of the car/bike will pass an MOT and will be legal for road use in clear visibility daylight hours.

The difference between you and me is I happen to think that if there is something written in the MOT manual then it must be true for obtaining an MOT and that it probably relates in some way to legal road use*. Finding the relevant laws/regs is not always easy in order to prove it, but as you have handed it to me on a plate I can only say thank you for making it so easy.

* My advice to the OP was purely advice to get through the MOT, I didn't really care about whether or not it would be road legal, as I imagine was also the case for the OP. A faulty reverse light is not the end of the world.

I never say never, so although I happen to think that if something is said in the MOT manual it must be true also of legal road use, I will not rule out the possibility that there might be some weird contradictions (to road legal use) within the MOT manual.

Wig

Conor wrote: »

They fail because the RVLR 1989 requires that vehicle to have rear fog lights. A point that Wig seems to have missed.

Not if they have no front or rear position lamps fitted, and/or not if the vehicle was first used before 1st April 1980

cyclonebri1

Wig wrote: »

Not if they have no front or rear position lamps fitted, and/or not if the vehicle was first used before 1st April 1980

Wig, you're right on this. I had it proven to me just as you have shown. But why oh why is it allowed? There can't be a much more fundamental safety aid than brake lights exept brakes themselves. To allow the use of any vehicle that cannot contend with a heavy summer thunderstorm, or November fog, both which happen suddenly, just has to be wrong even if legal.
The law truly is an !!! at certain times.