Would my car fail its MOT?

blue_haddock

Wig wrote: »

For the sill, prod around it make sure there is no more rust holes, then use two bits of wire gauze, put one inside the hole and one outside the hole tie them together with a bit wire and snip off the wire. then fill using body filler, and smooth and paint.

why not just stuff it with papier mache and then paint over it?

A repair the way you suggest is not a repair but an unsafe bodge.

Wig

blue_haddock wrote: »

why not just stuff it with papier mache and then paint over it?

A repair the way you suggest is not a repair but an unsafe bodge.

If it is not within 30 cms of those bits I mentioned in a previous post, then it is not in any way unsafe, and will not fail an MOT AFAIK, and I really don't think the OP cares about such trivial matters, all they wanted was for the car to pass the MOT for another year.

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

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.

Presumably it is allowed because their is probably in some other ACT or regulations, that drivers of vehicles with no lights must use hand signals at all appropriate times, eg when turning or slowing down.

We have got so used to having vehicles which do everything for us that we have forgotton about hand signals. If you were driving along and the driver infront started waving his hands out the window you would see it and you should know waht it means, and the driver should know what signals to give.

The only problem would arise in the event of a sudden slowing or emergency stop. But even then if you are behind someone you should have the correct stopping distance between you and the car infront and you should be able to see in broad daylight if the vehicle infront is suddenly decelerating, it would become rapidly obvious.

So in conclusion as long as everyone is doing what they ought to be doing, there should be no problems.

molerat

Vehicle lighting regs and MOT test regs are 2 entirely independant unrelated things. My car would fail a vehicle inspection by a vehicle inspector who knows his stuff but has just passed an MOT (and not by the tester missing something, it legally passed the test) and I doubt the average traffic plod would notice anything wrong either. My car has passed an MOT and technically was illegal to use on the road at the time of the test.

Wig, you forgot to add this bit to your correct post (#39) about not requiring lamps

(4) Without prejudice to regulation 16, for the purposes of these Regulations a lamp shall not be treated as being a lamp if it is-

(a) so painted over or masked that it is not capable of being immediately used or readily put to use; or

(b) an electric lamp which is not provided with any system of wiring by means of which that lamp is, or can readily be, connected with a source of electricity.

cyclonebri1

Quote;
"(4) Without prejudice to regulation 16, for the purposes of these Regulations a lamp shall not be treated as being a lamp if it is-

(a) so painted over or masked that it is not capable of being immediately used or readily put to use; or

(b) an electric lamp which is not provided with any system of wiring by means of which that lamp is, or can readily be, connected with a source of electricity."

Which is why the bike lads get away with the daylight only ticket and remove the lights completely.

Mr Wig, back in the real world people do not keep their distance no matter what you or I may do or even think. This law/rule is an !!!, how many seconds in an emergency do you think it will take to find the electric window button, hit it, wait for the window to open, take one hand off the steering wheel, wave to the tailgaiter behind, wait for his reaction.....? well, you get my drift, and all this before you brake? I think not, not at todays speeds and traffic density. There is something clearly wrong with this anomally IMHO:eek: :cool:

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

how many seconds in an emergency do you think it will take to find the electric window button, hit it, wait for the window to open, take one hand off the steering wheel, wave to the tailgaiter behind, wait for his reaction.....? well, you get my drift, and all this before you brake? I think not, not at todays speeds and traffic density. There is something clearly wrong with this anomally IMHO:eek: :cool:

If the driver is not driving with his window down anyway....

Assuming there is an emergency, his priority would be the braking. It would be the fault of the person behind if there was a collision, because it is the driver behinds responsibility to drive at a safe distance.

As I say, as long as everyone is obeying all the laws, there should be no problem, and that must be why the rule is allowed to remain.

Wig

molerat wrote: »

My car has passed an MOT and technically was illegal to use on the road at the time of the test.

Did it lack a British Standard mark or other EN mark somewhere?

you forgot to add this bit to your correct post (#39) about not requiring lamps

Didn't forget, just tried to keep things simple. Thank you for posting it.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

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.

And if you bothered to look at Table 1, you'd see that there are no vehicles exempt from having a front or rear position lamp, dumbass.

Try reading it all instead of the bits that you think tell you what you want.

Conor_3

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

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.

Because it isn't. Table 1 lists the exemptions.

NO VEHICLE WITH 3 OR MORE WHEELS is exempt from having front and rear marker lights.
NO VEHICLE capable of exceeding 25MPH is exempt from having brake lights.

So wig and his idiot mates should !!!!!! until they've read the whole RVLR from start to finish and not just the bits they THINK supports their argument.

a11waysindebt

northern_munky wrote: »

And if your tyres are worn, take em off and drive round on the rims, if they aren't there they can't test em. Stone chips on windscreen? No problemo, take the screen out, just don't use the washers though.

:rotfl: :rotfl: