| Author | Message | ||
     Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.73 |
In the UK. We have a construction and road use act. To police this set of laws we use mot spot checks friendly advise and assistance. If ignored then we prosecute. We is the state and the people of the UK and the queen. The only payment for this is the mot fee. If the mot test is abandoned then the other ways will have to pick up the slack which costs more. The tax payer pays. So no savings for the individual person. The USA is much the same as the UK except no mot. Most people are sensible and modern cars Will tolerate no servicing. When brakes feel maybe not as good they go to Nifty brake shop who talk them into a oil change. This works fine. But 5 years later the car drives like a ten year banger. The more savy owner takes more care. However they run the risk of a spot check which shows something that they missed and they get a ticket The mot means that once a year the car conforms to the act. My sister does 5k a year and has a mot and service once a year on special offer free mot and never gets problems. No mot doesn't save money for the average Joe. Great for me though. Save £ 55 . If the system is run badly like India who have cars with handbrake only working, then lots accidents happen If in the UK a for sale car with a NEW mot will meet the minimum standard. Any dodgy mot are serious criminal offences prison or fines. With mot exempt vehicles like tractors the act is replaced by the Health and safety act 1974 which uses the road use act as a reference If the tractor is on the public highway then road use act is applied If a race car driver were to interfer with his brakes and make the car dangerous then health and safety. If the brake fail due to overheating say, then that racing as they say. Private car park open to public access is considered as part of the public highway for the purposes of the road act. In practice we expect a farm tractor to have a seat brakes and proper steering wheel not mole grips There seems to be an idea that in the USA that these laws are either not there or to be ignored. The names of the laws are different and maybe not enforced ---------until.someone is killed then watch judge Judy for a taster of the legal machine in action Tombstone safety. The whole purpose of the act is not to annoy people. It is the first duty of any government to keep people safe. I have done my bit but I didn't get any medals just tea and cake and wages and met very nice caring people. Plus many garages make a decent living from mots. No mots no Dorset holiday and the council has no money to fix my road because the camp site went bust because the mot guy stayed home and road mender can't afford a new washing machine so the washing machine shop goes bust and my mate who sells washing machines can't afford to pay me to fix his water pump and the leg bone is connected to the. BIG PICTURE. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Benoit Leus Prolific User Username: benoitleus Post Number: 166 Registered: 6-2009 |
I agree with you Bob. Any car, regardless of its age, should be checked annually. In Belgium, cars over 25 years old, don't have to undergo the annual technical inspection. This can lead to potentially dangereous cars on the road which could cause a major accident. However, in Belgium the situation that has been created by the governement does not encourage people to voluntarily have their car checked over. Our technical inspection is quite different from the British MOT. No matter how old your car is, it will have to comply to the same standards as a modern car. Also, any modification is strictly forbidden : this means that, eg. a 1965 Mini 850 which hase been retro-fitted with (better) Cooper S brakes, is not allowed on the road. A Shadow fitted with a Harvey Bailey handling kit would be illegal. A friend of mine had a 30's Horch fail, because it had been equipped with stainless steel brake hoses, which were "not the original equipment". I have to admit I don't go to the technical inspection either, because my car would fail the emissions test and thus not be declared roadworthy. And altough I am very strict about the mechanical condition of my car I would feel better to have an independent expert check it over once in a while. The BFOV (our FBHVC) has been lobbying for a new 2-3 yearly test, especially developped for classic vehicles. Let's hope this will come sooner rather than later. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.78 |
In the UK we (the vehicle inspectorate) make allowances for the date of manufacture and now allow 1960 and older are exempt and we now rely on spot checks and trust. We also have more power than the police we can act without warrants only a high court judge can stop us. We could for instance ban a person from using any pre 1960 car if the person is a habitual drive dangerous cars numpty. 1 am in the morning raiding a truck depot with 30 coppers is common place if we get sniff. People would phone up with concerns mainly about big vehicles and out go the troops. I would hide and when nice safe appear with my spanners and camera. Then customs and excise turn up for fuel checks and then vat income tax. Numpty is UK law enforcement technical term. The race example would be better explained by Ayton Sienna and the steering shaft. A good example of general misunderstanding the law is beware of dog signs. It announces that the dog is dangerous and the owner knows that. So when it bites a visit going about their lawful occasion the owner has no defence. I think that no mot does a disservice to the puyt? I'mblic. Old cars do need a test that is do able. A Austin 7 Will pass a emissions test of visible smoke and does it smell rich. The owners know the brakes are marginal because other wise the cars would all be smashed up therefore the car is safe. I know about the brakes so I would check front balance and visual the rest. I advise any exempt car owner to get a mock mot after rebuild. Insurers may insist anyway. We (again the vehicle police) view modifications providing the mod does not cause problems and is not a badly engineered lash up and is logical then after we have tried to bend it or lever it off the car then we are happy. We know that settings are a compromise so we understand a thicker roll bar We are very easy and nice until someone takes the Mick and then we nail their feet to floor (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Mark Aldridge Prolific User Username: mark_aldridge Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2008 |
Although pre 1960 cars are exempt MOT in the UK, the owner can opt to MOT them and if this option is taken and the vehicle fails ,then a retest is I understand mandatory.Personally I have all of my cars MOT tested ; as an amateur I do all of my own maintenance(restoration and race preparation also for the last 40 years) and appreciate a professional opinion once a year.Since the MOT became non obligatory for pre 1960 cars we have noticed the odd dubious car at shows. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.91 |
I retired from the mob before the 1960 exemption. So Mark that is a good idea. The lads at work always come up with something that's works rather what a elected minister idea. I noticed that when moting old cars not only did the owner want the car to pass but also the tester to confirm that the car is the best one tested today, a mere pass is not good enough I listen to epic tales of seized nuts and I tell them how nice the car is then they are happy. (Message approved by david_gore) |
