MG-Rover.org Forums banner

41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
mg_tf
Joined
·
234 Posts
I am not understanding what the MOT test has to do with democracy. It is a mandatory test and not open to a vote about which parts (if any) an individual should adhere to.
Ed3. Could you please explain what your "specific" objection to the changes are so that we could better understand them?
Using the argument that DVLA (who have nothing to do with it anyway) made a mistake so everything that that DVLA do is wrong is irrational but let us not let facts and logic stand in the way of an interesting thread.
 

·
Registered
mgf
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
i did find the list for mot testers but this gives an idea
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/3506420/the-mot-loophole-that-can-get-you-a-2500-fine-and-three-demerit-points-even-if-most-recent-test-is-valid/
and if you honestly think this mot is just for badly maintained cars then you are mistaken just read the bit about diesels evan a mot tester has said in winter how before the car goes onto the ramps are you to say exhaust smoke or steam as far as the new rules go it fails
i am lucky just got 12mths mot on a diesel i can wait for 6 mths as the new mot unravels then decide where to go from there

added
this is from the gov site (diesel )
Your vehicle will get a major fault if the MOT tester:

  • can see smoke of any colour coming from the exhaust
  • finds evidence that the DPF has been tampered with
 

·
Registered
mgf
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Well if it's in The Sun it must be right.


like it, but it reads the same in all papers and chats on forums evan what mot testers have said .
i will just sit back and watch and many that think this is for safety when it hits them will just smile , its a good subject to talk about but it seems as normal the chat goes off the rails but good fun to read
 

·
Registered
'06 MG ZR +120 (HQM) '04 MG ZR 105 (IAB)
Joined
·
9,190 Posts
The assumption is that a dangerous fail in some major mechanical or structural fault but a defective brake light has been classed as dangerous which although serious, is to be seen in normal driving daily and would only normally get a fix notice from the police, if you ever see any.
A defective/inoperative light has NOT been classified as a 'Dangerous' fail; it is specified as a 'Major - repair immediately'. A failed statutory lamp has always been an automatic MOT test fail.

.......if you honestly think this mot is just for badly maintained cars then you are mistaken just read the bit about diesels evan a mot tester has said in winter how before the car goes onto the ramps are you to say exhaust smoke or steam as far as the new rules go it fails
The actual smoke (or Opacity) test is to be done using a diesel smoke meter, and both that and the visible observation must be conducted with the engine at at least 80 degrees C (or normal operating temperature if this is lower than 80) -ie. simply left to idle for a few minutes will not be good enough. Therefore, I wouldn't expect to see any visible smoke from a diesel exhaust at idle, even in cold winter temperatures. Neither will the limit of opacity be arbitrary - smoke opacity will need to be within the limits set by the engine/car manufacturer.

This is how the smoke emissions failures on the new testers manual will look:

Smoke opacity levels exceed the manufacturer’s specified limit.
.......Major

Smoke opacity levels exceed default limit
.......Major

Exhaust emits excessive smoke or vapour of any colour to an extent likely to obscure the vision of other road users
.......Dangerous

Exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour
.......Major

Emissions test unable to be completed
.......Major

Emissions test aborted because smoke levels are significantly in excess of the specified limit values.....
Major

Engine MIL inoperative or indicating a malfunction
....... Major


Additionally, the following fail points will also apply:

Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer missing, obviously modified or obviously defective.......Major

An induction or exhaust leak that could affect emissions levels
.......Major

Evidence that the diesel particulate filter has been tampered with
.......Major

Bearing in mind the particularly health damaging nature of diesel particulate emissions, if anybody has removed or gutted their cat or DPF, well that's their funeral (...well, actually more likely the funeral of whoever has the misfortune to be stuck behind them in traffic!).

I can't help it that for some years a cock-eyed system of emission control has focused solely on hydrocarbons and has allowed diesel to be given an unfairly clean write-up in the eyes of the public whilst petrol has been demonised. Now that those in authority have taken on board the dangers from diesel exhaust that those of us who have worked with diesel engines have known about for decades, the balance is being redressed - simple fact; on an environmental damage scale there is little to choose between diesel and petrol.

Ed3 - your posts have been at best irrational, and are becoming increasingly incoherent - I really do not know how to reply (or even what I am replying to) anymore. But you now appear to be accusing me of trying to strip everyone of their statutory rights - I mean; seriously - wtf!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
cityrover
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter #46 (Edited)
Man in Car says - "...irrational slagging off!!!!.." But Man in the Car has not explained regards the wrong the DVLA did in the case I mentioned and why a prosecution they brought could not proceed half way through a hearing.

Another logical issue - proved at court - by my rational arguments - that Man in Car could not answer.

When I speak with DVLA managers they give me the impression they influence much. It follows they can influence much because it is the way that this country works that if changes are to be made that the officials making changes consult with agencies and allow they influence the changes.

No doubt a reply will be made using swear word abbreviations and exclamation marks to assert claims that these quite sensible comments are irrational. But my comments are generally accepted arguments.
 

·
Registered
'06 MG ZR +120 (HQM) '04 MG ZR 105 (IAB)
Joined
·
9,190 Posts
Man in Car says - "...irrational slagging off!!!!.." But Man in the Car has not explained regards the wrong the DVLA did in the case I mentioned and why a prosecution they brought could not proceed half way through a hearing.
yes, irrational - and incoherent. You have still not explained in understandable terms what exactly the charge was that you supposedly got these 300 odd people out of being fined for. I have looked up what the actual law says, and it is quite clear that the keeper MUST notify DVLA of a change of keeper, so it clearly cannot have been that.

You accuse me of being unwilling to modify my views, but if you bother to read my posts through this thread you will find I have been a nd done the research, found out what the relevent documents say and HAVE modified my thoughts accordingly. Meanwhile it is you who have stuck rigidly to your entrenched viewpoint without ever providing anything concrete to support what you have said.

.....and how many times do you have to be told that DVLA have NO input, and NO inflence over the MOT rules and procedures - vehicle safety, public health and MOT testing DO NOT enter into their sphere of activity AT ALL. As you've been told before, the changes in May are almost entirely in response to a directive from the European Commission, not even something to do with the DVSA.

I know I am wasting my effort - Not sure why I bother tbh :(
 

·
Registered
cityrover
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter #48 (Edited)
Man in the car has just shown himself up ? - By making final comment and decisions prior to exploring the information and evidence?

Careful as the rules and laws constantly change.

In the actual legal case the DVLA quoted a rule. As normal. Like you would expect

But - I looked up the law relating to the rule quoted by the DVLA. And the law could not be found to allow or support the rule.

So I contacted the DVLA internal lawyers - and they agreed with me. Totally.

Finding the law is important as there will be a note or reference on the law about when it comes into force.

And I gave them plenty of time and they still could not find the law - even at that time of the prosecutions.

And all this explanation being completely logical and rational. But by the comments in this thread it follows Man in Car makes final decisions and comments before examining the information and evidence ? And as Man in Car has been shown to try to impose his comments prior to examining information and evidence, what can we expect regards the reliability of his other comments ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
What other new "gems" have been added to the list?

exhaust tail pipe wrong shape.
interior light not bright enough/too bright.
wipers not syncronised to the song playing on the radio.
washer bottle operation impaired by tyres being 2psi under pressure.
front cross member excessivly under the car.
car being blue on a green car test day.
all wheels touching the road at the same time.

I'm pleased I went back to a horse and cart for commuting and the pennyfarthing for weekend use.
 

·
Registered
cityrover
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter #51 (Edited)
Steve G said:-
"I am not understanding what the MOT test has to do with democracy."
and
"Ed3. What does DVLA have to do with the MOT test. Please explain so that we may understand."


The MOT is just another set of Government rules - like any other set of Government rules.

As an example of government rules as a part of democracy the latest big scandal with Government rules is Windrush and the Home Secretary has just lost her job by allowing internal rules of targets that caused unfair implementation of immigration rules.

Back to how to chose rules and their design. When any UK Government official designs "rules and their enforcement" they have to consult with relevant agencies/parties and the DVLA is one of those when it comes to cars/motorbikes etc. When I speak with the DVLA managers they talk as if they have much influence and one of the DVLA managers saw their duty to view motoring rules as focusing on the problems of the worst kind of housing estate with obviously unroadworthy cars parked up on the grass, but also possibly criminal activity (stolen cars). And so that DVLA manager saw it as their duty to influence motoring rules and the enforcement of those rules to counter those kind of problems.

But as an example of unfairness, around the same time I saw a self employed man in tears by the "everchanging" unfair rules "of that era", because his van he needed for his self employed work had broken down, so he quickly bought another. But the DVLA would not allow him to tax it for 3 weeks and having spent his money he was stuck what next he could do so that his business could survive.

Regards the MOT there are "long term agendas" and so any changes of rules need to be seen as a part of year by year tightening up of rules for a long term agenda by all sorts of agencies and parties. From the DVLA to car manufactures to charities like Brake (people seeking changes to rules, who lost relatives through dangers on the road). The most extreme group for motoring could possibly be the academic city planners (eg such as Professors or more senior planners) who ultimately do not want any local individual to own a vehicle whether electric or petrol. Because vehicles spend most of their time parked and that requires a highly inefficient use of space in the design of a city.

Most Government rules are influenced by "Lobbyists" paid to bend rules in favour of big business (or charities). It follows the car manufacturers will try to influence getting harsher MOT rules to help them have greater control over the car/bike market and make money even by getting many to lease cars from dealers as MOT rules get so harsh if a person leases a newer lease car, then the MOT issues the dealers problem.
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
Top