If a car can pass an MOT is it roadworthy?

[Munter]

Following on from teh wintertyre thread where locoblade maintains that if a car can pass an MOT it's 100% no questions absolutely roadworthy. While I disagree.

Does being able to pass an MOT make a car roadworthy?

[Slinky]

Yes, but only at the time of testing, mere milliseconds later it could be considered as "unroadworthy"..

[Rawwr]

It depends how we're defining roadworthy today. I'm not trying to be facetious but shades of grey and all that.

[Thorburn]

It's roadworthy at the time at the test, not a guarantee it will be at a later date of course.

[Munter]

Slinky said:

Yes, but only at the time of testing, mere milliseconds later it could be considered as "unroadworthy"..

Really? You don't think there are situations where an roadworthy car can pass an MOT because whatever is making it unroadworthy is not part of the test?

[Munter]

Rawwr said:

It depends how we're defining roadworthy today. I'm not trying to be facetious but shades of grey and all that.

Which is my point. It's not 100% certificate of roadworthyness. It's a good stab but there is more to it.

Failing MOT = NOT roadworthy
Passing MOT = could be roadworthy .... shades of grey

[AndrewW-G]

No, it simply means that the car has passed a set series of tests & visual inspections.

[kambites]

I'd say "no". I'm sure there are elements of "road-worthiness" that the MoT cannot test because they are not accessible, or are too complex - I'm sure it would be possible to design an extremely dangerous car that could pass an MoT.

I think you could better argue than an SVA is proof of road-worthiness at the time of the test.

[Slinky]

Munter said:

Slinky said:

Yes, but only at the time of testing, mere milliseconds later it could be considered as "unroadworthy"..

Really? You don't think there are situations where an roadworthy car can pass an MOT because whatever is making it unroadworthy is not part of the test?

DirectGov said:

The MOT certificate confirms that at the time of the test, without dismantling it, the vehicle met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. It doesn’t mean that the vehicle is roadworthy for the length of time the certificate is valid. The MOT certificate is also no guarantee of the general mechanical condition of your vehicle. The test doesn’t cover the condition of the engine, clutch or gearbox.

[Rawwr]

Munter said:

Rawwr said:

It depends how we're defining roadworthy today. I'm not trying to be facetious but shades of grey and all that.

Which is my point. It's not 100% certificate of roadworthyness. It's a good stab but there is more to it.

Failing MOT = NOT roadworthy
Passing MOT = could be roadworthy .... shades of grey

I've written something about this for the 340R in my garage blog thing. For one day we had to cripple ECU to get the thing through its MOT. After it got its certificate, it was uncrippled. More shades of grey.

[Slinky]

Rawwr said:

I've written something about this for the 340R in my garage blog thing. For one day we had to cripple ECU to get the thing through its MOT. After it got its certificate, it was uncrippled. More shades of grey.

Mapping to get through emissions test perchance? Not exactly uncommon..

Of course, there is always the potential to fail a roadside test if caught out.. In exactly the same was as anyone can that re-fits a Cat for the purposes of MOT..

[Rawwr]

Precisely, but oddly in this respect, I don't personally consider an emissions failure to class a car as unroadworthy, and that's not just due to personal bias.

[Slinky]

I don't disagree with you there chap... Within reason of course..

[Alfanatic]

Thorburn said:

It's roadworthy at the time at the test, not a guarantee it will be at a later date of course.

If the car is still in a condition to pass the MOT on that later date then I guess the answer to the OP's question exactly as phrased would be yes?

That makes me wonder if the OP means to ask if a valid MOT means the car's roadworthy or if, as worded, a test pass guarantees that the car is roadworthy at that moment.

I'd say it does unless there's another widely recognised road safety test available out there or there are any obvious shortcomings in the MOT test.

Slinky said:

Rawwr said:

I've written something about this for the 340R in my garage blog thing. For one day we had to cripple ECU to get the thing through its MOT. After it got its certificate, it was uncrippled. More shades of grey.

Mapping to get through emissions test perchance? Not exactly uncommon..

Of course, there is always the potential to fail a roadside test if caught out.. In exactly the same was as anyone can that re-fits a Cat for the purposes of MOT..

Ah, but in this case, once you've uncrippled the car, it no longer passes this condition in the OP: "If a car can pass an MOT...".

The SVA test is a good point though, as was the point about not testing engine / gearbox etc. Now I wish I could change my answer to "no".

Edited by Alfanatic on Tuesday 16th November 09:14

[Rawwr]

What I find scary is the notion that there are a lot of 2 year old cars around which could be mechanically unsound and not requiring this to be tested for another 12 months.

[kambites]

Alfanatic said:

I'd say it does unless there's another widely recognised road safety test available out there or there are any obvious shortcomings in the MOT test.

Why do you assume that the road-worthiness of a car has to be testable?

And anyway, there are obvious shortcomings of the MoT test, the obvious one beign that they aren't allowed to take the car to bits. If I was to fit a huuuuge spike on a hydraulic ram wired up to the airbag sensors just behind the front bumper of my car, it would still pass an MoT because the MoT tester could never know it was there, but the car certainly wouldn't be road-worthy.

[R11ysf]

kambites said:

I'd say "no". I'm sure there are elements of "road-worthiness" that the MoT cannot test because they are not accessible, or are too complex - I'm sure it would be possible to design an extremely dangerous car that could pass an MoT.

I see your point. Can you give an example of something you regard as "extremely dangerous" that isn't tested in an MOT??

[kambites]

R11ysf said:

I see your point. Can you give an example of something you regard as "extremely dangerous" that isn't tested in an MOT??

See my (rather facetious) post above.

[Thorburn]

kambites said:

If I was to fit a huuuuge spike on a hydraulic ram wired up to the airbag sensors just behind the front bumper of my car, it would still pass an MoT because the MoT tester could never know it was there, but the car certainly wouldn't be road-worthy.

You kidding? That would be the best driven car on the road.

[kambites]

Thorburn said:

kambites said:

If I was to fit a huuuuge spike on a hydraulic ram wired up to the airbag sensors just behind the front bumper of my car, it would still pass an MoT because the MoT tester could never know it was there, but the car certainly wouldn't be road-worthy.

You kidding? That would be the best driven car on the road.

I meant with the spike pointing outwards.