Mot changes 2018
Discussion
the Gov.uk guidance hasn't changed in light of the new MOT rules
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test
What appears to have changed is that once failed the old MOT is effectively invalid ( The rule here is really just clarification, as technically any such car would be deemed unroadworthy), so the car cannot continue to be used, but you still have to be practically able to take the car for repairs, and drive back for a retest.
there is no way an MOT station is taking brake fluid from a caliper, it will start as a visual inspection first in the master cylinder reservoir.
from the manual
1.8 Brake fluid
Hydraulic brake fluid level checks are confined to transparent reservoirs, reservoir caps shouldn’t be removed.
Defect Category
Brake fluid contaminated
Major
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test
What appears to have changed is that once failed the old MOT is effectively invalid ( The rule here is really just clarification, as technically any such car would be deemed unroadworthy), so the car cannot continue to be used, but you still have to be practically able to take the car for repairs, and drive back for a retest.
there is no way an MOT station is taking brake fluid from a caliper, it will start as a visual inspection first in the master cylinder reservoir.
from the manual
1.8 Brake fluid
Hydraulic brake fluid level checks are confined to transparent reservoirs, reservoir caps shouldn’t be removed.
Defect Category
Brake fluid contaminated
Major
Edited by SMB on Wednesday 2nd May 14:23
SMB said:
What appears to have changed is that once failed the old MOT is effectively invalid ( The rule here is really just clarification, as technically any such car would be deemed unroadworthy), so the car cannot continue to be used, but you still have to be practically able to take the car for repairs, and drive back for a retest.
I don't think you are right at all. It has always been the case that if you have an unroadworthy car you commit an offence even if you are driving it to a garage to be fixed.The change to MOT rules is that fails will be stated to be,
A) Dangerous - where you are being told your car is clearly unroadworthy and you will have no defence if you are charged with driving an unroadworthy car. (e.g. major brake problem). The tester is telling you "it's definitely unroadworthy".
B) Major - a significant issue which needs sorting out straight away as the car is probably unroadworthy. (e.g. Rust that needs welding a.s.a.p.) The tester is telling you "I think you've got significant issues but it's up to you to decide whether it's roadworthy".
C) Minor - where your car might not be unroadworthy but needs fixing ( e.g. poor windscreen wipers but it's not raining). The tester is saying, "I don't think it's a big issue but it's up to you to decide whether the car is roadworthy under the particular circumstances".
The offence of "unroadworthiness" can be serious if somebody gets hurt, and can end up with you being sent to prison for dangerous driving.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
The separate offence of "not having had an MOT in the previous 12 months" is completely different. It's largely administrative. You might have a car in perfect condition but just forget to get a test. Penalties are relatively modest.
Dannbodge said:
So the "advisories" I get every year are now minor defect?
I'm going to get minor failures for having a standard car, that has plastic side skirts fitted, a plastic engine cover and undertrays?
It's not even a defect. It's bloody standard from the factory!
When the technician is looking for corrosion and he can’t check the condition of the sills due to covers being fitted he puts it as an advisory to cover there ass in case it snaps in half 2 miles down the road, this example will apply to why other covers are noted as advisory’s as an mot tester you are not allowed to remove trim pieces and covers I'm going to get minor failures for having a standard car, that has plastic side skirts fitted, a plastic engine cover and undertrays?
It's not even a defect. It's bloody standard from the factory!
Slow said:
Best places to get your mot done is a Mot station which doesn’t fix cars. They aren’t trying to create any free work for themselves.
They'll soon end up with a yard full of 'dangerous' vehicles that can't be driven way though. Can't see how this new system will suit test centres that don't do repairs. Or presumably people will just drive away as they do now. Are they seriously meant to get trailered away?Toyoda said:
Slow said:
Best places to get your mot done is a Mot station which doesn’t fix cars. They aren’t trying to create any free work for themselves.
They'll soon end up with a yard full of 'dangerous' vehicles that can't be driven way though. Can't see how this new system will suit test centres that don't do repairs. Or presumably people will just drive away as they do now. Are they seriously meant to get trailered away?rockin said:
SMB said:
What appears to have changed is that once failed the old MOT is effectively invalid ( The rule here is really just clarification, as technically any such car would be deemed unroadworthy), so the car cannot continue to be used, but you still have to be practically able to take the car for repairs, and drive back for a retest.
I don't think you are right at all. It has always been the case that if you have an unroadworthy car you commit an offence even if you are driving it to a garage to be fixed.The change to MOT rules is that fails will be stated to be,
A) Dangerous - where you are being told your car is clearly unroadworthy and you will have no defence if you are charged with driving an unroadworthy car. (e.g. major brake problem). The tester is telling you "it's definitely unroadworthy".
B) Major - a significant issue which needs sorting out straight away as the car is probably unroadworthy. (e.g. Rust that needs welding a.s.a.p.) The tester is telling you "I think you've got significant issues but it's up to you to decide whether it's roadworthy".
C) Minor - where your car might not be unroadworthy but needs fixing ( e.g. poor windscreen wipers but it's not raining). The tester is saying, "I don't think it's a big issue but it's up to you to decide whether the car is roadworthy under the particular circumstances".
The offence of "unroadworthiness" can be serious if somebody gets hurt, and can end up with you being sent to prison for dangerous driving.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
The separate offence of "not having had an MOT in the previous 12 months" is completely different. It's largely administrative. You might have a car in perfect condition but just forget to get a test. Penalties are relatively modest.
I agree that driving an unroadworthy car has always been an offence, that wasn't my point. My point is that by the wording changes have made it clearer to people that used to continue to drive a car because the old MOT was valid now have no such excuse.
The issue is that unroadworthy is not well defined to the public, the gov.uk site both authorises you to drive to repair, but also warns of the fines over unroadworthiness.
I believe the thinking behind the new test fail catergoies is to mark out ones that make a car unroadworthy, so dangerous means remove from road use, with fails such as corrosion, steering, brakes etc as you say.
But a fail with majors doesn't necessarily mean the same. The manual gives guidance on the level of deterioration between these grades. Major's covers bulb failure to corrosion issues.
Edited by SMB on Thursday 3rd May 08:57
I am sick of having to hit the re-circ button because of polluting diesel vans, trucks and cars.
I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
Can someone point me to where it says aftermarket HIDs are a fail? I've read all the stuff on lighting and I can't see it anywhere.
Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
E36GUY said:
Can someone point me to where it says aftermarket HIDs are a fail? I've read all the stuff on lighting and I can't see it anywhere.
Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
As I understand it.. Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
If hids are factory fitted they must have working self levelling systems. After market jobbies just have to be correctly aimed and work
E36GUY said:
Can someone point me to where it says aftermarket HIDs are a fail? I've read all the stuff on lighting and I can't see it anywhere.
Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
From the MOT handbook applicable from May 19th onwards:Section 1.7 seems to cover headlamps and mentions usual sensible stuff like 'they shoud work properly' and that IF a levelling/cleaning system is fitted, that should be tested and working but nowhere can I see a fail for retro fitted.
So... what if you haven't converted the headlamp to be used with a HID bulb but have a HID bulb fitted...i.e in most cases you just bung the bulb in and run a lead to the ballast/inverter box thereby not modifying the actual headlamp.
An example of a conversion would be my motorcycle where I converted the headlamp unit by pulling it apart and fitting a projector inside it. Luckily this rule doesn't apply to motorcycles so it went through the MOT just fine on Saturday.
Pics here if you're interested https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
An example of a conversion would be my motorcycle where I converted the headlamp unit by pulling it apart and fitting a projector inside it. Luckily this rule doesn't apply to motorcycles so it went through the MOT just fine on Saturday.
Pics here if you're interested https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Luckily my MOT is booked a few days before the changes so I get another year of HIDs in projector housing. But even next year ill pop halogens in for MOT but leave the ballasts installed with wires hanging, then pop the HID bulbs back in after. No one is going to know if the car came stock with HIDs or not because they look genuine in projector lamps
podwin said:
I am sick of having to hit the re-circ button because of polluting diesel vans, trucks and cars.
I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
That's oil smoke, so no it won't.I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
So... what if you haven't converted the headlamp to be used with a HID bulb but have a HID bulb fitted...i.e in most cases you just bung the bulb in and run a lead to the ballast/inverter box thereby not modifying the actual headlamp.
It a headlamp had a halogen bulb from the factory, then fitting a HID bulb and ballast is clearly a HID conversion. Mr2Mike said:
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
So... what if you haven't converted the headlamp to be used with a HID bulb but have a HID bulb fitted...i.e in most cases you just bung the bulb in and run a lead to the ballast/inverter box thereby not modifying the actual headlamp.
It a headlamp had a halogen bulb from the factory, then fitting a HID bulb and ballast is clearly a HID conversion. Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
What about LED's I wonder which are just as bad as aftermarket HIDs in a non-projector housing?
A valid point. The MOT Manual covers this by making "Light source and lamp not compatible" a major fail, though I don't see a definition for "compatible".Krikkit said:
podwin said:
I am sick of having to hit the re-circ button because of polluting diesel vans, trucks and cars.
I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
That's oil smoke, so no it won't.I hope the new tests will fail these vehicles like this discovery.
https://vimeo.com/269175192
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Luckily this rule doesn't apply to motorcycles so it went through the MOT just fine on Saturday.
Pics here if you're interested https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Sorry you appear to have been misinformed, next year it will fail.Pics here if you're interested https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
"Some motorcycles may be fitted with high intensity discharge (HID) headlamps. Existing halogen headlamp units shouldn’t be converted to be used with HID bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp."
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff