... and in practise?
Following on from various MOT discussions I am now wondering about the term roadworthyness.
The buzzword with insurance companies seems to be that your car must be roadworthy. Yet an MOT says this is no proof of roadworthyness so what it is?
I agree that the average owner can check their own lights, hand brake, severe brake or steering faults and tyres but what about all the hidden stuff such as poshes and chasis rust?
What would happen legaly if you're car had a fresh MOT with no advisories and the brakes failed a week later. Who's fault is that?
Surely the law takes circumstances into account?
Person A has a crash brakes deemed faulty, car has done 20,000 miles since last MOT without a service
Person B brakes fail one month after the MOT, only 200 miles covered by then brakes felt fine to to the owner. How is this their fault?
I ask this is I am intending to get a fresh MOT on my Fiesta to put my mind at rest but will this hold any weight in the law if my car was deemed unroadworthy by something such as a warn bush?
As soon as I see anything that is not legal I have it fixed, but its the hidden stuff I am worried about. I have replaced a CV boot, number plate, two new tyres myself as it is stuff I have noticed. The supension clonks but the car handles fine? Does a clonking suspension render the car unroadworthy?
The law and common sense seem to be a bit confusing here.
|
The MOT means that the car is OK on that day, it is up to you to make sure that your car is in good condition on a later date.
As you seem paranoid about the condition of your car, why not get an AA report on it (that's the Automobile Association not alcoholics anonymous).
When I had an old car I used to turn up the radio to drown out any noises.
Please stop worrying about your Fiesta, it is making me start worrying too.
|
>>The MOT means that the car is OK on that day
It doesn't even mean that.
|
|
So if the MOT inspector can't even find faults how is the owner/driver supposed to? This where the law needs clarificiation.
|
>>how is the owner/driver supposed to?
By carrying out proper maintenance and checks on the vehicle.
There used to be a section in the front of Haynes manuals which described a sensible daily/weekly/monthy checking regime.
The safety of the vehicle is *always* the responsibility of the driver. In the case of company owned/operated vehicles, the person responsible for the fleet also must bear some responsibility.
The vehicle must (almost) always be covered by a valid MOT certificate - which is NOT a certificate of roadworthiness (whatever that weasel word means!)
(almost) because you can drive to a pre-booked MOT without a valid certificate in force.
>>So if the MOT inspector can't even find faults
The MOT inspector cannot remove any trims, or coverings, never mind removing things like brake drums - these items can only be dealt with properly during a service, or during routine maintenance.
Rather than persisting in viewing the MOT as a certificate of roadworthiness, consider it as simply a back up check to double check that your servicing and maintenance routine is OK - the more onerous requirement is the one you can't duck, and that is that your car must always be in an acceptable condition.
In other words, I think that you're mis-using the MOT, and misleading yourself by obtaining an early inspection.
|
In that case maybe a second opinion might be better then? My dads driven the car today and found the brakes to be very sharp and effective so I am sure it will have no issues with the rolling road, its the suspension clonking and possible play in the steering (not sure if its normal).
A lot of the faults may be apartly my imagination but my dads cars always fail the MOT yet they are usualy properly serviced my proper garages etc, (until recently).
|
>>my dads cars always fail the MOT yet they are usualy properly serviced
They can't be being properly maintained. If a car is properly maintained, passing the MOT is a doddle.
|
Well thinking about it I have only recently been involved (past 3 years) and the servicing has been neglected due to having a banger. But in the days when my dad had newer cars they were always serviced by a proper garage but I never checked things like tyres (had no clue about the law on it) where as now I would be a lot more capable of doing a basic MOT check (tyres, lights, steering to some extent etc)
I agree with you it does show a problem with servicing.
|
|
|
|
An AA inspection is over the top on such an old car. I expect them to be faults, I expect the suspension to be warn, it is what is classed as roadworthy and what it isn't. I suppose the MOT man will hopefully be able to advice on that.
My thread was more general anyway and not about me or my flipping car, I know several people who drive with faults and ignore it because it has an MOT, and it seems the general public don't realise the difference between having an MOT and roadworthyness. One for Quentin Wilson to explain?
|
An AA inspection is over the top on such an old car.
Not necessarily. As it's obviously worrying you and you don't have the knowledge of what to look for I reckon it's money well spent. You can always talk it through with the AA inspector at the time - the exhaust is a bit rusty but there's probably 20,000 miles left in it, discs might last a year etc etc. Then with a few phone calls to find out costs, you can decide how serious the faults are.
One for Quentin Wilson to explain?
Why? Fine chap though I'm sure he is, there are plenty on this forum who I'd trust more!
|
|
|
|
The MOT means that the car is OK on that day it is up to you to make sure that your car is in good condition on a later date.
It has been known for people to 'borrow' good parts etc to get their cars through MOTs then replace them with the dodgy ones after getting the MOT. Tyres being the easy target. Explaining why the test is only as the examiner found the car at the time.
|
Or bulbs could blow and tyres wear down past the legal limit etc. It can only be a check at a point in time.
I think it's vague to benefit everyone - if you crashed and had four illegal tyres then clearly you could be in trouble. If you crashed and had one brake light out... not so much of a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Following on from various MOT discussions ..
I thought so too. Forum search for "mot fiesta" in your name shows that you have been discussing virtually this same topic over and over again ever since you joined the forum.
|
|
Probably four different cars, 3 different drivers :) There should be a Ka and Clio in there too some where.
|
Probably four different cars 3 different drivers :) There should be a Ka and Clio in there too some where. >>
So that makes it "over and over again", times 4, times 3.
;-)
|
Rattle,
Carefully read and inwardly digest this web page - it answers your questions about MOT
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/D...8
|
A bit of mark and learn would go down well too.
|
Thanks :) I know the car needs a bit of work but it reliable and it will be quite an expensive to buy another one in terms of insurance as I have a current 0% APR deal which I will not get again (offer is no longer there).
I will get the new MOT as planned and get any work it might need done (it might actually fly through) then I will get the steering looked into again and the suspension noise. Thay way if I have to spend a bit the car is fully road legal and has a 12 months ticket, I would know this car is more roadworthy than if I bought a new car.
If it needs a new clutch in 6 months time its a risk I will take.
I've mentioned thsi countless times but a very close friends Clio will need about £600 of work doing very soon and there is nothing even wrong with it! Its just servicing, cambelt and tyres etc.
If I take it to the MOT and they say its rusted through, the brakes are failing, the suspension is falling off then its time to buy a new car.
|
Rattle, several people have told you that an MOT will not tell you that the car will be safe for a year, or even a day. I repeat, get an AA report and you will then know what, if anything is wrong with your car.
Why is your spelling getting worse during the afternoon?, what are you doing?
|
I remember talking to my friendly motorcycle MOT man, when he used to be very lenient towards "loud" exhausts on the bikes of people he knew. His reasoning? A lot of people with illegal cans keep the standard one for MOTs and simply swap them for the test. Who's to say what was on the bike on the day he tested it?
The MOT relates to the time the vehicle was inspected and nothing else, and is a sensible, but basic list of checks based on what an examiner can see without dismantling anything.
|
|
|
|
Rattle Carefully read and inwardly digest this web page ...........
And this ......... tinyurl.com/9u34vr
|
I had a Sierra which passed an MOT with a dry front suspension joint. Don't know if the tester missed it or if it was not a tested item (about 12 years ago). It was picked up at service. Your suspension noise could be a similar issue and could be about to fail.
When was the car last serviced and by who?
If you get it serivced by a reputable garage it will give you some re-assurance but between services YOU need to know what to look/listen for.
|
OK I had the car MOT'ed today as I was concerned about a few things mentioned here and as there was basic things I thought the MOT would pick them up.
I took it to an MOT place recomended by a fellow BR member. He also popped down to the MOT place to have a look which was nice.
I have mentioned all things here in the past and this was picked up on.
Brake pipes - need replacing so failed there no surprises really.
Play in steering - well within the legal limits apparantly and you could have a lot more play and it would still be roadworthy.
Brakes - Passed with no problems at all
Emissions - Passed with flying colours
Suspension - Not a problem intself but the bodywork sorounding it is completly rusted and this is probably what is causing the clonk. The rear needs a lot fo welding work doing to it and this is the killer
Its 13 years old, reliable has a good engine but is rotten and my concern is if I get it welded now it other parts of the car will be rotten in six months time.
At least it passed on all the little things I have done myself like the reg plate and the windscreen wash :).
|
is rotten and my concern is if I get it welded now it other parts of the car will be rotten in six months time.
Oh no, not again. This is getting very boring.
|
FT, not boring it is Rattle updating us on his car and his postings.
He has had some concerns which some might have said to ignore. He got the MOT done and it failed confirming his worries. And he is now questioning whether the cost to fix the problem is worth it.
Rob
|
|
If a vehicle complies with the Construction and Use regulations it is roadworthy, if not it isnt. Not rocket science, or am I missing a few screws?
|
am I missing a few screws?
Nah. The vehicle might be though...
|
Well clearly atm it would fail under the structure bit, as I am sure there is a clause that the structure must be free from excessive rot in perscribed areas?
I think the point is as rob said, we all probably tend to ignore noises and stuff from old cars but with clonks and stuff always get it checked out, it could be nothing but is it worth the risk of a suspension strut falling off at high speed? (and yes this has happened to my dad when an arm snapped but there was no warning at all in his case).
|
|
Cut your losses and scrap it. Go back to using the bus which you've said you don't mind. Save up. Buy a car you're happy with.
|
FT not boring it is Rattle updating us on his car and his postings.
That's not what I meant. It's almost as if, a couple of years ago, Hormel had set up a factory under a bridge.
|
|
Snip.... not necessary...
Rob
Edited by rtj70 on 14/01/2009 at 18:39
|
Different cars though. I am sure many of us have mosted many questions about hour cars over the years. I used to have a Fiesta cut my losses when it would not start, my dad has one, and I have one. I mate also has one. It probably seems like it is the same car buts its not.
The reason I updated this is one of the moderation team suggested I did as it people began to think it was in my mind, the MOT inspection today confirmed it wasn't.
|
as Rattle explains he is updating those of us who may have an interest that his car which he had some concerns over did indeed have faults, i.e. he was not imagining faults they have been confirmed. How many on here would take their car for an early test?
And yes he's posted a lot on it but some of his posts have been about others cars. Give Rattle a break - he's just found out he's got to either pay out to fix an old car or more probably buy a new one.
Rob
Edited by rtj70 on 14/01/2009 at 18:41
|
Can I just return to this earlier comment:
and the servicing has been neglected due to having a banger.
This is quite a key point, and also probably explains a large number of unroadworthy cars out on the roads today... the age or condition of the car does not negate the need to for regular servicing... going onto a later post about the things that came from the MOT test, the brake pipes and state of the rusty bodywork would have both been picked up if regular servicing was done by a decent garage. They could also tell the owner whether it was worth continuing with the car or it was destined for the scrappy...
My Polo (roughly the same age as your Fiesta, Rattle) needed some welding done this time for its MOT but I also asked the garage to check it over first to see whether it was worth keeping... I bought it for £525 2&1/2 years ago and if they'd have said it wasn't worth it I'd have cut my losses and moved on... but it was only a small bit of weld on the sills and everything else was ok so its still on the drive...
Moral of the story is that unless you really know what you are doing find yourself a good independant garage or mechanic and get it checked over and serviced on a regular basis... if you do that then you should have no surprises come MOT time and probably less worrying in between them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does a clonking suspension render the car unroadworthy?
Ask "your mechanic" who you're always telling us about!
;-)
|
|
|
According to North Lincolnshire Council Trading Standards Division ...........
"The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not give a definition of what is "unroadworthy", but instead makes reference to the following areas that, if not satisfactory, may lead to a vehicle being unroadworthy :-
? Steering and steering gear
? Brakes and braking systems
? Tyres;
? Exhaust systems;
? Seatbelts and seatbelt anchorages;
? General condition (corrosion, suspension etc).
In short a vehicle may be classed as being unroadworthy if it is in such a condition that its use on the road would endanger the driver, passengers, other road users or pedestrians. There are also regulations, which, set out construction requirements for various components such as brakes, steering, gears, tyres, construction, weight and equipment of the vehicle. If a vehicle fails to meet the requirements it may also be considered unroadworthy."
|
|
|
