RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:00 amby eribaMotters • | 5.600 Posts
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:01 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:03 amby Poptop320 • | 2.634 Posts
My mate has an old defender and took it for an MOT, he had left his sat nav and dash cam stuck to the window, the MOT inspector told him to remove them as it would be an instant fail.
Here is the Dept of transport document, its been in force since 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...ear-windscreens
When I go on holiday I like to pop my top!
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:13 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
Quote: eribaMotters wrote in post #17No it shouldn't, but I think it's a little bit unrealistic to hope that Bill the tester will take up the cudgels on your behalf.
Pepe, to me the problems lies in #9 paragraph 2. This situation should not exist.
Colin
I suppose if I felt strongly enough about it (and I have to admit that I don't simply because it doesn't affect me) I'd start off by writing to my MP, but I wouldn't be holding my breath once I'd stuck the letter in the post box. I can't see it featuring heavily in the Brexit discussions.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know if all the offending stickers in Roger's car were current ones.
.
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:16 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:32 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
Quote: eribanaut wrote in post #16Does the bit in bold (especially the red bit) help? It's from the Sunday Times a couple of years ago:
We have something like the Tickettack factory fitted on the driver side of the Skoda, does this mean an automatic fail when we get an MOT in 3 tears?
Dave
"Q. A few years ago I had a camera fitted to my windscreen so I would have video evidence in the event of a collision or fraudulent insurance claim. Previously this has caused no problem at the MoT test, but before my most recent inspection my garage removed the device, saying my car would have failed otherwise. Why is this, and would refitting the camera be breaking the law?
RW, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire
A. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (Vosa, now replaced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, or DVSA) wrote to all MoT test centres in March to clarify the rules relating to windscreen obstructions, which may explain why your camera was removed. In simple terms, a car may fail its MoT if there is damage or an obstruction in the “swept area” of the windscreen greater than a 40mm diameter circle. In “zone A” — a 290mm-wide band of the screen immediately in front of the driver and centred on the middle of the steering wheel — this is reduced to a 10mm-diameter circle.
There are exceptions. Any fitting that’s original to the car cannot result in failure, and if an obstruction affects only the driver’s view of the sky or the bonnet, it’s not deemed to be a problem either. The only grounds for failure should be if the obstruction is impairing the driver’s view of the road."
You could infer that stickers right at the top and/or right at the bottom shouldn't be a problem, but then I'm not an MOT tester.
.
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:44 amby Randa france • | 13.283 Posts
Quote: Pepé Le Pew wrote in post #21Quote: eribaMotters wrote in post #17No it shouldn't, but I think it's a little bit unrealistic to hope that Bill the tester will take up the cudgels on your behalf. Incidentally, I'd be interested to know if all the offending stickers in Roger's car were current ones..
Pepe, to me the problems lies in #9 paragraph 2. This situation should not exist.
Colin
I agree totally that the MOT tester was only doing his job and that he and his mates could all see the nonsense of it all. I suspect that if the Service Manager was in work he may have "looked the other way". After all the MOT is only good until you leave their premises. In fact, believe it or not, when I took the car off their forecourt a strange new warning light came on so I turned around and took it back.
It was then that I also noticed a message on the dashboard "offside rear light bulb u/s ". Never ever seen this in the years I've owned the car. They replaced the bulb for free but it does support my point.
Incidently, when speaking with the guys in the garage they showed me just what a nonsense the MOT can be.
Last year I had an "Advisory" that my rear discs were badly pitted. However my brakes were good. I didn't realise just how bad they looked until, on a very sunny day somewhere on Europe, a friendly Dutch bloke pointed them out to me. They were obvious to see with the bright, direct sunshine penetrating the gaps in the alloy wheels.
I was so embarrassed that I determined to get them done at the next service and I had them done yesterday. However, I was advised by the MOT tester that all he could give me should I have left them as they were, was another "Advisory". This is because the brakes were still sound and the badly pitted discs still had a thickness above what is deemed to be dangerous.
Now to me, worn brake discs are far more serious than two window stickers.
Yes, Pete, the offending stickers were current, permanent and dedicated to that car and should have remained on the car for the period of its life. There were no complaints about the dash cam position just to the passanger's side of the rear view mirror and there was also no problem with the row of vignettes down the passanger side of the screen. These were the ones I first thought they were going on about.
Randa
ERIBAFOLK POP UP EVERYWHERE 1999 Eriba Troll 530 pushing a VW Touran 2L TDi Match
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:11 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
Quote: Randa france wrote in post #24How could it be anything else?
I agree totally that the MOT tester was only doing his job and that he and his mates could all see the nonsense of it all. I suspect that if the Service Manager was in work he may have "looked the other way". After all the MOT is only good until you leave their premises.
Quote: Randa france wrote in post #24What point? That the MOT is only any good at the time of testing? As I said above, how could it be any other way?
They replaced the bulb for free but it does support my point.
Quote: Randa france wrote in post #24That's a subjective view. I wouldn't disagree with it, but it's a subjective view nonetheless. A brake efficiency test forms an objective and quantifiable part of the MOT, so as long as the car passes that and the discs and pads are not worn below the prescribed wear limits, it doesn't matter what they look like. Hence the advisory.
Incidently, when speaking with the guys in the garage they showed me just what a nonsense the MOT can be.
Last year I had an "Advisory" that my rear discs were badly pitted. However my brakes were good. I didn't realise just how bad they looked until, on a very sunny day somewhere on Europe, a friendly Dutch bloke pointed them out to me. They were obvious to see with the bright, direct sunshine penetrating the gaps in the alloy wheels.
I was so embarrassed that I determined to get them done at the next service and I had them done yesterday. However, I was advised by the MOT tester that all he could give me should I have left them as they were, was another "Advisory". This is because the brakes were still sound and the badly pitted discs still had a thickness above what is deemed to be dangerous.
Now to me, worn brake discs are far more serious than two window stickers.
I don't agree about it being a nonsense.
And for what it's worth I've never had a problem with a dash camera at MOT time either, despite it being mounted within the swept area of the screen for obvious reasons. Having said that, it was mostly tucked behind the rear view mirror, and the part of it that wasn't was only blocking my view of the sky, as per that article.
.
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:30 amby Randa france • | 13.283 Posts
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:38 amby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
Quote: Randa france wrote in post #26I did think about agreeing with you in the interests of peace and harmony and because you've got more knobs than I have, but only for the most fleeting of moments.
Glad I caught you in an agreeable mood Pete.
I just couldn't bring myself to betray my principles
.
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:32 pmby PooleDweller • | 754 Posts
The following is taken from a Gov MOT Special Directive directive 02/2014 that was supposed to make things clearer. Having read a few items in the last 20 minutes ar so there is continual reference to the swepted area - like the swepted area must be clear of stickers etc. I haven't seen any regulations that says what can or cannot be in the unswepted area. Oh yes any dangling furry dice are a no no. In a diagram I came across that depicted the swepted area in the bottom right corner, in front of the driver, a small rounded area encroached into the swepted area - for what I ask myself.
Any way just thought I'd add something to the discussion. But I think if your stickers were not in the swepted area they were wrong to remove them. Your thoughts gentlemen and ladies?
Item 3: View to the Front
To clear up some confusion when considering ‘view to the front’, from receipt of this special notice you should consider the following before failing for damage or obstruction within the swept area of the windscreen.
From the driver’s seat, check the view of the road through the swept area of the windscreen. Only fail the vehicle if there is damage or an obstruction -
in zone A, greater than a 10mm diameter circle and which materially affects the driver’s view of the road. in the remainder of the swept area, greater than a 40mm diameter circle and which materially affects the driver’s view of the road.
Note: Where any damage or obstruction does not impair the driver’s view of the road, the vehicle should pass. If it only affects the driver’s view of the sky or the bonnet then this is not to be considered a reason for rejection. This is a general assessment of driver’s view – you are not required to speculate on the effects on tall or short drivers. Any manufacturer’s original design characteristics are to be accepted.
The inspection manual will be amended at the next available opportunity.
[b]So what does the Inspection Manual, mentioned above, tell us[/b
Robin
2015 Eriba Triton 430GT pushing 2011 VW Golf Estate DSG 2L Diesel
RE: MOT time.
in Anything that's not Eriba-related. Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:55 pmby Pepé Le Pew • | 2.752 Posts
Visitors
2 Members and 149 Guests are online. |
Board Statistics
The forum has 12890
topics
and
108062
posts.
|