EU harmonisation of MOT requirements

[Biker Biggles]

The MOT test is quite stringent as it stands.What gets dodgy vehicles through is corruption and I cant see any EU wide legislation being immune from that.There may be a problem but this proposal doesnt tackle it.It just invents a problem that isnt really there and solves that.Obviously a product of a modern management college.

Whilst I was reading through the form I had mixed emotions which I will try to summarise:

1. I can see the need for some EU countries, particularly the newer ones, to beef their standards especially as some countries you only need to turn up with a bottle of alcohol and you pass, if they have them at all.
2. The UK law is actually already quite stringent, just often not enforced. There are loads of checks that can be done but widely aren't.
3. How can there be a one-size-fits-all? Surely each country has different requirements that need to be met? It reminds me a bit of the (don't know if it was real?) idea to make all cars have their headlights on all the time during the day just because in Scandinavia they have on average less than 4 hours daylight...
4. Ultimately, we're (the EU as a whole) paying yet more money for a lot of people to sit around having endless meetings and polls, using external consultants charging mega bucks for what? As Biggles said, the corruption will still be there.

Part of me thinks it could be a good thing, esp if they maybe start to cover engines etc (ie checking conditions of hoses and filters) but my overwhelming feeling is negative.

[timwilky]

The MOT is a annual check of the vehicles fitness to be on the road, I.E. A check of the systems and components that impact upon the safe operation of that vehicle. It is not a check of the vehicles well being.

So Hoses, filters etc are not and never would be part of an MOT.

In fact the tests performed are quite stringent. On a motorcycle it may look to be little more than a quick once over. But this is usually as a result of the testers knowledge and experience.

Think about it, Motorcycles are fairly basic, all systems that impact upon the safe operation are checked. Yes some tests are subjective. what are you guys who want more looking for. Emissions? both pollutants and noise. Careful you reap what you sow there.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by timwilky

So Hoses, filters etc are not and never would be part of an MOT.
.

Hoses are a part of the MOT and regular cause of a fail - brake hoses that is.

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

<Devil's Advocate>

The MOT test is a joke in the UK though if we're honest isn't it?

You can get almost anything through with enough tape holding it together

Isn't bringing in a test that actually requires some road-worthiness a good thing?

<Devil's Advocate>

I think it is a pretty thorough check as it is - Brakes have to be effective. steering has to be as good as new etc.

I don't see any benefit in moving to a German std for example that doesn't allow you to modify from OEM

[timwilky]

Stu you pedantic git. you know damm well my response was to Al Sweetman's post re engine and specifically hoses and filters.

That aside, I have responded to the EU questionnaire in a responsible manner.

Originally Posted by timwilky

The MOT is a annual check of the vehicles fitness to be on the road, I.E. A check of the systems and components that impact upon the safe operation of that vehicle. It is not a check of the vehicles well being.

So Hoses, filters etc are not and never would be part of an MOT.

Yeah agreed - didn't mean filters (should have proof read) but disagree about hoses. Yip, they already check things like CV joints (granted, cars), flanges, bearings etc. and I'd say that other items, for instance a squiz to make sure clutch plates have enough material, fluids are clean and at the correct levels (visual check maybe) are equally important to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle. I for one know that for ages I didn't replace the P/steering fluid in my old fiesta over and after a period of ??k miles a bit of gunk caused the pump to fail and the car to crash - yes, my own fault for being lazy, and I've learnt the hard way but how many people don't get their older cars serviced and don't bother checking things like that?!

Originally Posted by timwilky

In fact the tests performed are quite stringent. On a motorcycle it may look to be little more than a quick once over. But this is usually as a result of the testers knowledge and experience.

Think about it, Motorcycles are fairly basic, all systems that impact upon the safe operation are checked. Yes some tests are subjective. what are you guys who want more looking for. Emissions? both pollutants and noise. Careful you reap what you sow there.

I know it's a bit of a risky area, but it has felt wrong for a while that the upkeep and condition of engines and their associated paraphernalia, in both cars and bikes, is ignored.

I'll just interject now that I'm relatively ignorant of the detailed ins and outs of the actual MOT test - this is going on my perceptions and Haynes guidance...

[timwilky]

There is no way without dismantling that the condition things such as clutch friction material could established. However, as said the MOT is not a test of road worthyness. It is simply a test to ensure the systems that have safety related implications are checked to establish they are in a safe and operational condition. To the best of my knowledge there is not any simple test to indicate the condition of fluids, whether they be brake, power steering, clutch etc. Without recourse to specialist laboratory equipment. The same with engine oils etc. Yes they can check there is sufficient fluids, but never the condition of those fluids.

The major concern I have is with the unscrupulous establishments who fail vehicles unnecessarily with the intention of generating repair work and effectively defrauding the vehicle owners.

In saying all this, I must tell you that I know of one tester who failed his own vehicle.

I suppose this is coming down to a difference of opinion with regard to what "safety related implications" covers. Granted the individual points picked up on such as clutch plate material are much more involved and awkard, but does that mean they shouldn't be done? Visual hose checks etc. aren't that involved - is it squidgy or hard, are there signs of leakage around the couplings? And fluid (well, maybe not oil) - does it look clean if it's meant to, or is it black and scuzzy? Maybe they offer the opportunity of "we've picked up on this, if you can demonstrate it's been changed recently ....." But yes, with different regs and interval advice for different cars, that would be hard.

I suppose it comes down to this: I appreciate the difficulties that would be associated with this but we're talking about a hypothetical "what, if anything, would you like to see changed". I'm sure that as you rightly point out it's impractical to implement these sorts of changes but that still doesn't alter the fact I feel the total lack of mechanical coverage to be a hole.

<facetiousness>
Maybe they should introduce a road worthiness test every x years? Like the equivalent of the 14.5k mile service...
</facetiousness>

Done

[Sid Squid]

Tim is quite right, the MOT is a very stringent test of vehicle safety systems - which is does very well - not other parts of the vehicle.
The state isn't, and shouldn't be, in the business of advising or opining on the fitness of a vehicle to be owned or sold. You want that sort of info you call the AA or the RAC for a vehicle inspection.
The MOT is about safety, and latterly about emmisions too, but that's what it's intended to be, safety and roadworthiness so vehicles with basic and unsafe faults do not get used on the road, if it's an unreliable piece of junk that's your lookout - as long as the brakes work, the wheels don't fall off, there's tread on the tyres and it's not going to snap in half due to galloping corrosion.