Just to add I am a mot tester, the being able to drive used to be acceptable but VOSA/DVSA have recently come out and said that it is illegal take a look at this artical http://www.motoringresearch.com/car...fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired-0918996188
Driving a car that fails the MOT in the last month before the old MOT expires?
- Thread starter oldcardriver
- Start date
Sponsored Links
surely that is the expression of an opinion? Unless VOSA are empowered to create laws?
A "guideline" is not a law.
The webpage says "You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition."
It does not say "You can be fined..... a vehicle which has an MOT test certificate in-date but which has subsequently failed a later test"
For example, you can fail an MoT if you have indicator lights on your dashboard which are not required by law, and they are not working. This does not mean it is in a dangerous condition.
The position might be different if you had been issued with a notice that the vehicle is not roadworthy. This is not the same as a Fail.
A "guideline" is not a law.
The webpage says "You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition."
It does not say "You can be fined..... a vehicle which has an MOT test certificate in-date but which has subsequently failed a later test"
For example, you can fail an MoT if you have indicator lights on your dashboard which are not required by law, and they are not working. This does not mean it is in a dangerous condition.
The position might be different if you had been issued with a notice that the vehicle is not roadworthy. This is not the same as a Fail.
While I basically agree with you John, I wouldn't want to have to stand up in court and argue (to people who know probably know nothing about cars) that any warning lights being on, and noted during an MOT test, had no effect on the car's safety. Especially if the car had been involved in an accident.
A bit of common sense wouldn't hurt though. There are too many absolutes in rules these days.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as common sense in law,
I know where you are coming from but no car that is being used on the road should ever fail a mot test the test is the minimal standard to be on the road if your car fails this test it should not be on the road, people should always have there car above this standard, over the years some garages and testers have started to raise the level of the mot test to service standard which is alot higher a standard.
I think over the next few years DVSA are going to be re enforcing the road safety laws and vehicle safety yo justify there jobs if nothing else.
I know where you are coming from but no car that is being used on the road should ever fail a mot test the test is the minimal standard to be on the road if your car fails this test it should not be on the road, people should always have there car above this standard, over the years some garages and testers have started to raise the level of the mot test to service standard which is alot higher a standard.
I think over the next few years DVSA are going to be re enforcing the road safety laws and vehicle safety yo justify there jobs if nothing else.
Sponsored Links
Indeed there is no such thing as common sense in law. You're an MOT tester so you know that in the realworld there is no "absolute" as far as car safety goes. That's where these sort of laws or rules fall down.
There is a big difference in me driving a mile home through country lanes to replace a split CV boot, and someone else getting a fail for the brakes being on their last legs a month before the MOT is due, and continuing to belt up and down the motorway.
The problem is of course that the law has to assume that the people it is dealing with have no common sense. . .
There is a big difference in me driving a mile home through country lanes to replace a split CV boot, and someone else getting a fail for the brakes being on their last legs a month before the MOT is due, and continuing to belt up and down the motorway.
The problem is of course that the law has to assume that the people it is dealing with have no common sense. . .
It is an offence to drive a vehicle if the driver knows the vehicle is un-roadworthy. If the driver takes a vehicle on the public highway knowing it has failed an MOT then then the driver is driving a vehicle that (s)he knows is un-roadworthy. An offence.
If the driver is un-aware that the vehicle has failed an MOT and believes it still has a valid MOT then it is still an offence but leniency can be applied ( for example the driver of a fleet vehicle where the fleet manager has failed take the vehicle out of service )
If a driver is stopped when driving a vehicle that is un-roadworthy then an offence has been committed even if there is a current MOT pass certificate for the vehicle. Even if the driver was un-aware the vehicle was un-roadworthy it is still an offence. Again depending on the fault that has made the vehicle un-roadworthy leniency can be applied depending on whether the fault is obvious ( bald tyres etc ) or is a fault that would only be found by an MOT type inspection.
If the driver is un-aware that the vehicle has failed an MOT and believes it still has a valid MOT then it is still an offence but leniency can be applied ( for example the driver of a fleet vehicle where the fleet manager has failed take the vehicle out of service )
If a driver is stopped when driving a vehicle that is un-roadworthy then an offence has been committed even if there is a current MOT pass certificate for the vehicle. Even if the driver was un-aware the vehicle was un-roadworthy it is still an offence. Again depending on the fault that has made the vehicle un-roadworthy leniency can be applied depending on whether the fault is obvious ( bald tyres etc ) or is a fault that would only be found by an MOT type inspection.
If the Superplus model has an indicator light for (something) and the L model doesn't, who thinks that a faulty indicator light on the Superplus makes it unroadworthy? Or even (as VOSA says) "in a dangerous condition?"
What if the Superplus has ABS braking, and the L doesn't? Does the Superplus become more dangerous, or less roadworthy, than an L if the ABS is faulty?
What if the Superplus has ABS braking, and the L doesn't? Does the Superplus become more dangerous, or less roadworthy, than an L if the ABS is faulty?
We rely on the knowledge, expertise and training of the tester, who will examine and test the vehicle according to its specification.....if it has ABS it will be tested as such, including the warning lamp. Happily, if the ABS isn't functioning, normal braking will still prevail.
I must say, I'm very happy with the standard of MOT testing these days.
John
I must say, I'm very happy with the standard of MOT testing these days.
John
I always reckoned that once I had been told something was wrong, I needed to get it fixed ASAP. As I said before, I don't want to have to argue with a court, or an insurance company.
You could make the argument that if there is a warning light on, then you need to do something about it as per the handbook. "Consult your dealer"
You have to wonder about a future where DIY car repairs will not be allowed, and where any repairs or modifications would need to be annotated in an encrypted electronic log which could be accessed by your local friendly policeman when you were pulled up for breaking the blanket 20 mph speed limit! Except you won't be breaking the speed limit because cars will be self driving!
You could make the argument that if there is a warning light on, then you need to do something about it as per the handbook. "Consult your dealer"
You have to wonder about a future where DIY car repairs will not be allowed, and where any repairs or modifications would need to be annotated in an encrypted electronic log which could be accessed by your local friendly policeman when you were pulled up for breaking the blanket 20 mph speed limit! Except you won't be breaking the speed limit because cars will be self driving!
But if that's true, what's the point of the PG9 Prohibition notice? Surely, if what that article is saying is true, ANYTHING that fails the MOT automatically becomes the subject of a prohibition notice?
https://www.gov.uk/roadside-vehicle-checks-for-commercial-drivers/roadside-prohibitions
If.
Well, it's on a government website, so they OUGHT to know! However, I think they're playing safe and using some "weasel words".
The actual words on the website are:
"Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You must not drive the vehicle on the road if it fails the test, even if the MOT hasn’t run out, except to:
So it doesn't say that driving a car with a failed MOT before the old one has expired is illegal, it says that driving a car in a dangerous condition is illegal. We kind-of all know that though! It's illegal to drive a car that doesn't comply with the Construction and use Regulations and the Road Vehicle lighting Regulations. The contents of both of those are largely what the MOT is based on. So, for example, if I fail an MOT because I've got a number plate light out, that's technically a fail, and contravenes the Lighting Regs so it shouldn't be on a public road. However, the same also applies if it HASN'T failed an MOT! If, for example, I got my MOT a month ago and my number plate light fails, I'm just as illegal as I would be if it had failed an MOT as a result of the number plate light.
Given that pretty much ANYTHING you could fail an MOT on would be a contravention of those regulations, I can't see how a government website could say anything OTHER than "you can't drive it" - even though, it's the non-compliance with the regs that is the illegal thing, NOT the "driving a vehicle with an unexpired MOT that has just failed the test" thing. On a government website like that, they'd never be able to go into a full list of things that could make a car "dangerous" as opposed to a list of thing that make it "techncially non-compliant", so the easiest thing to do is to just say "you can't".
The actual words on the website are:
"Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You must not drive the vehicle on the road if it fails the test, even if the MOT hasn’t run out, except to:
- have the failed defects fixed
- a pre-arranged MOT test appointment
So it doesn't say that driving a car with a failed MOT before the old one has expired is illegal, it says that driving a car in a dangerous condition is illegal. We kind-of all know that though! It's illegal to drive a car that doesn't comply with the Construction and use Regulations and the Road Vehicle lighting Regulations. The contents of both of those are largely what the MOT is based on. So, for example, if I fail an MOT because I've got a number plate light out, that's technically a fail, and contravenes the Lighting Regs so it shouldn't be on a public road. However, the same also applies if it HASN'T failed an MOT! If, for example, I got my MOT a month ago and my number plate light fails, I'm just as illegal as I would be if it had failed an MOT as a result of the number plate light.
Given that pretty much ANYTHING you could fail an MOT on would be a contravention of those regulations, I can't see how a government website could say anything OTHER than "you can't drive it" - even though, it's the non-compliance with the regs that is the illegal thing, NOT the "driving a vehicle with an unexpired MOT that has just failed the test" thing. On a government website like that, they'd never be able to go into a full list of things that could make a car "dangerous" as opposed to a list of thing that make it "techncially non-compliant", so the easiest thing to do is to just say "you can't".
in which case, suppose:
You have a car with a valid MoT.
A windscreen wiper blade falls off.
You drive it to Halfords, buy a new one, put it on, continue on your way
Or:
You have a car with a valid MoT.
A windscreen wiper blade falls off.
You take it for an early retest, and it fails due to the wiper
You drive it to Halfords, buy a new one, put it on, continue on your way
Who can see the difference in unsafety?
You have a car with a valid MoT.
A windscreen wiper blade falls off.
You drive it to Halfords, buy a new one, put it on, continue on your way
Or:
You have a car with a valid MoT.
A windscreen wiper blade falls off.
You take it for an early retest, and it fails due to the wiper
You drive it to Halfords, buy a new one, put it on, continue on your way
Who can see the difference in unsafety?
I would suppose that in either case you'd be OK under the "driving to get it repaired" part of the rules. The only difference being is that if it's failed an MOT, then you haven't got the "I hadn't noticed" excuse if you left it for a while.
yet the misleading website claims
"You must not drive the vehicle on the road if it fails the test, even if the MOT hasn’t run out"
Which, in the second case, you are continuing to do, after replacing the wiper.
"You must not drive the vehicle on the road if it fails the test, even if the MOT hasn’t run out"
Which, in the second case, you are continuing to do, after replacing the wiper.
Sponsored Links
