sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 07:05 PM |
|
|
Should we be stricter with car testing?
Bit of a long story but I was out giving the car a wash this afternoon and the young lad next door has his car in bits, engine in bits, bumper off the
lot. Keen to lend a hand i nipped round to take a look. Oh my god my jaw hit the floor.
The car is a mess, its a fabia vrs thats been tweaked to 180bhp but in my eyes its fit for the scrappies. The fault was a map sensor issue, well the
sensor was ok but the wires had been cut and resoldered, in the process the plug had been melted and pins shorted. I packed him off to the scrappies
to get a new plug and i resoldered it back into the loom, during this i noticed the lighting loom had been cut and bodged, both headlights were being
held by cable ties, the front crash bar structure was being held on with one bolt, all boost pipe ends were cracked and being held by self tappers,
intercooler cracked I could go on and on and on. I dread to think what it looks like underneath.
This made me think how is this car allowed to be on the road? Now don't get me wrong I've done the whole boy racer thing with saxo's
corsa's etc so I'm not against modified cars but I think something should be done about cars like this, Maybe something like the TUV
system perhaps?
Should our MOT system be stricter to keep cars like this off our roads?
Anyway i thought I'd throw this out to the LCB collective to discuss
[Edited on 28/7/13 by sdh2903]
|
|
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
To be honest the amount of normal cars that you see in car parks with threads showing on the tyres modded cars normally fair better in terms up upkeep
in my eyes
But the Fabia sounds crap but not massive issues
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 07:53 PM |
|
|
I agree about tyres, i passed an audi q7 in a carpark last wekk and all 4 tyres were bald on the outside half. If you can afford that car theres no
excuse not to put new rubber on.
I also agree with most modified cars are well looked after as they are their owner's pride and joy/hobby but in this case general roadworthiness
has been completely sacrificed/forgotten about in the pursuit of power. My point is with this particular car with a roll of insulation tape you could
hide all the dodgy wiring and an MOT tester wouldn't know about the horrors beneath, surely that is wrong? Would this car pass a TUV test? not a
chance, an MOT - possibly. So who has the right system?
|
|
|
rick1962uk
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
Yes we should i am an mot tester for motorcycles and i am disgusted at what low level i have to pass bikes some i refuse to test ride as they are not
safe to ride not sure what VOSA are up to but my last refresher coarse last month i walked out in horror at what they told us to pass
dont get me wrong i dont rip bikes apart but i like the owner to feel he or she will be safe riding it for a few months not leaving the mot on a death
trap
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:30 PM |
|
|
I was under the impression the TUV was some sort of conspricay to make people by higher end cars from the factory as it bans all modifying?
Joking aside, I agree in principle to testing to make sure things are safe, but like alot of people I disagree with the ways it often seems to be
implemented, like the last raft of MOT changes, I don't see why I should be forced by law to have a working airbag for example.
on the flip side, I used to work in a drive through and saw stuff everyday that is an MOT failure that noone does anything about, really obvious stuff
like illegal number plates through missing bumpers leaving dangerous protusions.
From what you've said, I think the fabia should be a failure anyway but as you say probably would pass as noone would see.
I agree with your reasoning, but it could well lead down a slippery slope.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
matt_gsxr
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
Stricter testing would add costs to everyone.
Road deaths are down year on year.
Maybe the system isn't so bad.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
Strangely there is no evidence that tightening up testing standards reduces road deaths, one reason is that seriously unroadworthy cars have
seriously bent MOTs. i would bet apart from having a bent MOT lads car probably is registered and insured as a 1.4.
MOTs don't seem to worry some people I regularly have business in the centre of Ayr next to the Sherrif Court one icey day durring the very
bad winter 2 years back a black Vectra Sri was parked in a prominent position on the corner of Wellington Square right opposite the main entrance
to the court, from a distance anybody on foot could see that the rear tyres had no trace of tread on them, by that I mean they were were polished
and worn to lower than about 0.1 to 0.25 anywhere on the tread I have never seen such bald tyres and on a closer look the fronts were just as bad.
The crowning stupidity was the car was parked in the road where Police witnesses habitually park. Whats the betting the driver was arleady banned,
had no insurance no MOT and no car tax and probably fake ID
In fact the original MOT test as it was introduced more than 50 years ago if done properly very effectively covered all the main roadworthyness
issues. The only extensions really needed on safety grounds have been to cover tyres and system such as seat belts, SRS, ABS and PAS not fitted to
1950s cars.
[Edited on 28/7/13 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
MOT tests safety issues. None of the items you spotted are safety issues of any quantifiable level. It's perfectly possible it is safe enough to
pass an MOT but its electrics are dodgy and its got a few bolts missing which will weaken it in a crash. Seems like knee-jerk reaction to me.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by matt_gsxr
Stricter testing would add costs to everyone.
Road deaths are down year on year.
Maybe the system isn't so bad.
Easy to explain when you consider better safety protection systems for both occupants and pedestrians and more importantly real advances in
medical care at the roadside and in the the A&E.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:42 PM |
|
|
As far as I understand the Tuv system has to approve modified parts. If the modification isnt tuv approved and you dont have a certificate for it its
illegal. The testing procedure is more stringent.
My costs wouldn't go up because I maintain my car to a high standard, if something is worn it gets replaced end of. Not all drivers are like
this and look at vehicle maintenance as an inconvenience rather than a necessity. Or in this particular case as long as it goes fast the fact it may
fall apart is a minor forgotten detail
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
MOT tests safety issues. None of the items you spotted are safety issues of any quantifiable level. It's perfectly possible it is safe enough to
pass an MOT but its electrics are dodgy and its got a few bolts missing which will weaken it in a crash. Seems like knee-jerk reaction to me.
Sorry but that's tosh. Would you be happy for this kid to turn up at your house to pick up your son/daughter knowing its been cobbled together
by a numpty?
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
I think the implication was that the test would cost more and not just an increase in costs because people bought more parts.
Like I said, it starts like that, then a few years time we've all got cars with bonnets that only open with a special key and a full dealer
service history becomes mandatory. I'm sort of Joking, but Audi have already tried that first one, and there are many groups who'd like to
see the second.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 08:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Sorry but that's tosh. Would you be happy for this kid to turn up at your house to pick up your son/daughter knowing its been cobbled together
by a numpty?
Don't be sorry, you're welcome to your opinion no matter how daft it is 
Seriously though, look at it - the quality of work done by many a commercial garage I've seen has been borderline negligent, some kid cobbling
together his car is no different to what I've seen. So long as it passes the MOT I'm confident it at least passes the bulk of the sensible
safety tests at least on that day. So yes, I would. You can't expect anything else - you could have a super-stringent test and the next day the
car be half stripped and put back together backwards and without any skill - you won't affect that. To suggest more stringent tests, at great
expense and time requirement for all involved be applied to all vehicles, purely because some are a bit questionable in some "possibly slightly
dodgy, but showing no faults at the time" way is mindblowingly stupid.
quote:
My costs wouldn't go up because I maintain my car to a high standard, if something is worn it gets replaced end of. Not all drivers are
like this and look at vehicle maintenance as an inconvenience rather than a necessity. Or in this particular case as long as it goes fast the fact it
may fall apart is a minor forgotten detail
You're missing the point. If a test were stringent enough to check all electrical connections, all bolts yada yada you'd be looking at the
cost of an IVA every year. For a few dodgy cars.
Perspective.
[Edited on 28/7/13 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
I do see you're point and parts of it I do agree with. However should we accept that garages do shoddy work? If the test stringency went up
then the quality of work wouldhave to follow suit.
Just as a slightly different perspective I work in the aircraft industry where a few years ago the trend was to ship out all heavy maintenance abroad,
abu dhabi, jordan, asia. Overall cost was less short term but standards were lower, as a result aircraft reliability dipped costing more money long
term. Now this trend is reversing maintenance checks being brought back into uk and ireland, standards have increased, overall reliability increased.
Short term cost isn't the be all and end all.
To be honest the Mot in my mind is not an indication of roadworthiness, I have one because I legally have to.
[Edited on 28/7/13 by sdh2903]
[Edited on 28/7/13 by sdh2903]
|
|
|
mike2704
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
Hi, I am a mot tester and if the test if carried out correctly it is adequate, things can be advised that are not failures and anything the tester
considered dangerous can be and should be listed.
The police have access to all mot advises and failures and can stop and check any car they wish joe public like ourselves can report defective
vehicle.
A big problem now is manufacturer covering the underside and sill panels of cars with plastic shields which the tester is not allowed to remove.
Making the test more stringent would put the test up and price more drivers off the road, I stand by my first statement if done properly it's
adequate but not perfect.
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 09:49 PM |
|
|
Hi mike. Good to hear a testers perspective.
Out of curiosity would you like more powers to fail a vehicle or dig a bit deeper? I'm using the kid next doors car as an example but if you saw
a cobbled together car would it not Irk you having to pass it because it passed the required checks? I'm sure you've seen it all anyway
doing the job you do.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
I think due to the increasing complexity of cars the number that will have been bodged by incompetents has fallen and will continue to fall as most
will not dare even attempt repairs. The worst I tend to see are so called easy cars like old lands or classic vw's where any fool thinks the can
fix them with bondo, chicken wire or duck tape
Just look at scrapyards these days, 90% seem to be almost roadworthy but no one is willing to repair them as they simply don't know how to, I
remember when cars only went to the scrappy if they had been totalled or half the car had rusted away.
I'd say that the standard of roadworthyness of cars on the road has went considerably up in the last ten years
[Edited on 28/7/13 by Mr Whippy]
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 28/7/13 at 10:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
MOT tests safety issues. None of the items you spotted are safety issues of any quantifiable level. It's perfectly possible it is safe enough to
pass an MOT but its electrics are dodgy and its got a few bolts missing which will weaken it in a crash. Seems like knee-jerk reaction to me.
Sorry but that's tosh. Would you be happy for this kid to turn up at your house to pick up your son/daughter knowing its been cobbled together
by a numpty?
The condition of his car would not bother me as much as how I know how he will probably drive.
The cars out there that are perfect condition yet still get crashed with deaths as the outcome. I dont know the figers but accidents and injuries
caused by a defective car must be tiny compared to driving mistakes.
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 29/7/13 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
An MOT test only ensures that the car , at the time of the test, meets minimum requirements. Good examples ,a steering ball joint has to be almost at
the point of failure before it's a test failure and a door sill the can be rotten and still theoretically pass an MOT if the rot is not within
300mm of a so called prescribed area
|
|
|
.jpg)
