[Joey1]

American,Australian African i.e. most grey imported non EU vehicles have any E marks anywhere, not even on glass let alone lamps and bulbs, only vehicles destined for the EU originally have them, or where a mfr dual marks them and uses the unit for more than the EU market. try looking at a Eunos Roadster (MX5 here) no e marks at all, hence very difficult to enforce.

 

[Joey1]

Older UK vehicles don't have e marks either, although many are now thankfully exempt MOT but at least the older ones meet lighting regs.

 

[Turnup]

Older UK vehicles don't have e marks either, although many are now thankfully exempt MOT but at least the older ones meet lighting regs.

As with many areas of regulation, vehicles have to meet the regs which were in force at the time they were manufactured. THis is problematic for the MoT tester and I think in part at least this is why older cars no longer need an MoT.

 

[Turnup]

American,Australian African i.e. most grey imported non EU vehicles have any E marks anywhere, not even on glass let alone lamps and bulbs, only vehicles destined for the EU originally have them, or where a mfr dual marks them and uses the unit for more than the EU market. try looking at a Eunos Roadster (MX5 here) no e marks at all, hence very difficult to enforce.

Point well made and I have no idea what the position is regarding such vehicles - never needed to research it.

 

[Joey1]

Unfortunately it was my job for 20 years I was QA for MOT, SVA, VIC, IVA and COIF back when DVSA was VOSA. Thankfully I escaped, so not my role since 2009 when I moved to the MOTless Isle of Man (well for private cars,bikes and campers) My 7.5ton camper has never had an MOT or my 90 and 110 Land Rover since they were all new here in 1986. Ironically no speed limit here out of town either, a combination that some folk would find unnerving I'm sure. Not a big fan of MOT personally as you may of gathered.

 

[Joey1]

These are the reasons given for vehicles over 40 years not to require MOT (it was debated to be 30 years at one point) Note worthy is the IOM has no MOT, there is no evidence it leads to increased accident rates (almost all accidents here are attended by the Police and vehicles are inspected by the DOI (equivalent of DVSA) "TRL estimated in 2011 that just 3% of road casualties could be associated with vehicle defects. The effect of MOTs on the rate of vehicle defects contributing to crashes amongst these older vehicles is difficult to assess. Our conclusion is there could be a small negative effect on road safety. The impact assessment uses an estimate of close to two serious injuries per year. However there is no specific evidence that not testing vehicles of historic interest will lead to a safety risk materialising. It is important to note that the method used to make the prediction uses a relatively simple approach and there are a number of confounding factors, not least that other events could trigger a repair or replacement part to be fitted before the MOT date. 10.MOT pass rates are also indicative of the condition in which vehicles are kept. Like vehicles registered before 1960 (but less so), vehicles first registered in 1961-1977 have a substantially lower MOT failure rate than the general fleet. 11.Taking all these factors into consideration we consider the element of risk arising from taking vehicles over 40 years old out of the testing regime is small. Testing requirements should be proportionate. Per vehicle, the risks in the status quo of not testing vehicles until they are three years old and of not testing the general fleet every six months as opposed to the current annual frequency are likely to be higher. The risks also apply in respect of far larger numbers of vehicles. 12.By implementing this measure owners of vehicles built before 1977 will benefit from a number of savings. The principal saving will be the cost of the MOT test. However, they will also benefit from the associated financial and times costs incurred in taking their vehicle to be tested".

 

[Radiorail]

"TRL estimated in 2011 that just 3% of road casualties could be associated with vehicle defects. The effect of MOTs on the rate of vehicle defects contributing to crashes amongst these older vehicles is difficult to assess. Our conclusion is there could be a small negative effect on road safety. ".

I appreciate the risk based approach taken with regard to MOTs, and support it. Also that mechanical defects are the cause of a low percentage of accidents. That said it is time that the MOT started more robust inspection of lights as these move the risk factor from an accident to the vehicle to causing accidents, or at best increased risk, by dazzling other drivers.

Too many cars now seem to have headlights that spew blue / white light across the road, in an unfocused / undirected manner or approach from the rear with direct dazzling illumination to those in front.

The MOT should include inspection of illumination type and direction against vehicle specification. It is susposed to check beam alignment but I doubt this is effectively carried out.

 

[Joey1]

The MOT is driven by the need for legislation for various reasons, more onus appears to be put on emissions now than any other area, unless there is evidence of accidents relating to lights there will not be a change or tightening of the regs which have to be written in law to support the scheme. The fire service have raised the issue of fires caused in collisions due to battery terminals contacting metal bonnets in the event of a collision for over 20 years or the vehicle turning over, wanting a check of the positive terminal covering and full security of the battery. Not much changes quickly tbh. It is in the main only a basic inspection of limited items to ensure in the main that they are not beyond or at the point of failure rendering the vehicle dangerous. It's also limited due to the time for the test with restraints being set by the fee. Plus due to the lack of enforcement on the road, folk will just swap parts for the MOT, putting them back post test as is the case with many other parts.

 

[gtd2000]

Not a big fan of MOT personally as you may of gathered.

Same here, I've lived in a number of countries where there is no requirement and the sky does not fall.

I brought my '86 GSX-R750 back from Hong Kong in 2001 and it moved around between various sheds and the garage until 2018 when I got it MoT'd and UK registered. That was the first inspection the bike had ever taken, in 32 years. Passed without a single advisory.

I've had some very poor experiences in recent years, with MoT tests regarding our cars. I keep my cars in good order and will change/repair/replace anything that's required of my own volition.

The local KwikFit in Galashiels used to provide a fair and reasonable test but in the past couple of years, they appear to produce a "fantasy failure sheet" for things that are not even a problem.
I had two tyres failed, as being below 1.6mm, despite the tread being higher than the wear bars and the local ATS confirmed the tread depth was between 2.5 to 5mm deep. I also had a ripped CV boot (must have been looking at another car?).
I've never seen such a flustered branch manager - he lost his complete train of thought when I questioned the failure points. All he could get out was "I'm not going to argue about a few mm here or there. I advised that it's simply over 1.6mm and it passed and that's the end of it. I really should have called VOSA.

The GF's Honda Jazz failed on a drop link changed three months before the test and all the brake lines were severely corroded. This was despite me cleaning the lines and greasing them when she bought the car. The drop link was as new and it was the same for the brake lines!
Had a few choice words with the manager (not the same chap as my car) and tester to say the least. Naturally, I've stopped going there after roughly 15+ years of fair MoT tests.

This year I went to ATS and no problems at all.

Only £18.49 via Groupon as well

 

[Alanw47]

For clarification, there no longer seems to be any doubt on the issue

4. Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment - MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - Guidance - GOV.UK

Inspection processes and rules for car, private bus and light commercial vehicle (class 3, 4, 5 and 7 vehicle) MOT tests.

www.gov.uk

4.1.4 states:

Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with high intensity discharge (HID) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Joey1]

For clarification, there no longer seems to be any doubt on the issue

4. Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment - MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - Guidance - GOV.UK

Inspection processes and rules for car, private bus and light commercial vehicle (class 3, 4, 5 and 7 vehicle) MOT tests.

www.gov.uk

4.1.4 states:

Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with high intensity discharge (HID) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank god they finally clarified it, there has been a lot of controversy and inconsistency.

 

[Joey1]

The only fly in the ointment from a legal challenge point of view is the wording (the intent is there) If the unit has been modified/converted, which quite often it is in the case of changing to HID it is clearly a failure.
If a head lamp unit is not "converted" i.e. the unit is totally standard including all the wiring etc i.e. it has not been converted, fitting an LED bulb on it's own the wording does not match the failure. Badly worded as per at a guess. It would have matched the failure better If it simply said "HID or LED light sources are not permitted to be fitted in lamp units originally designed for use with a Halogen light source".

 

[durker]

I'm in UK and converted most bulbs to led I was told by the inspector if it shine's in the right direction it's a pass. And that's about 3 years ago

 

[Turnup]

The only fly in the ointment from a legal challenge point of view is the wording (the intent is there) If the unit has been modified/converted, which quite often it is in the case of changing to HID it is clearly a failure.
If a head lamp unit is not "converted" i.e. the unit is totally standard including all the wiring etc i.e. it has not been converted, fitting an LED bulb on it's own the wording does not match the failure. Badly worded as per at a guess. It would have matched the failure better If it simply said "HID or LED light sources are not permitted to be fitted in lamp units originally designed for use with a Halogen light source".

Agree the wording is awful - I prefer your suggestion.

 

[Turnup]

I'm in UK and converted most bulbs to led I was told by the inspector if it shine's in the right direction it's a pass. And that's about 3 years ago

But the changes to make this illegal are more recent.

 

[Radiorail]

But the changes to make this illegal are more recent.

Even given that I think that simple 'test' of lighting would not meet previous interpretations of the MOT requirements. If that tester had been audited I would hope he would fail!

 

[Joey1]

Here are the old requirements from 2016 with a great animation showing "Low and left" was a pass re head lamp aim, No check for type of bulb, so if the tester was QC'd he would not likely to have been disciplined (fail as you put it) before 2016 it was even more lenient The MOT headlamp aim test is changing - Matters of Testing

 

[Radiorail]

Here are the old requirements from 2016 with a great animation showing "Low and left" was a pass re head lamp aim, No check for type of bulb, so if the tester was QC'd he would not likely to have been disciplined (fail as you put it) before 2016 it was even more lenient The MOT headlamp aim test is changing - Matters of Testing

In that document Test 2 is for the Dazzle zone - I would suggest that installation of an LED bulb, in a housing designed for (point source) halogen bulbs, would most likely fail that test - so the matter is not only that the light "shine's in the right direction" but should not shine in other defined zones.

 

[Turnup]

Agree Radiorail, and it is about time too. I see many cars equipped with ridiculously bright bulbs and totally indiscriminate beam patterns. Of course the scrotes will simply fit teh correct bulbs for the MoT and it seems that the police do not pull people up for this (ditto for non-compliant registration plates)

 

[Joey1]

The problem with road side enforcement presently, is without beam pattern checking equipment (only applicable to dip beams anyhow) is that many Lamps that are legal are not e marked. This reduces the enforcement to folk visually assessing whether they are legal or not, many of the Police are not trained in this regard. Appeals could tie up court time and the Police etc. Like the introduction of speed cameras reduced the number of Police officers doing speed checks (hence you end up now with photographs of a stolen speeding cars (sent to the legal owner) with an illegal driver and a car full of stolen goods, opposed to stopping them at a speed check point. MOT is the tool of choice in the UK for maintaining fleet compliance, road side enforcement is reduced compared to countries that don't have a MOT style scheme. When was the last time someone on here saw or was pulled into a road side check point ? Here we have them all the time as we have no MOT scheme for private cars, bikes and campers etc.