Sign in to follow this  
Enright

Fog Lamps When It's Not Foggy

Recommended Posts

I also just found this regarding what the law says about the use of fog lights (front and rear) Just to muddy the waters a little more. :winky:

The Law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 provide

"Reg 27. No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type specified in an item in column 2 of the Table below is used in a manner specified in that item in column 3:

Front fog lamp

( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.

( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.

( c ) Used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked.

Rear fog lamp

( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to the driver of a following vehicle.

( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.

( c ) Save in the case of an emergency vehicle, used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked."

Cheers

Dave.

Just as I posted earlier, although I only posted regarding the front foglamps.Posted 31 December 2010 - 10:14 PM

Posted 31 December 2010 - 10:14 PM

The regulations are very clear on this matter. The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 No 1796 Pt 111 Reg 27 applies as follows and states quite clearly that the use of front foglamps prohibited if they are:

(a)Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.

(b)Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.

©Used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked.

The regulations regarding rear fogs are similar. In my opinion the police should be somewhat stricter on these points....the number of drivers with rear fogs illuminated in rain is alarming, the dazzle caused in rain is terrible.

Glad to see that it has been confirmed as correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The Law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 provide

"Reg 27. No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type specified in an item in column 2 of the Table below is used in a manner specified in that item in column 3:

Front fog lamp

( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.

( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.

( c ) Used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked.

Rear fog lamp

( a ) Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to the driver of a following vehicle.

( b ) Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.

( c ) Save in the case of an emergency vehicle, used so as to be lit when a vehicle is parked."

Cheers, Dave.

FOG-LIGHTS WHEN THERE IS NO FOG etc:

Some say front or rear fogs can dazzle - particularly rear ones in rain.

Some say their cars have special powers and never will.

Nobody says they make anything better/are a life-saving enhancement more should use. Only that they are pretty!

Everybody knows it is against the law

Some say it is a silly law for other people - a minor offence so they will take their chances.

Some say that about a little shop-lifting. Yes, that is different; but they also say that does no harm & they won't be caught - so perhaps not so very different.

So why do something that might make matters worse for others, never better for them & can get you a fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were does it say front fog lights are illegal. It says used not causing dazzle. My entire point has ben properly adjusted front fog lights acuse no dazzle. They are fitted to the bottom of your car and have to,by law, point downwards. So unless you drive a skateboard and lye down on it how do they dazzle. I agree rears are a pain in the neck but not fronts. Any light that is in correctly adjusted is a dazzle hazard. I personally have never ben dazzled by a front fog light.

Before anyone says they have to be used in reduced visablity , define reduced vis and then tell me a way of accuratly checking it at the road side. Without an accurate definition of reduced vis and an accurate way of measureing it no one will ever be conficted. Simply put "it was my opinion that he didnt need his fog lights on as i didnt think it was foggy enough" wont stand up in court. Besides that is it illegal to forget to turn them off. You could have come from a foggy area,and forgot to turn them off. As front fog lights dont need a "tell tale" inside the car you could quite easily forgot you had them on. From inside the car unless i look very hard i cant tell if mine are on or not i have to flick them on and off and note the diffrence. I cant see anyone being convicted of driving with fog lights on.

My suggestion of the law would make things easy and cover all lights. Any light which points upwards causes dazzle think we all agree with that. My simple test would only require a tape measure to check it. Measure the centre of the light wich is causing dazzle. measure the reflection of said light against a wall or a rear bumper of the police car. If the reflection of the car is higher than the light, then its pointing upwards and will cause dazzle. If you wish to factor in a small percentage incase of load in the boot or really big passengers in the back,thats fine. But my suggestion would cover all lights and not just fog lights. Being dazzled while driving is a real pain i just cant see why it relates only to fog lights which in my opinion are the least problematic. I think my fail rate for head lights (on mot) is abotu 55% were as front fog lights are not subject to any check at all on mot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

236

You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

The Highway code.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS for DRL what do we need them for? Like some one has already posted if you cant see a car in the day light maybe you shouldnt be driving or crossing the road on foot either.

I can answer that question. Over the last few years, safety of people inside cars has been improved hugely, in the main because the publication of NCAP tests has meant that increased safety has become a good selling point. This is why pretty much all new cars now come with a 5-star rating - it's well worth the maker's time and money investing in getting this right.

However, as a side-effect of this, the proportion of pedestrians being seriously injured or killed, as a proportion of all road-accident victims, has increased sharply. The EU therefore decided 'something must be done' and presented two options to the manufacturers - either make your cars less likely to injure pedestrians (soft bonnets, exterior airbags, no protruding bits etc) or make pedestrians better able to see you. For obvoius reasons, the manufacturers chose the latter option and as a result, DRL are becoming mandatory.

On a personal note, I am deeply unhappy about this. I ride a motorcycle, for which DRL was made compulsory about 5 or 6 years ago, and so you cannot turn off the main headlight on any new motorcycle sold in the EU. For bikes, this is fine, as they are small and harder to spot, and also they are generally the only vehicles on the road with lights on during the day which makes them stand out. However now that every vehicle will have their lights on, bikes will become invisible. In every country where DRL are the norm (not just the Nordics, Hungary has been like this for many years) motorcycle accidents are much more common. Unfortunately, it seems that the government (and EU) is essentially completely at ease with literally sacrificing the lives of motorcyclists in order to save a few careless pedestrians. :crybaby:

Further, I have no doubt whatsoever that the increase in deaths will be used to justify a later ban on bikes on the grounds of safety. :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

236

You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

The Highway code.?

Sorry, but since when has the highway code been law???. guidelines are not law.The highway code may quote the law but the highway code isnt law. Most of the stuff in the highway code is mearly advice and good manners. 100 metres is considered low vis???? you dont have to see that far to pass your test.

the highway code is the pretty well much the most out dated piece of litrature realating to road use i have ever read. Stopping distances???? if you car stops in the time the highway code suggest,yoru car isnt fit for the road.

The highway code may well give a definition of low vis but now explian to me how you measure that,acuratly and fairly. One man can see better than another. Unless you have some sort of machine for measuring it then the highway codes standard discription of when to use lights wont count anyway. so now show me some where in law where it stats what is low vis and show me a way of acuratlty measuring it and then show me some one who has actually been done for it in a court of law. What i am trying to say is how stupid is the law in banning with your fog lights on. I have seen 4/5 cars today with the new DRL on 2 were on mercedes. Both were fitted where there would normally be a fog light. Dam well looked to me like they both had fog lights on. Lets not get technical about what we call these things afterall the point of this post was to say "driving with fog lights on in the day looks stupid" The thread has got technical about what is a fog light what isnt a fog light when to use them when not to use them. If i recall the first couple of post were about looking like "council estate" boy racers with backwards baseball caps. Well looks to me like mercedes now make their cars look like (not my words) council estate baseball cap wearing boy racers. Like i said the thread was abotu looks not the technicalities of what is or isnt a fog light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS for DRL what do we need them for? Like some one has already posted if you cant see a car in the day light maybe you shouldnt be driving or crossing the road on foot either.

I can answer that question. Over the last few years, safety of people inside cars has been improved hugely, in the main because the publication of NCAP tests has meant that increased safety has become a good selling point. This is why pretty much all new cars now come with a 5-star rating - it's well worth the maker's time and money investing in getting this right.

However, as a side-effect of this, the proportion of pedestrians being seriously injured or killed, as a proportion of all road-accident victims, has increased sharply. The EU therefore decided 'something must be done' and presented two options to the manufacturers - either make your cars less likely to injure pedestrians (soft bonnets, exterior airbags, no protruding bits etc) or make pedestrians better able to see you. For obvoius reasons, the manufacturers chose the latter option and as a result, DRL are becoming mandatory.

On a personal note, I am deeply unhappy about this. I ride a motorcycle, for which DRL was made compulsory about 5 or 6 years ago, and so you cannot turn off the main headlight on any new motorcycle sold in the EU. For bikes, this is fine, as they are small and harder to spot, and also they are generally the only vehicles on the road with lights on during the day which makes them stand out. However now that every vehicle will have their lights on, bikes will become invisible. In every country where DRL are the norm (not just the Nordics, Hungary has been like this for many years) motorcycle accidents are much more common. Unfortunately, it seems that the government (and EU) is essentially completely at ease with literally sacrificing the lives of motorcyclists in order to save a few careless pedestrians. :crybaby:

Further, I have no doubt whatsoever that the increase in deaths will be used to justify a later ban on bikes on the grounds of safety. :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Yeah i've heard of that situation too in other motoring forums. What i would want to know is have the countries with similar rules already in place had cars with the new style DRL's or have they just been the normal dipbeam lights on at all times setup? I only ask as yes i agree that if all cars had their dipbeam on all the time a motorcycle would be harder to spot. In my personal opinion a motorcycle with its dipbeam headlight on would still stick out more if it was surrounded by cars with DRL's as long as the cars DRL's weren't their own dipbeam.

At the moment i'm aware of only one manufacturer who use this method for the DRL's on some of their cars. (Volvo) All the other manufacturer's DRL's are just LED's or mainbeam lights at a vastly reduced voltage and so are in the middle ground between no lights and normal headlights.

So if the existing countries cars have all been driving around with their normal headlights on all the time then it's not an equal/fair comparison to the NEW style DRL rulings.

Boy this thread has changed again. :)

Cheers

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but since when has the highway code been law???. guidelines now law. And 100 mtres is considered low vis???? you dont have to see that far to pass your test. So 100 metres is low vis if you cant see that far. Read a numberplate its about 25 metres away thats what i had to do on my test,so 100 metres is very very low vis !!!.

The highway code may well give a definition of low vis but now explian to me how you measure that,acuratly and fairly. One man can see better than another. Unless you have some sort of machine for measuring it then the highway codes standard discription of when to use lights wont count anyway.

The Highway Code

Introduction

This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility. Further information on driving/riding techniques can be found in ‘The Official DSA Guide to Driving - the essential skills’ and ‘The Official DSA Guide to Riding - the essential skills’.

So i think you'll find the above rules are Legal requirements.

The whole point of the original post is that some Muppet was using his fog lights when it was good visibility because they thought they were cool. And most people just think you look like a tw8t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

236

You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]

The Highway code.?

Sorry, but since when has the highway code been law???. guidelines now law. And 100 mtres is considered low vis???? you dont have to see that far to pass your test. So 100 metres is low vis if you cant see that far. Read a numberplate its about 25 metres away thats what i had to do on my test,so 100 metres is very very low vis !!!.

The highway code may well give a definition of low vis but now explian to me how you measure that,acuratly and fairly. One man can see better than another. Unless you have some sort of machine for measuring it then the highway codes standard discription of when to use lights wont count anyway.

Those are the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989.... Is that the highway code?

Anyhow as per my link previously, From the sounds of it you haven't looked at it yet, which doesn't mention the highway code at all but, it would appear, was what The Transporter got his info from. This is how the info starts out. Doesn't look too much like the highway code to me....

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1989 No. 1796

ROAD TRAFFIC

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

Made28th September 1989

Laid before Parliament11th October 1989

Coming into force1st November 1989

The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred by–

(a)section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 1988(1), in so far as these Regulations revoke enactments having effect as if they had been made under that section;

(b)section 41 as read with section 43 of that Act as regards all other provisions of these Regulations,

and all other enabling powers, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 195 of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations:–

Cheers

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted,

the line above is copied from your quote taken from the highway code!!.

You read the bits of the highway code you want i will read the bits i want see what comes out.Like i said the highway code is guide lines it quote some laws but is not the law it mearly quotes some laws. Interprit it how you like as its not law i wont bother with it. I am more concerned with current LAW rather than than out dated guidelines. Isnt the first chaper of the highway code about pedestrians??. So anyone that walks on the road should also read it and be "done" for not following the rules written within,ye right.

The whole point of the original post is that some Muppet was using his fog lights when it was good visibility because they thought they were cool. And most people just think you look like a tw8t.

Theres another quote i have copied from a previous post. So what, all mercedes drivers look like Tw8ts now do they. I have seen 2 mercedes today with the new DRL on them ,both had these lights fitted in the spot where a fog light would normally be fitted. It wont be long before many other manufacturers follow suit. So on these grounds as of next year all drivers will look like tw8ts as everyone with a new car will be driving round with lights on. Dont tell me a guy with lights on looks like a tw8t and another doesnt just based on what the lights are called?? Your still driving round with bright lights on when its not needed. Lets not get technical about it when the original post was about LOOKS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you still want to be technical, anyone know of a police force that has a metre for measuring low visability.?? If they havent got one then they cant take you to court for it can they because whos to say what is good or bad vis therefore who can say if you should have your fog lights on or not.

I have an mark 1 rs2000 a 1969 vintage. It has a custom made exhaust on it. I was stopped many times and told my exhaust was "too loud" and i should change it. Not one single copper could tell me how loud was too loud or had access to any form of machine to actually measure it. I know what is too loud and have access to to a mechine to measure it. They wereall right it is too loud but as the police cant prove it and therefore cant take me to court for it i dont think i will be changing it in the near future. Same goes for fog lights, until the police start handing out punishment of some sort for having them on, its a pointless law. People will still drive round with them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted,

the line above is copied from your quote taken from the highway code!!.

You read the bits of the highway code you want i will read the bits i want see what comes out.Like i said the highway code is guide lines it quote some laws but is not the law it mearly quotes some laws. Interprit it how you like as its not law i wont bother with it. I am more concerned with current LAW rather than than out dated guidelines. Isnt the first chaper of the highway code about pedestrians??. So anyone that walks on the road should also read it and be "done" for not following the rules written within,ye right.

The whole point of the original post is that some Muppet was using his fog lights when it was good visibility because they thought they were cool. And most people just think you look like a tw8t.

Theres another quote i have copied from a previous post. So what, all mercedes drivers look like Tw8ts now do they. I have seen 2 mercedes today with the new DRL on them ,both had these lights fitted in the spot where a fog light would normally be fitted. It wont be long before many other manufacturers follow suit. So on these grounds as of next year all drivers will look like tw8ts as everyone with a new car will be driving round with lights on. Dont tell me a guy with lights on looks like a tw8t and another doesnt just based on what the lights are called?? Your still driving round with bright lights on when its not needed. Lets not get technical about it when the original post was about LOOKS.

Who are you replying to??? Hasn't everything that's been copy and pasted above come from the "Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989"??? i.e. RVLR regs 25&27 The highway code is just quoting the RVLR 1989..... I've been quoting the RVLR 1989 itself everytime and not once the highway code.

***EDIT***

In response to your further post relating to police starting to fine people etc..... Sooner the better..... Along with illegal front tints (Even if they're 1-step over the legal limit) :winky:, Aftermarket HID kits in unchanged Halogen reflectors, Loud exhausts etc... Maybe then we may actually get the balls to start really punishing the more major traffic crimes of driving with no insurance or MOT etc.... Rather than the current couple of hundred quid fine or a short ban. (Hmmmm Let me think i can't afford my £1500 premium so shall i not bother with the car or shall i just wing it and maybe pay a couple of hundred quid fine.... Decisions decisions) :angry:

Cheers

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transporter was suggesting the highway code was law. his quote were copied from the highway code. I was mearly pointing out it isnt law it just quotes SOME laws. Technically it doesnt even quote law it gives refrance to law.

Either way my posts gives my views on the laws we are all talking about. Until the police have a way to measure what is and what isnt poor visabilty then no one will be taken to court for the crime of "driving with fog lights on". So its a stupid pointless law. If they make it law that is illegal to dazzle people with any light then the police will have to get some sort of machine to measure "dazzle". They will also have to take to court anyone who fails to turn of main beam lights. Its a stupid pointless law.

As the point of this thread was about looking like a tw8t with your lights on when there are not needed and all new cars now have to have lights on all day then in the words of the first posters everyone "will look like council estate baseball cap wearing boy racers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transporter was suggesting the highway code was law. his quote were copied from the highway code. I was mearly pointing out it isnt law it just quotes SOME laws. Technically it doesnt even quote law it gives refrance to law.

Either way my posts gives my views on the laws we are all talking about. Until the police have a way to measure what is and what isnt poor visabilty then no one will be taken to court for the crime of "driving with fog lights on". So its a stupid pointless law. If they make it law that is illegal to dazzle people with any light then the police will have to get some sort of machine to measure "dazzle". They will also have to take to court anyone who fails to turn of main beam lights. Its a stupid pointless law.

As the point of this thread was about looking like a tw8t with your lights on when there are not needed and all new cars now have to have lights on all day then in the words of the first posters everyone "will look like council estate baseball cap wearing boy racers".

Fair play to yer..... I've also added something extra to my previous post regarding your second post.... Maybe we agree on something at least..... But that's all for another topic/thread maybe. :)

Cheers

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Dave. But it all comes down to education and money. The police will need re training to know what is and what isnt a hid and if its fitted correctly.They will also need funds to buy equipment to measure the volume of an exhaust and the law will need changing to allow them to do this. The law on exhaust is/was 101Db at 3500rpm in any gear. The police would have to be able to either test your car there and then or be allowed to impound your car until such a test could be arranged.

Either solution isnt practical. I dont think police are insured to drive "any car" in the first instance and they would have to carry the machine at all times. Window tints i dont see as a problem, my front windows are one shade darker than legal and have been for 12 months at least. I have never been stopped about it. Unless your tints are way over the top i dont see it as a danger, my sunglasses are darker than my tints, but some limit has to be set some where i guess and mine are illegal so if i get stopped i will just hold my hands up. I dont think my local police have the machine for measuring window tints ( as i have never heard of anyone being done for it) but i know some forces have it.

AS for your insurance arguement i couldnt agree more i know fo at least 2 people done for drink driving that still do it. I saw one lad today at the valeters who was moaning his insurance was £4000 on his type r civic. His major complaint was his insurance company wouldnt quote him this year. Obviously he had learnt his lesson as my mate, the valeter, removed at least 3 or 4 empty bottle of beer from his car. Fair enough he may not have drank them but isnt it iligal to have an open container of beer in your? would take some convincing they were empty when he put them in there !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that I merly cut and pasted from the Highway code but do these quotes from the road vehicle lighting regs not constitute a law?

Sadly these days folk like to have absolute proof as given to them by a machine rather than the use of common sense and judgement, both of which are a dying skill... So what device does an MOT tester use in judging the degree of play in a suspension bush or play in a steering component because I have never seen one of these machines... If the tester was to fail my car, could I argue that because the tester used his judgment the test was invalid?... And whilst we are at it, going back to the wonky bumper... What is the definition of a chassis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Window tints i dont see as a problem, my front windows are one shade darker than legal and have been for 12 months at least. I have never been stopped about it. Unless your tints are way over the top i dont see it as a danger, my sunglasses are darker than my tints, but some limit has to be set some where i guess and mine are illegal so if i get stopped i will just hold my hands up. I dont think my local police have the machine for measuring window tints ( as i have never heard of anyone being done for it) but i know some forces have it.

AS for your insurance arguement i couldnt agree more

So you openly admit to driving your car with illegal tints and say that it is not a problem? I would have thought that a person with your responsibilities..i.e. MOT Tester, Area co-ordinator for a motor club, would have more sense. Have you thought that you are technically driving with invalid insurance? Tinting windows is a mod and as such should be notified to your insurance company and if they are, as you proudly quote illegal as they one shade darker than legal, then your insurance company would decline to insure you if they were aware. So since they are obviously not aware of the degree of tint they could declare your insurance void if it was discovered following any RTA.

Just because you don't see it as a danger doesn't alter the fact that they are, in your own words, illegal. AMAZING!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that I merly cut and pasted from the Highway code but do these quotes from the road vehicle lighting regs not constitute a law?

Sadly these days folk like to have absolute proof as given to them by a machine rather than the use of common sense and judgement, both of which are a dying skill... So what device does an MOT tester use in judging the degree of play in a suspension bush or play in a steering component because I have never seen one of these machines... If the tester was to fail my car, could I argue that because the tester used his judgment the test was invalid?... And whilst we are at it, going back to the wonky bumper... What is the definition of a chassis?

Ok, working backwards through your post. A chassis is the bit coloured black in the pictures in the testers manuel. Its that simple. Theres pictures and the chassis is coloured in.

There are machines out there for testing play the new SPTL decide what is play and what isnt play same as emissions test machines not up to tester to decide. Also not up to tester to decide if brakes work or not the caculation isnt even done by the tester any more.

You CAN complain and say you think your car should have passed when i failed it you can also complain it should have failed when i passed it. But this is kept quite so the genral public doesnt know about. Every test cente has to carry the form for you to complain on should you wish to, but a have worked in garages 20/21 years i dont even know what its called it will be a vt something or other. Will find out for you if you wish as this information isnt genrally known.It involves another test fee and another test carried out by a vosa inspector ata testcentre of your choice and more often than not agrees with the original result.

And sadly its a court of law that needs definative proof given under machine test. Drink driving for instance should you banned because i copper thought you was drunk??. Law is about proof nto an opinion.

An mot tester has to be qualified and experianced not just a mechanic. Althogh there is a exam which you have to pass should you be neither qualified or experianced, its not just a case of i am i tester what i say goes.

hope this answers your questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Window tints i dont see as a problem, my front windows are one shade darker than legal and have been for 12 months at least. I have never been stopped about it. Unless your tints are way over the top i dont see it as a danger, my sunglasses are darker than my tints, but some limit has to be set some where i guess and mine are illegal so if i get stopped i will just hold my hands up. I dont think my local police have the machine for measuring window tints ( as i have never heard of anyone being done for it) but i know some forces have it.

AS for your insurance arguement i couldnt agree more

So you openly admit to driving your car with illegal tints and say that it is not a problem? I would have thought that a person with your responsibilities..i.e. MOT Tester, Area co-ordinator for a motor club, would have more sense. Have you thought that you are technically driving with invalid insurance? Tinting windows is a mod and as such should be notified to your insurance company and if they are, as you proudly quote illegal as they one shade darker than legal, then your insurance company would decline to insure you if they were aware. So since they are obviously not aware of the degree of tint they could declare your insurance void if it was discovered following any RTA.

Just because you don't see it as a danger doesn't alter the fact that they are, in your own words, illegal. AMAZING!!!!

Thanks for your, in your words AMAZING wizdom. I have a motor traders policy and as such am insured to drive any car modded or not with out having to inform my insurance company of what were or when i am driving. My insurance company are not interested in what i drive as long as its owned by my (having bill of sale is enough) or given to me in conection with my work. I am in charge of any car whislt in my care and subject to any rules of the raod ie fines for bald tyre speeding and such like, but they cant hold me responsable for any modification done on any car. Its a pretty standard policy and if it was your way any modded car would never get repaired serviced or mot tested as the mechanic wouldnt be covered to drive it. So yes i believe i drive a car with an illegal mod but as my insurance are not bothered and neither are the police,i wont be in a rush to change my windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fil, thanks for your reply. I don't think that I need the form number. I don't anticipate needing it. I shall look out for the equipment for testing play next time I'm down at the garage. I take it that you have the equipment on display at your place of work and that you use it to check that your reason for failing is sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You CAN complain and say you think your car should have passed when i failed it you can also complain it should have failed when i passed it. But this is kept quite so the genral public doesnt know about. Every test cente has to carry the form for you to complain on should you wish to, but a have worked in garages 20/21 years i dont even know what its called it will be a vt something or other. Will find out for you if you wish as this information isnt genrally known.It involves another test fee and another test carried out by a vosa inspector ata testcentre of your choice and more often than not agrees with the original result.

And sadly its a court of law that needs definative proof given under machine test. Drink driving for instance should you banned because i copper thought you was drunk??. Law is about proof nto an opinion.

An mot tester has to be qualified and experianced not just a mechanic. Althogh there is a exam which you have to pass should you be neither qualified or experianced, its not just a case of i am i tester what i say goes.

hope this answers your questions

As you say, there is an exam to become a tester. I fail to see how a tester gats experienced before passing an examination which qualifies that person to carry out a test.

Regarding the test fee for a re-examination by a VOSAinspector, this is refunded if the original test was found to have been flawed.

For anyone interested, every MOT Test Centre has to make available a copy of the testing manual to customers on request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fil, thanks for your reply. I don't think that I need the form number. I don't anticipate needing it. I shall look out for the equipment for testing play next time I'm down at the garage. I take it that you have the equipment on display at your place of work and that you use it to check that your reason for failing is sound?

No i dont have it as its very expensive and not required for all stations at the moment. I still use the old method laid down by VOSA. I use my assistant, then draw on my experiance, then if in doubt run it by my quality controller and station manager then decide from there. So in short its run through aprox 60/70 years of experiance before i fail it or pass it of course.

I believe the Irish all have sptl. Its a compleatly automated system for checking all play, excesive movement. even headlight adjustment i believe. pretty well much ruling out all judgement from any tester .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your, in your words AMAZING wizdom. I have a motor traders policy and as such am insured to drive any car modded or not with out having to inform my insurance company of what were or when i am driving. My insurance company are not interested in what i drive as long as its owned by my (having bill of sale is enough) or given to me in conection with my work. I am in charge of any car whislt in my care and subject to any rules of the raod ie fines for bald tyre speeding and such like, but they cant hold me responsable for any modification done on any car. Its a pretty standard policy and if it was your way any modded car would never get repaired serviced or mot tested as the mechanic wouldnt be covered to drive it. So yes i believe i drive a car with an illegal mod but as my insurance are not bothered and neither are the police,i wont be in a rush to change my windows.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that YOUR personal car, ie registered in your name on the V5 was the car you were saying was illegal. I would still think however that driving it knowingly with illegal tints could invalidate the policy, insurers are getting a lot more canny these days and will avoid paying if they can and illegal tints might well be a good enough reason for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You CAN complain and say you think your car should have passed when i failed it you can also complain it should have failed when i passed it. But this is kept quite so the genral public doesnt know about. Every test cente has to carry the form for you to complain on should you wish to, but a have worked in garages 20/21 years i dont even know what its called it will be a vt something or other. Will find out for you if you wish as this information isnt genrally known.It involves another test fee and another test carried out by a vosa inspector ata testcentre of your choice and more often than not agrees with the original result.

And sadly its a court of law that needs definative proof given under machine test. Drink driving for instance should you banned because i copper thought you was drunk??. Law is about proof nto an opinion.

An mot tester has to be qualified and experianced not just a mechanic. Althogh there is a exam which you have to pass should you be neither qualified or experianced, its not just a case of i am i tester what i say goes.

hope this answers your questions

As you say, there is an exam to become a tester. I fail to see how a tester gats experienced before passing an examination which qualifies that person to carry out a test.

Regarding the test fee for a re-examination by a VOSAinspector, this is refunded if the original test was found to have been flawed.

For anyone interested, every MOT Test Centre has to make available a copy of the testing manual to customers on request.

again Dave1 your correct the manuel is available at all test stations on request its also available at all libraries.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4i00000101.htm

That should get you to the online version. JUst be aware that the test changes all the time via email i dont know how up to date the online guide is.

Experianced or quilified as in city and guilds.. You could have been self employed and never sat an exam (as my boss is)hes been working in a garage since the age of 14,hes 51 now so definatly experianced. This qualified him to become a test afera 2 day course at vosa. Inexperiance and no qualification? then you simply sit the qualifying exam set out by vosa,although i think there may be still some experiance required but it may just be an age requirement either way still involves passing an exam and then a 2 day course both laid down by vosa set and tested by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this