The lonely transport post thread.

[T & P]

Under the hood?

 

[Duncan2]

Across the country I am confident that there are large numbers of cars not only parked but being driven on the road without MOT.Not recommending this of course.Many of these cars will be taxed and insured.The insurance companies involved obviously will be aware of this but they do nothing.what then happens in the event of an accident I myself am not clear on but I guess if in fact your vehicle is in sace condition a claim would still be possible?Incidentally i was amazed to discover that cars over forty years old do not need to pass an MOT test.No doubt this is because they never were safe to drive by modern standards?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Across the country I am confident that there are large numbers of cars not only parked but being driven on the road without MOT.Not recommending this of course.Many of these cars will be taxed and insured.

The tax system includes a visual or automated check that a vehicle has current MOT at the time of taxing, but of course your MOT could expire the week after you tax it (that's why vehicles that have a zero rate of 'road tax' still have to go through the annual tax renewal process - and used to get a 'tax disc') - I don't think I've ever had to provide an MOT certificate to insurers, but don't know if they can check via DVSA.

The insurance companies involved obviously will be aware of this but they do nothing.what then happens in the event of an accident I myself am not clear on but I guess if in fact your vehicle is in sace condition a claim would still be possible?

Firstly, you would be in trouble with the police if an accident involving a vehicle with expired MOT came to light. Fairly sure it's a points on the licence thing. There may be a defence if it's a fleet vehicle, bus drivers aren't expected to check the MOT status of every bus they drive in the course of their work, for example.

I don't think insurers can side-step a third party death / personal injury claim because of MOT being invalid, but they would probably reject any 'own damage' claim. I'm not sure about a third party property damage claim. I'm a bit out of touch with this.

They would also probably cancel your insurance after the claim, and getting new insurance would be more difficult / expensive.

Incidentally i was amazed to discover that cars over forty years old do not need to pass an MOT test.No doubt this is because they never were safe to drive by modern standards?

The position for older vehicles and MOT tests (you can still get a voluntary MOT test on a 40+ vehicle) is that they have to meet the standards that were in place when they were built, so (for example) cars built before X date don't have to have rear seat belts, vehicles built before Y date don't have to have front seat belts, and they don't have to meet current standards for things like fog lights or flashing direction indicators ('semaphore arms' are acceptable for certain ages, none at all is acceptable for another age.)

The official theory behind the historic exemption was that vehicles that age only do limited mileage, and are owned by people who care about the vehicles and won't want them to get in to a state.

An alternative explanation was it was an attempt to get the vote of a small number of classic car owning gammons who might tend towards UKIP or whatever it was called that week.

Personally, I think it was an unwise bit of law, especially when vintage buses / lorries are included. Very few vehicle owners have got the facilities to do proper brake tests, for example. Having said that, an increasing number of MOT testers don't understand elderly vehicles or know what standards apply to vehicles of what age.

You can of course be done for driving an 'unroadworthy' vehicle on the road at any time, even if it's got a current MOT or is exempt.

 

[Duncan2]

The tax system includes a visual or automated check that a vehicle has current MOT at the time of taxing, but of course your MOT could expire the week after you tax it (that's why vehicles that have a zero rate of 'road tax' still have to go through the annual tax renewal process - and used to get a 'tax disc') - I don't think I've ever had to provide an MOT certificate to insurers, but don't know if they can check via DVSA.



Firstly, you would be in trouble with the police if an accident involving a vehicle with expired MOT came to light. Fairly sure it's a points on the licence thing. There may be a defence if it's a fleet vehicle, bus drivers aren't expected to check the MOT status of every bus they drive in the course of their work, for example.

I don't think insurers can side-step a third party death / personal injury claim because of MOT being invalid, but they would probably reject any 'own damage' claim. I'm not sure about a third party property damage claim. I'm a bit out of touch with this.

They would also probably cancel your insurance after the claim, and getting new insurance would be more difficult / expensive.



The position for older vehicles and MOT tests (you can still get a voluntary MOT test on a 40+ vehicle) is that they have to meet the standards that were in place when they were built, so (for example) cars built before X date don't have to have rear seat belts, vehicles built before Y date don't have to have front seat belts, and they don't have to meet current standards for things like fog lights or flashing direction indicators ('semaphore arms' are acceptable for certain ages, none at all is acceptable for another age.)

The official theory behind the historic exemption was that vehicles that age only do limited mileage, and are owned by people who care about the vehicles and won't want them to get in to a state.

An alternative explanation was it was an attempt to get the vote of a small number of classic car owning gammons who might tend towards UKIP or whatever it was called that week.

Personally, I think it was an unwise bit of law, especially when vintage buses / lorries are included. Very few vehicle owners have got the facilities to do proper brake tests, for example. Having said that, an increasing number of MOT testers don't understand elderly vehicles or know what standards apply to vehicles of what age.

You can of course be done for driving an 'unroadworthy' vehicle on the road at any time, even if it's got a current MOT or is exempt.

Agree with all of the above Puddytat I do however think it's a bit Sus that insurers will agree to insure drivers of vehicles without an MOT when all the relevant information is available on line.

 

[Happy Tree]

Under the hood?

Under something, yes. The back number plate! In a bit of James Bondesque design, the number plate was on a spring. So you pulled it down and the petrol cap was there behind it.

 

[existentialist]

My mum had a Volvo DAF. Yellow with a black stripe along the side. Automatic. I had just passed my test and took it out for a play. Went to the garage to put some petrol in for the first time. Exciting!

Except there was no petrol cap. I walked around and around. Nowhere to put petrol! I was most perplexed. I went into the shop and said to the guy, sorry, this is my first time. I can't find the petrol cap. He came out, presumably rolling his eyes. I can't remember. This was 1988. Anyway, he couldn't find it either. I went home, defeated, and asked mum.

I have a shiny sixpence for the clever fellow, or fellette, who can tell me where it was.

In the centre of the rear bumper, just below the boot lid?

 

[Rebecca Riot]

My mum had a Volvo DAF. Yellow with a black stripe along the side. Automatic. I had just passed my test and took it out for a play. Went to the garage to put some petrol in for the first time. Exciting!

Except there was no petrol cap. I walked around and around. Nowhere to put petrol! I was most perplexed. I went into the shop and said to the guy, sorry, this is my first time. I can't find the petrol cap. He came out, presumably rolling his eyes. I can't remember. This was 1988. Anyway, he couldn't find it either. I went home, defeated, and asked mum.

I have a shiny sixpence for the clever fellow, or fellette, who can tell me where it was.

Back in the late 1970s we had a neighbour with a car just like the one your mum had and that was automatic as well. She didn't learn to drive until she was in her 50s and she was thrilled to bits with this car and said it was so easy to drive as it only went forwards and backwards. I've yet to see a car that can go up and down as well!

 

[T & P]

Back in the late 1970s we had a neighbour with a car just like the one your mum had and that was automatic as well. She didn't learn to drive until she was in her 50s and she was thrilled to bits with this car and said it was so easy to drive as it only went forwards and backwards. I've yet to see a car that can go up and down as well!

You’ve just reminded me of Stephen King’s The Tommyknockers, which actually features that very feature for reasons I won’t spoil.

 

[Elpenor]

I saw a lay-by on the dual carriageway that had a sign “no refrigerated trucks overnight please”

The lay-by is near some sort of dwelling. Hard to be sure when passing at 50mph.

I assume it’s because the fridges on the trucks make some sort of noise like my own fridge at home does. Could there be any other reason for the sign?

 

[Elpenor]

Does this mean screw top bottles of wine would be ok? As they could have been opened before travel and then resealed

 

[_Russ_]

If the top is screwed on its not open, where is the ambiguity you see?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Does this mean screw top bottles of wine would be ok? As they could have been opened before travel and then resealed

would probably depend on the exact wording of the bye-law or whatever it is. i'm not a lawyer or copper or london underground worker.

don't think the law would stop you (for example) taking bottles / cans home from an off-licence. or carrying a hip flask.

anything that can't be re-sealed (e.g. a can, beer bottle with a crown cork, wine bottle with a proper cork) would presumably not be allowed even if you weren't actively drinking when you were seen.

something that's re-sealable like a screw top bottle, (do they still do that poncy lager with a fancy flip top thing?) is a bit of a grey area and would probably earn a few lawyers a fee for arguing about it unless you were clearly seen opening it while in transit.

 

[T & P]

Does this mean screw top bottles of wine would be ok? As they could have been opened before travel and then resealed

View attachment 459884

Brown paper bag is your friend

 

[farmerbarleymow]

would probably depend on the exact wording of the bye-law or whatever it is. i'm not a lawyer or copper or london underground worker.

don't think the law would stop you (for example) taking bottles / cans home from an off-licence. or carrying a hip flask.

anything that can't be re-sealed (e.g. a can, beer bottle with a crown cork, wine bottle with a proper cork) would presumably not be allowed even if you weren't actively drinking when you were seen.

something that's re-sealable like a screw top bottle, (do they still do that poncy lager with a fancy flip top thing?) is a bit of a grey area and would probably earn a few lawyers a fee for arguing about it unless you were clearly seen opening it while in transit.

Just tip vodka or gin into a water bottle - they'd be none the wiser.

 

[hash tag]

when i was shopping for a car 6 or so years ago, i was put off one car i'd seen when i read the reviews and saw that changing a headlight bulb was almost a main dealer job

Changing a rear bulb on my Brera took ages, it was tricky, took maybe half an hour or more and a medium length socket was necessary.

 

[hash tag]

There were 3 Alfa Bat cars made as a concept and they were sold at auction a while back