How do I add myself an avatar from the public avatar library?
mot
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Open discussion > mot 9 May 2005 19:05:09

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

mot

Johnnie Scott 7 May 2005 18:31:27
 Free MoT retests could soon be a thing of the past, due to new rules.
Currently, garages give customers a no-cost second inspection on cars which
fail at the first attempt, because they only recheck items which were
changed or fixed.
But new computerised procedures - launched nationwide this month - will kill
off the practice. Mechanics have to visit a special website to record
vehicle details, and must do the whole test again. As that takes time,
motorists will be billed twice.



Add comment
Barry 7 May 2005 18:52:23 permanent link ]
 Johnnie Scott wrote:> Free MoT retests could soon be a thing of the past, due to new rules. > Currently, garages give customers a no-cost second inspection on cars which > fail at the first attempt, because they only recheck items which were > changed or fixed.> But new computerised procedures - launched nationwide this month - will kill > off the practice. Mechanics have to visit a special website to record > vehicle details, and must do the whole test again. As that takes time, > motorists will be billed twice.>

How will a website know what you've inspected the second time round and
what you haven't?
Add comment
Conor 7 May 2005 20:33:26 permanent link ]
 In article <3j4fe.24668$5A3.11­113@newsfe4-win.ntli­.net>, Johnnie Scott
says...> Free MoT retests could soon be a thing of the past, due to new rules. > Currently, garages give customers a no-cost second inspection on cars which > fail at the first attempt, because they only recheck items which were > changed or fixed.> But new computerised procedures - launched nationwide this month - will kill > off the practice. Mechanics have to visit a special website to record > vehicle details, and must do the whole test again. As that takes time, > motorists will be billed twice.>
And the news in this little titbit is?

Under current MOT regs, unless you have the repairs done by the garage
who MOT'd it, they are entitled to charge you a full retest fee.

In addition to that, a retest is supposed to be a full test and not
just a check of the failed items.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
Add comment
David Taylor 7 May 2005 20:34:18 permanent link ]
 Johnnie Scott <john374999@.nospam­.ntlworld.com> wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 14:31:27 GMT:> Free MoT retests could soon be a thing of the past, due to new rules. > Currently, garages give customers a no-cost second inspection on cars which > fail at the first attempt, because they only recheck items which were > changed or fixed.

IIRC, for certain items you're legally entitled to get a free
re-test until the end of the next working day.
But new computerised procedures - launched nationwide this month - will kill > off the practice. Mechanics have to visit a special website to record > vehicle details,

Well, they had to write them on paper previously.
and must do the whole test again.

I don't get the logic behind your strange jump to this conclusion.
Is it part of the new rules that the entire vehicle must be retested,
or have you just decided it must be for reasons known only to yourself?
As that takes time, motorists will be billed twice.

A retest will _always_ take some amount of time.

--
David Taylor
Add comment
Hirsty's 7 May 2005 21:58:57 permanent link ]
 

I speed. just yesterday I was doing a lethal 32mph, as the police car> infront of me covered the ground at at least 5mph faster.

how about 50 in a 30 zone outside a school
Makes me wonder> how we all survived, what with it being a dry quiet straight non
residential> road.

rules are set for a reason, if we decide to break them due to superior
intellect then us lesser mortals cannot anticipate within reason ( except
that you will do the unpredictable )


Earlier I even squealed my tyres, as I was testing the work I'd done> on my brakes.

could be argued that that kind of test is not needed or more work would be
in the offing
And later on I put a tape in and could hear it through the> awesome 5" speakers on my parcel shelf from outside the car!

you drive from outside the car ??


Add comment
Mad Ad 7 May 2005 22:27:48 permanent link ]
 
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6fe3195­779de989a69@news.ind­ividual.net...> In article <3j4fe.24668$5A3.11­113@newsfe4-win.ntli­.net>, Johnnie Scott> says...>> Free MoT retests could soon be a thing of the past, due to new rules.>> Currently, garages give customers a no-cost second inspection on cars >> which>> fail at the first attempt, because they only recheck items which were>> changed or fixed.>> But new computerised procedures - launched nationwide this month - will >> kill>> off the practice. Mechanics have to visit a special website to record>> vehicle details, and must do the whole test again. As that takes time,>> motorists will be billed twice.>>
And the news in this little titbit is?>
Under current MOT regs, unless you have the repairs done by the garage> who MOT'd it, they are entitled to charge you a full retest fee.>
In addition to that, a retest is supposed to be a full test and not> just a check of the failed items.>
-- > Conor>
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

Perhaps we will see a rise in garages offering pre-mot checks instead? Its
got to be worth their while to offer the free bits or they wouldn't do it,
just they'll have to package it a bit differently, that's all.

Ad


Add comment
Conor 7 May 2005 22:53:22 permanent link ]
 In article <EM7fe.18021$wu2.16­979@newsfe1-gui.ntli­.net>, Mad Ad says...
Perhaps we will see a rise in garages offering pre-mot checks instead? Its > got to be worth their while to offer the free bits or they wouldn't do it, > just they'll have to package it a bit differently, that's all.>
Why would you have a pre MOT check? Seems stupid. You pay someone the
same cost as an MOT to find it'll pass?


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
Add comment
Guy King 7 May 2005 23:04:43 permanent link ]
 The message <d5iqma$17lj$2@outc­old.yadt.co.uk>
from "David Taylor" <davidt-news@yadt.c­o.uk> contains these words:
IIRC, for certain items you're legally entitled to get a free> re-test until the end of the next working day.


http://www.motuk.co­.uk/manual/introduct­ion.htm

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Guy King 7 May 2005 23:16:45 permanent link ]
 The message <MPG.1ce6fe3195779d­e989a69@news.individ­ual.net>
from Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com> contains these words:
Conor
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

I think you'll find it was Mark Twain - certainly been around
considerably longer than Ozzy.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Guy King 7 May 2005 23:17:43 permanent link ]
 The message <d5j2td$r7h$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>
from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:
That's a bloody good idea, I might go try it. After all, although it's> Saturday, it's getting dark, and the local school is on a wide straight> road, whenever I drive anywhere, above all, I have to think of the> children...

My school was open on Saturday - and there were boarders about on Sunday, too.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Angus McCoatup 7 May 2005 23:33:53 permanent link ]
 
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce71ef942­faf411989a78@news.in­dividual.net...> In article <EM7fe.18021$wu2.16­979@newsfe1-gui.ntli­.net>, Mad Ad says...>
Perhaps we will see a rise in garages offering pre-mot checks instead?
got to be worth their while to offer the free bits or they wouldn't do
it,> > just they'll have to package it a bit differently, that's all.> >
Why would you have a pre MOT check? Seems stupid. You pay someone the> same cost as an MOT to find it'll pass?


Yes that always annoyed me being told to do a pre mot worra load of crap!


Add comment
Hirsty's 7 May 2005 23:43:06 permanent link ]
 

, above all, I have to think of the> children...


I hope so otherwise you may find that others ignore the rules as well and
come looking for you with a piece of 4x4 after you injure one of their
offspring


Add comment
Stuffed 7 May 2005 23:48:34 permanent link ]
 
"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworl­d.com> wrote in message
news:eT8fe.21198$WW­5.14666@newsfe2-win.­ntli.net...>
, above all, I have to think of the> > children...>
I hope so otherwise you may find that others ignore the rules as well and> come looking for you with a piece of 4x4 after you injure one of their> offspring

Bugger the blind, the old, the "differently abled" and so forth then, eh?

If little Johnny was stupid enough to be skateboarding at teh bottom of a
hill, on a tight road, round a blind corner, then tough. The young have
supposedly better reactions, so if they're going to be so bloody stupid,
then let Darwin take its course.

Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have a go
at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of leaving
it to society. I know, it'd never work.


Add comment
Stuffed 7 May 2005 23:52:56 permanent link ]
 
"Guy King" <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030343237­39427D226745@zetnet.­co.uk...> The message <d5j2td$r7h$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>> from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:>
That's a bloody good idea, I might go try it. After all, although it's> > Saturday, it's getting dark, and the local school is on a wide straight> > road, whenever I drive anywhere, above all, I have to think of the> > children...>
My school was open on Saturday - and there were boarders about on Sunday,
too.

Fair nuff, and I do actually have a problem with speeding outside schools
during any time of activity. Oddly enough though, the police seem to
disagree, as they are never to be seen near the school, preferring to wait
after rush hour on a wide straight road out of town, that happens to have
large verges between it and the pavement.

What I really object to though is being told to slow down for a child, as if
they're the only group at risk. These are mini people that have, or are
supposed to have, watchful guardians. Nobody ever says think of the blind,
or don't speed past an old folks home, for example.


Add comment
Conor 8 May 2005 00:02:07 permanent link ]
 In article <3e4jh2F16gp9U1@ind­ividual.net>, Angus McCoatup says...>
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote in message> news:MPG.1ce71ef942­faf411989a78@news.in­dividual.net...> > In article <EM7fe.18021$wu2.16­979@newsfe1-gui.ntli­.net>, Mad Ad says...> >
Perhaps we will see a rise in garages offering pre-mot checks instead?> Its> > > got to be worth their while to offer the free bits or they wouldn't do> it,> > > just they'll have to package it a bit differently, that's all.> > >
Why would you have a pre MOT check? Seems stupid. You pay someone the> > same cost as an MOT to find it'll pass?>
Yes that always annoyed me being told to do a pre mot worra load of crap!>
Especially as alot of them are done by non MOT qualified mechanics.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
Add comment
Angus McCoatup 8 May 2005 00:04:12 permanent link ]
 
"Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> wrote in message
news:d5j5ui$s81$1@n­ews.freedom2surf.net­...>
"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworl­d.com> wrote in message> news:eT8fe.21198$WW­5.14666@newsfe2-win.­ntli.net...> >
, above all, I have to think of the> > > children...> >
I hope so otherwise you may find that others ignore the rules as well
come looking for you with a piece of 4x4 after you injure one of their> > offspring>
Bugger the blind, the old, the "differently abled" and so forth then, eh?>
If little Johnny was stupid enough to be skateboarding at teh bottom of a> hill, on a tight road, round a blind corner, then tough. The young have> supposedly better reactions, so if they're going to be so bloody stupid,> then let Darwin take its course.

like the ones who play chicken on the railway line and get spladged
Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have a
at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of
leaving> it to society. I know, it'd never work.
agreed


Add comment
Guy King 8 May 2005 00:17:29 permanent link ]
 The message <d5j5ui$s81$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>
from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:
Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have a go> at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of leaving> it to society. I know, it'd never work.

I'm pretty responsible when it comes to my kids, but I also know that I
can't watch them like a hawk every second of the day and I can't ensure
they obey my every command. And I'll bet you didn't when you were small,
either.

And even if you really believe that it's OK to run some kid over 'cos
they're stupid, you may well find their parents or neighbours will
decide it's OK to brain you 'cos you're stupid too.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Guy King 8 May 2005 00:19:17 permanent link ]
 The message <d5j66o$s8n$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>
from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:
What I really object to though is being told to slow down for a child, as if> they're the only group at risk. These are mini people that have, or are> supposed to have, watchful guardians. Nobody ever says think of the blind,> or don't speed past an old folks home, for example.

And why just outside schools?

In my experience hazards are everywhere and it's driving in the
knowledge of that which has allowed me the last 200,000 miles with only
one accident - and that was being tailended while stationary at a
junction. That, and a certain amount of luck, obviously!

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Guest 8 May 2005 00:21:15 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:37 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com>
wrote:
But the part you're missing is that a garage can already charge the >full fee for a retest if someone takes the car home and repairs it >themselves.>
Garages choose to waive this. Nothing in the future will stop them >doing the same.

Yes but I think the thing is currently they can "do the retest" a bit
quicker than the original test so the cost to them of doing this is
not too great. Once the system is computerised each step in the test
will be logged on the computer, leaving no scope to skip bits ;-)­.

AJH

Add comment
Hirsty's 8 May 2005 00:24:33 permanent link ]
 
Bugger the blind, the old, the "differently abled" and so forth then, eh?>
If little Johnny was stupid enough to be skateboarding at teh bottom of a> hill, on a tight road, round a blind corner, then tough. The young have> supposedly better reactions, so if they're going to be so bloody stupid,> then let Darwin take its course.>
Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have a
at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of
leaving> it to society. I know, it'd never work.


I'd hazard a guess that you wind up clocks as well ??

:-)­


Add comment
DougP 8 May 2005 01:02:28 permanent link ]
 
<sylva@despammed.co­m> wrote in message
news:ui8q71l8kfpqao­t69p689e1i01roc7rva3­@4ax.com...> On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:37 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com>> wrote:>
But the part you're missing is that a garage can already charge the>>full fee for a retest if someone takes the car home and repairs it>>themselves.>>
Garages choose to waive this. Nothing in the future will stop them>>doing the same.>
Yes but I think the thing is currently they can "do the retest" a bit> quicker than the original test so the cost to them of doing this is> not too great. Once the system is computerised each step in the test> will be logged on the computer, leaving no scope to skip bits ;-)­.>

Not so - do you really think the inspector is going to be carting a PCLaptop
around whilst carrying out the test?


Add comment


Chris Bolus 8 May 2005 02:22:49 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 7 May 2005 19:53:22 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote:
In article <EM7fe.18021$wu2.16­979@newsfe1-gui.ntli­.net>, Mad Ad says...>
Perhaps we will see a rise in garages offering pre-mot checks instead? Its >> got to be worth their while to offer the free bits or they wouldn't do it, >> just they'll have to package it a bit differently, that's all.>>
Why would you have a pre MOT check? Seems stupid. You pay someone the >same cost as an MOT to find it'll pass?

A pre-MOT check is the inspection I do _myself_ before I take the car
for its test. Which means my cars rarely fail as I've already looked at
the things the MOT man will look at, and sorted any problems I find.

It's only the type of basic inspection any responsible motorist should
be doing anyway. Most people can't test emissions at home, but there's
very little on the MOT test that even a non-mechanical motorist can't
spot with a basic inspection. You check the lights, wipers, washers,
seatbelts. You inspect for corrosion, especially within 30cm of
suspension & subframes. You examine the brake pipes including flexis,
the exhaust, and tyres. You jack the car up, spin and wobble the wheels.
As a driver you should know whether your brakes are working more or less
correctly. There's not much outside that lot, which you can do in under
half an hour.

If you're not able to do the work yourself you find someone who can, be
that garage or competant friend.

I suspect that a high proportion of MOT fails are due to people who are
too tight to do a proper repair/maintenance job, and are therefore quite
happy to put their own and other peoples' lives at risk. I've been
pretty short of cash for a long time now but the cars always get
repaired properly.
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by email)
----1961 Austin A40 Farina----1966 Triumph Herald Estate---
---1967 Riley Elf---1965 Hillman Minx---1969 Morris Minor--
-1972 Mini Clubman estate--1957 Standard 8--1979 Ford Capri
********** Please don't email in HTML! **********
Add comment
Mad Ad 8 May 2005 02:50:18 permanent link ]
 
"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworl­d.com> wrote in message
news:Bl7fe.31386$p0­6.4271@newsfe3-gui.n­tli.net...>
I speed. just yesterday I was doing a lethal 32mph, as the police car>> infront of me covered the ground at at least 5mph faster.>
how about 50 in a 30 zone outside a school>
Makes me wonder>> how we all survived, what with it being a dry quiet straight non> residential>> road.>
rules are set for a reason, if we decide to break them due to superior> intellect then us lesser mortals cannot anticipate within reason ( except> that you will do the unpredictable )>
Earlier I even squealed my tyres, as I was testing the work I'd done>> on my brakes.>
could be argued that that kind of test is not needed or more work would be> in the offing>
And later on I put a tape in and could hear it through the>> awesome 5" speakers on my parcel shelf from outside the car!>
you drive from outside the car ??>

If you don't cheer up I'm going to come and drive back and forward infront
of your house with one of these

http://www.mtxaudio­.com/caraudio/produc­ts/subwoofers/jackHa­mmer.cfm

:-)­

Ad


Add comment


Duncan Wood 8 May 2005 03:06:55 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:17:29 +0100, Guy King <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk> wrote:
The message <d5j5ui$s81$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>> from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:>
Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have >> a go>> at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of >> leaving>> it to society. I know, it'd never work.>
I'm pretty responsible when it comes to my kids, but I also know that I> can't watch them like a hawk every second of the day and I can't ensure> they obey my every command. And I'll bet you didn't when you were small,> either.>
And even if you really believe that it's OK to run some kid over 'cos> they're stupid, you may well find their parents or neighbours will> decide it's OK to brain you 'cos you're stupid too.>

Then they can go & brain the evil high tension electricity line that
electrocuted their other kid.
Add comment
Conor 8 May 2005 07:01:52 permanent link ]
 In article <e3fq71hb2n10t2oujk­vogc6v48q3aevghk@4ax­.com>, Chris Bolus
says...
It's only the type of basic inspection any responsible motorist should> be doing anyway. Most people can't test emissions at home, but there's> very little on the MOT test that even a non-mechanical motorist can't> spot with a basic inspection.

Like worn ball joints, steering racks, TCA bushes, suspension link
bushes, rear arm bushes and bearings...

Know how to check all of those do you?

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
Add comment


Bm 8 May 2005 13:55:37 permanent link ]
 
<sylva@despammed.co­m> wrote in message
news:ui8q71l8kfpqao­t69p689e1i01roc7rva3­@4ax.com...> On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:37 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com>> wrote:>
But the part you're missing is that a garage can already charge the>>full fee for a retest if someone takes the car home and repairs it>>themselves.>>
Garages choose to waive this. Nothing in the future will stop them>>doing the same.>
Yes but I think the thing is currently they can "do the retest" a bit> quicker than the original test so the cost to them of doing this is> not too great. Once the system is computerised each step in the test> will be logged on the computer, leaving no scope to skip bits ;-)­.>

I'm assuming the it would mean that the inspector has to check some
checkboxes on some form after entering in approriate details about the car.
i.e., it would be like a standard MOT check list, but it would be
electronic. The inspector checks somethign, then ticks the box. They print
out a hard copy and give it to the customer. Car needs repairs, garage does
repairs, looks at original hard copy, opens another test on the system,
checks all thoses boxes for the passed tests from the first test and having
retested the failed things, then checks those boxes too (assuming they
pass).

I really cant see how this will take much longer, or disallow free second
testing and force them to retest everything




Add comment
Graham 8 May 2005 15:17:35 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 08 May 2005 09:55:37 GMT, "BM" <bmercer@bnota.tk.c­om> wrote:
<sylva@despammed.c­om> wrote in message >news:ui8q71l8kfpqa­ot69p689e1i01roc7rva­3@4ax.com...>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:37 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com>>> wrote:>>
But the part you're missing is that a garage can already charge the>>>full fee for a retest if someone takes the car home and repairs it>>>themselves.>>>­
Garages choose to waive this. Nothing in the future will stop them>>>doing the same.>>
Yes but I think the thing is currently they can "do the retest" a bit>> quicker than the original test so the cost to them of doing this is>> not too great. Once the system is computerised each step in the test>> will be logged on the computer, leaving no scope to skip bits ;-)­.>>
I'm assuming the it would mean that the inspector has to check some >checkboxes on some form after entering in approriate details about the car. >i.e., it would be like a standard MOT check list, but it would be >electronic. The inspector checks somethign, then ticks the box. They print >out a hard copy and give it to the customer. Car needs repairs, garage does >repairs, looks at original hard copy, opens another test on the system, >checks all thoses boxes for the passed tests from the first test and having >retested the failed things, then checks those boxes too (assuming they >pass).>
I really cant see how this will take much longer, or disallow free second >testing and force them to retest everything>

Except "as I understand it" the system is designed (by the ministry)
so that the test spot will be a minimum of 45mins duration. At the
start the tester will log on and enter the vehicle details, log out
and do the test. Once the test is finished the tester re logs into the
system and enters the results etc.

According to people I have spoken to, the system will not allow you to
finish a test (or retest) in under 45mins, so a retest cannot be
accomplished in under 45 minutes (except the within 24 hour type
failures)

This is going to put a definite limit on the test slots a garage has
and therefore I think the free retest will disappear.

Graham
Add comment
Duncan Wood 8 May 2005 15:28:49 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 08 May 2005 04:01:52 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote:
In article <e3fq71hb2n10t2oujk­vogc6v48q3aevghk@4ax­.com>, Chris Bolus> says...>
It's only the type of basic inspection any responsible motorist should>> be doing anyway. Most people can't test emissions at home, but there's>> very little on the MOT test that even a non-mechanical motorist can't>> spot with a basic inspection.>
Like worn ball joints, steering racks, TCA bushes, suspension link> bushes, rear arm bushes and bearings...>
Know how to check all of those do you?>


Well I can't recall having a problem checking any of those. You can buy
the MOT testing manual.
Add comment
Chris Bolus 8 May 2005 15:31:54 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 8 May 2005 04:01:52 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com> wrote:
In article <e3fq71hb2n10t2oujk­vogc6v48q3aevghk@4ax­.com>, Chris Bolus >says...>
It's only the type of basic inspection any responsible motorist should>> be doing anyway. Most people can't test emissions at home, but there's>> very little on the MOT test that even a non-mechanical motorist can't>> spot with a basic inspection. >
Like worn ball joints, steering racks, TCA bushes, suspension link >bushes, rear arm bushes and bearings...>
Know how to check all of those do you?

Yes I do as it happens; I am mechanically competant. I was just
over-simplifying things to point out that few MOT failures should come
as a surprise to anyone who take a little time over some basic checks.

Of course I realise there are those who use the first MOT test for the
tester to "diagnose" what is wrong with their vehicle before they
attempt to fix it. That's just lazy, and could be cited as a reason to
stop free retests (not that I'm advocating that!)
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by email)
----1961 Austin A40 Farina----1966 Triumph Herald Estate---
---1967 Riley Elf---1965 Hillman Minx---1969 Morris Minor--
-1972 Mini Clubman estate--1957 Standard 8--1979 Ford Capri
********** Please don't email in HTML! **********
Add comment
Duncan Wood 8 May 2005 15:51:18 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:17:35 +0100, Graham <gra@hglmotors.co.u­k> wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 09:55:37 GMT, "BM" <bmercer@bnota.tk.c­om> wrote:>
<sylva@despammed.co­m> wrote in message>> news:ui8q71l8kfpqao­t69p689e1i01roc7rva3­@4ax.com...>>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:37 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail­.com>>>> wrote:>>>
But the part you're missing is that a garage can already charge the>>>> full fee for a retest if someone takes the car home and repairs it>>>> themselves.>>>>
Garages choose to waive this. Nothing in the future will stop them>>>> doing the same.>>>
Yes but I think the thing is currently they can "do the retest" a bit>>> quicker than the original test so the cost to them of doing this is>>> not too great. Once the system is computerised each step in the test>>> will be logged on the computer, leaving no scope to skip bits ;-)­.>>>
I'm assuming the it would mean that the inspector has to check some>> checkboxes on some form after entering in approriate details about the >> car.>> i.e., it would be like a standard MOT check list, but it would be>> electronic. The inspector checks somethign, then ticks the box. They >> print>> out a hard copy and give it to the customer. Car needs repairs, garage >> does>> repairs, looks at original hard copy, opens another test on the system,>> checks all thoses boxes for the passed tests from the first test and >> having>> retested the failed things, then checks those boxes too (assuming they>> pass).>>
I really cant see how this will take much longer, or disallow free >> second>> testing and force them to retest everything>>
Except "as I understand it" the system is designed (by the ministry)> so that the test spot will be a minimum of 45mins duration. At the> start the tester will log on and enter the vehicle details, log out> and do the test. Once the test is finished the tester re logs into the> system and enters the results etc.>
According to people I have spoken to, the system will not allow you to> finish a test (or retest) in under 45mins, so a retest cannot be> accomplished in under 45 minutes (except the within 24 hour type> failures)>
This is going to put a definite limit on the test slots a garage has> and therefore I think the free retest will disappear.>
Graham

Working round that would hardly be rocket science though.

Add comment
Graham 8 May 2005 23:33:46 permanent link ]
 On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:51:18 GMT, "Duncan Wood" <spam@dmx512.co.uk>­
wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:17:35 +0100, Graham <gra@hglmotors.co.u­k> wrote:>
Except "as I understand it" the system is designed (by the ministry)>> so that the test spot will be a minimum of 45mins duration. At the>> start the tester will log on and enter the vehicle details, log out>> and do the test. Once the test is finished the tester re logs into the>> system and enters the results etc.>>
According to people I have spoken to, the system will not allow you to>> finish a test (or retest) in under 45mins, so a retest cannot be>> accomplished in under 45 minutes (except the within 24 hour type>> failures)>>
This is going to put a definite limit on the test slots a garage has>> and therefore I think the free retest will disappear.>>
Graham>
Working round that would hardly be rocket science though.

Really? I would be interested how it can be if only 1 tester
(assuming 1 test lane at the garage) can be logged in at once, and he
cannot log out until a min of 45 mins has passed. Sure the garage
could do un_official Pre MOT so cars don't need "retest" slots but
that would still mean doing a full test twice AND would put the
garages pass rate up to 100%.

Graham
Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 00:37:03 permanent link ]
 
"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworl­d.com> wrote in message
news:5u9fe.25428$vU­4.22804@newsfe6-win.­ntli.net...> I'd hazard a guess that you wind up clocks as well ??>
:-)­

Clocks? I use a trusty sundial.

I save the winding up for people, cause it's just so much more fun :)­


Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 00:42:50 permanent link ]
 
"Angus McCoatup" <nospamta@ntlworld.­com> wrote in message
news:3e4l9tF16eh4U1­@individual.net...>
"Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> wrote in message> news:d5j5ui$s81$1@n­ews.freedom2surf.net­...> > If little Johnny was stupid enough to be skateboarding at teh bottom of
hill, on a tight road, round a blind corner, then tough. The young have> > supposedly better reactions, so if they're going to be so bloody stupid,> > then let Darwin take its course.>
like the ones who play chicken on the railway line and get spladged

Pretty much. There comes a point where I think the "victims" stupidity has
to be taken into account. I for one am sick of protecting other people's
charges by proxy.


Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 00:50:37 permanent link ]
 
"Guy King" <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030343237­39427D306934@zetnet.­co.uk...> The message <d5j5ui$s81$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>> from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:>
Maybe, and here's areally out there idea, but maybe parents could have a
at being responsible for their offspring once in a while, instead of
leaving> > it to society. I know, it'd never work.>
I'm pretty responsible when it comes to my kids, but I also know that I> can't watch them like a hawk every second of the day and I can't ensure> they obey my every command. And I'll bet you didn't when you were small,> either.

You're damned right I didn't. I did some pretty stupid things. But why that
should be used to excuse utter stupidity in others is beyond me.

I'm not talking about kids that are taught how to behave and then ignore it,
I'm talking about the oh so common around here children who wander around
till gone dark, while their parents get stoned and figure the childs safety
is someone elses problem. The odd child making a mistake and ending up in
the road is one of those things, but the half dozen using a narrow twisting
road on a steep hill to skateboard, when there's a skateboard park all of 5
minutes walk down the road are really not the sharpest tools in the box.>
And even if you really believe that it's OK to run some kid over 'cos> they're stupid, you may well find their parents or neighbours will> decide it's OK to brain you 'cos you're stupid too.

I'd never deliberately run them over, how ever tempting it is to give
evolution a little helping hand. I just hate the sheer number of idiots
around here, if it isn't blind 90 year olds pulling out from light
controlled junctions, it's school runners targeting the side of my car on
islands, cyclists going through red lights on the biggest set of lights in
the town, often at night wearing black and with no lights, and to cap it all
off, I have to be thinking of somebody elses children because somebody else
is too busy getting out their too stupid to breed skull.

You may think I exaggerate, but I really do live in a small town that's
evenly split between pot heads and retired snobs, so every journey is an
adventure!


Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 00:52:24 permanent link ]
 
"Guy King" <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030343237­39427D30D527@zetnet.­co.uk...> The message <d5j66o$s8n$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>> from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:>
What I really object to though is being told to slow down for a child,
as if> > they're the only group at risk. These are mini people that have, or are> > supposed to have, watchful guardians. Nobody ever says think of the
blind,> > or don't speed past an old folks home, for example.>
And why just outside schools?>
In my experience hazards are everywhere and it's driving in the> knowledge of that which has allowed me the last 200,000 miles with only> one accident - and that was being tailended while stationary at a> junction. That, and a certain amount of luck, obviously!

Yup. At any time someone could do something really bloody stupid. But the
safety mob seem to think the only ones to worry about are the little uns.
That's my gripe. Well, that, and the fact driving is hazardous enough
without certain people adding even more danger to it, and themselves.


Add comment
Guy King 9 May 2005 01:18:59 permanent link ]
 The message <d5ltve$ncr$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>
from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:
I'm not talking about kids that are taught how to behave and then ignore it,> I'm talking about the oh so common around here children who wander around> till gone dark, while their parents get stoned and figure the childs safety> is someone elses problem.

The trouble is - at 30mph, how do you tell the difference?

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."


Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 01:24:45 permanent link ]
 
"Guy King" <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030343237­39427E905356@zetnet.­co.uk...> The message <d5ltve$ncr$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>> from "Stuffed" <talking@rse.non> contains these words:>
I'm not talking about kids that are taught how to behave and then ignore
it,> > I'm talking about the oh so common around here children who wander
around> > till gone dark, while their parents get stoned and figure the childs
safety> > is someone elses problem.>
The trouble is - at 30mph, how do you tell the difference?

The ones who have the parental lack are the ones who stick 2 fingers up and
hurl abuse as you thank whatever deity the front of your car is still blood
free.

The ones who were just being silly, or made a genuine mistake, are usually
as white and trembling as I am at that point.


Add comment
Paul Cummins 9 May 2005 04:51:00 permanent link ]
 In article <d5ltde$n72$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>, talking@rse.non
(Stuffed) wrote:
Took Plod long enough> > to catch up with him. His type just don't care if they get caught, > > but> > often they don't get caught.>
Most likely he'll face that draconian punushment - He'll be banned.

Gee, that'll make a difference to his driving without a licence.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

I'm Backing Blair - www.backingblair.co­.uk
Add comment
Stuffed 9 May 2005 06:17:10 permanent link ]
 
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam­.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.200505090­15115.5072A@admin.vl­aad.co.uk...> In article <d5ltde$n72$1@news.­freedom2surf.net>, talking@rse.non> (Stuffed) wrote:>
Took Plod long enough> > > to catch up with him. His type just don't care if they get caught,> > > but> > > often they don't get caught.> >
Most likely he'll face that draconian punushment - He'll be banned.>
Gee, that'll make a difference to his driving without a licence.

Apparently, after the third or fourth ban, they even consider prison, but
often, to save overcrowding, they ban you again...


Add comment
Barry 9 May 2005 15:26:35 permanent link ]
 Graham wrote:> On Sun, 08 May 2005 09:55:37 GMT, "BM" <bmercer@bnota.tk.c­om> wrote: >
Except "as I understand it" the system is designed (by the ministry)> so that the test spot will be a minimum of 45mins duration. At the> start the tester will log on and enter the vehicle details, log out> and do the test. Once the test is finished the tester re logs into the> system and enters the results etc. >
According to people I have spoken to, the system will not allow you to> finish a test (or retest) in under 45mins, so a retest cannot be> accomplished in under 45 minutes (except the within 24 hour type> failures) >
This is going to put a definite limit on the test slots a garage has> and therefore I think the free retest will disappear.>
Graham


ahh, hm. well, that seems completely stupid to me!
Add comment
Graham 9 May 2005 19:05:09 permanent link ]
 On Mon, 09 May 2005 11:26:35 GMT, barry
<noooooo@nooonsnasd­adasdasdasdasda.com>­ wrote:
Graham wrote:>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 09:55:37 GMT, "BM" <bmercer@bnota.tk.c­om> wrote:> >
Except "as I understand it" the system is designed (by the ministry)>> so that the test spot will be a minimum of 45mins duration. At the>> start the tester will log on and enter the vehicle details, log out>> and do the test. Once the test is finished the tester re logs into the>> system and enters the results etc. >>
According to people I have spoken to, the system will not allow you to>> finish a test (or retest) in under 45mins, so a retest cannot be>> accomplished in under 45 minutes (except the within 24 hour type>> failures) >>
This is going to put a definite limit on the test slots a garage has>> and therefore I think the free retest will disappear.>>
Graham>
ahh, hm. well, that seems completely stupid to me!

Remember this is a computer "solution" designed by a Government
department that is being implemented by Siemens. Neither of them have
a good track record in the area of computerisation. The Passport
Agency fiasco springs to mind...........

Graham
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Open discussion > mot 9 May 2005 19:05:09

see also:
NASCAR-CUP: Darlington: Biffle…
IRL: Indy Racing League News and Notes…
WSBK: Monza: Saturday practice times
pass tests:
see also:
1985 JEEP CJ&
99 ford explorer
fuel pump location or is it a fuel pump…

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .