| Author | Post |
|---|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 10:02 am |
|
Keithd, hope you don't mind me dragging this even further off the original topic but there are a couple of points I'd like to make and it makes sense to keep them attached to what I'm replying to rather than starting a new topic.
That sort of is my first point - unless the mods / admin are 100% on the ball with splitting topics as soon as they move off topic then these discussions always have a tendency to drift into other areas. It happens on every board I know and it happens in normal conversation as well.
Rather than having Nazi-MODS jumping in, maybe a better solution would be to have any (useful) original questions transferred to a read-only FAQ board along with a definative answer where there is one or a selection of opinions where there isn't a definative. That might help to reduce the number of times similar questions get asked (see rear seat belts at the moment) and wouldn't be any more work for the MODS than splitting topics all the time!
Second, you suggest a tester-only area. While that makes total sense to a point, one observation (as a non-tester) is this:
One of the biggest eye-openers on here is seeing what sort of hassle you guys get - from customers and VOSA - in your work. Letting the public see that, and make sensible comment where they can, is a good way to highlight issues and helps to break down the "them & us" feeling that can happen as you drive your car to a test. The presenter you get in next week with some obscure "technical" fail may just have looked on here and seen that it really isn't your fault.
You'll also certainly have "undercover" VOSA guys reading - it's in the civil service mentality  . There will also be the odd journalist who's watching "just in case" - they get everywhere they can find an "inside opinion" without any effort! If either of them see a load of testers complaining about something (say, the 4-2-2 testing plan) they can ignore it, but if they see testers complaining with public support then it's a lot harder to do nothing. Shut them out, and you lose that.
|
motpolicyman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 10:50 am |
|
Mr Weetabix
Any suggested changes to the test should be taken up with the 'vehicle safety branch' in London. They are the policy people who tell VOSA what to do!
Here's their address. VSE1, 2 Marsham Street, LONDON SW1P 3EB
Good luck
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:57 pm |
|
RFR,
The moaner in this thread as you put it was motpolicyman who is under the impression it's becoming silly and confusing for the customer. So sorry if I pointed out that NO the customers question was answered at the begining with no doubts as to what is required and that we were now discussing further issues which are going slighty off topic.
Now if the general feeling is that a topic has gone this way and may lead to confusion the simple soloution would be to split the thread. Drivel was only an expression hence the use of smilies  your then left with the questions answered and no confusion. It would also be an idea to have a seperate sub-forum for us testers alone to discuss MOT matters in private without the public seeing. Other bb's have this why not this one
Last edited on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:58 pm by keithd
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
Mr MOT Policy Man, how do we as mere mortal Nominated Testers go about requesting sensible improvements and additions to the MOT Testing Manual ?
We all know that the horn on most vehicles requires the ignition to be switched on, but the manual does not actually tell us to test it this way. A horn should simply function when tested - if the vehicle presenter proved to us as an NT that his horn did work, but only with ignition switched off, then can we legally fail it ?
Having a horn that is functional when the ignition is switched off has been shown to be of benefit to Road Safety (something that the MOT test is supposed to be for) in the threads below.
So, is there a "MOT Policy Man" in the Scheme who can help us initiate these sensible improvements and additions to the manual...?
Last edited on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:26 pm by Weetabix
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
Hi kiethd,
No offense, but this is the second time I have come across you having a moan about threads going on and on.
While I can to some extent half grasp some of your points, listening to peoples views and thoughts on a subject is what this forum is all about. If all these issues cannot be discussed and people allowed to understand and take on board others views, we just as well rap this forum up, and do what we should do in the first place:
"Phone the MOT inquiry Line"
If the administrators feel it has gone on for long enough, let them deal with it, if you feel it has, then leave it alone and don't add to it.
This "drivel" as you put it can be       all at the same time, the issues maybe "out of our control" and things said from another planet, but I take my hat off to all that contribute, for all these characters make the site what it is. It is not like other forums, no idiots etc, and may wander off the mark NOW AND AGAIN, but it sticks to the subject and grapples with the issues all be it in a strange way sometimes. If people want to post on an issue, and it is related to that issue, then they should be able to, without people havin ago. All the posts on the site, good or bad, keep me smiling and give me an insight into others thoughts.
Again no offense meant, but got to say these things sometimes.
RFR
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 09:30 pm |
|
Spunkymonkey wrote: Surely that would need a change to the Construction and Use regulations rather than just MOT regs? Even if all manufacturers voluntarily wired them up to work ignition off, unless the law says they have to be that way, you can't really fail an MOT just cos they all are that way. Even VOSA doesn't have that much power (yet )
Yeah that would be correct but like I said no one here said it would or should fail, simply suggested that maybe it should work in terms of common sense they changed the regs on rear seatbelts hazzards fogs repeater lamps so why not the horn?
Anyway this is just how threads go on every BB off topic need to get more Admin in here splitting and merging threads, close them once answered move the rest of the drivel to new thread
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
keithd wrote
The question was answered in the very first reply and I don't see anyone saying different. The continued discussion is more to do with whether or not the RfR needs amending as mentioned by weetabix, who also did not say it was required to work with ignition off. The guys merley suggesting that perhaps in this day and age manufactors could make the horns work with ignition off and vosa could set a date as with the hazzards etc where horn was checked with ignition on and off.
Surely that would need a change to the Construction and Use regulations rather than just MOT regs? Even if all manufacturers voluntarily wired them up to work ignition off, unless the law says they have to be that way, you can't really fail an MOT just cos they all are that way. Even VOSA doesn't have that much power (yet )
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:29 am |
|
motpolicyman wrote: This is all getting rather silly.........
Would you pass wipers that only worked with the ignition off?!!!
It's obvious to all testers surely that when doing in cab checks, that the ignition must be on to operate indicators, stoplights, HORN etc.
OK Manual could be better written, but hey we've all manged OK till this post arrived!
I feel sorry for the punter whose being messed about. It's not helped neither by the fact fact most cars will allow the horn to operate without key in ignition and this might be why the tester is taking the route he has.
Look forward to hearing how he gets on. Perhaps only by appealing will we perhaps get a definitive response from the powers that be.
The question was answered in the very first reply and I don't see anyone saying different. The continued discussion is more to do with whether or not the RfR needs amending as mentioned by weetabix, who also did not say it was required to work with ignition off. The guys merley suggesting that perhaps in this day and age manufactors could make the horns work with ignition off and vosa could set a date as with the hazzards etc where horn was checked with ignition on and off.
|
motpolicyman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 09:57 am |
|
This is all getting rather silly.........
Would you pass wipers that only worked with the ignition off?!!!
It's obvious to all testers surely that when doing in cab checks, that the ignition must be on to operate indicators, stoplights, HORN etc.
OK Manual could be better written, but hey we've all manged OK till this post arrived!
I feel sorry for the punter whose being messed about. It's not helped neither by the fact fact most cars will allow the horn to operate without key in ignition and this might be why the tester is taking the route he has.
Look forward to hearing how he gets on. Perhaps only by appealing will we perhaps get a definitive response from the powers that be.
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
I think that there are some "gong's" in VOSA who are still thinking they are living prior to January 01st 1905, but found an easy way of updating the info in manual, ie don't inspect the vehicles, like the previous case with Renault Bonnet catches defective, just change the date in the manual to January 10 2005, that will do nicely?
What's the weather like out there today, what's that, my central heating is working fine in my office, did you not see the sign on the door, "Do Not Disturb"
David
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
motpolicyman wrote: Regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of having a horn work with the ignition off, MOT requirements do not state that the horn has to work with the ignition switched off. End of.
...neither does the MOT Requirements state that the 'Ignition MUST be switched on to test the function of the horn' .
So if a vehicle happened to have a horn which worked only when the ignition was switched off, it would be deemed a PASS  .
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
Hi motpolicyman
Do you work for VOSA, if so are you from enginneering technical side or management, or are you a VE?
Thanks
David
|
motpolicyman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 03:03 pm |
|
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of having a horn work with the ignition off, MOT requirements do not state that the horn has to work with the ignition switched off. End of.
As Stealth said earlier in this thread. "Where there is a requirement for items to be checked with the ignition off, the 'Method of Inspection' states this ie hazard warning lamps - the manual clearly states 'with the ignition switched both on and off"
As long as it works with the ignition on then it's a pass. IF your tester is adamant that it's a fail, then I suggest that you appeal against the failure pronto and let the VOSA boffins sort it out. It'll cost you £50 but you'll get that back once they issue you with your MoT pass. They will then take the tester to task ie probably give him a verbal warning.
For the records, VOSA helpline are just admin bods and when querying with them something contentious, always best to ask them to pass you on to their HQ colleagues for a definitive policy opinion.
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 10:31 pm |
|
castrolrob wrote: ...what the hell has this got to do with a basic roadsafety exam?this is/was an mot website...
The horn - the vehicle's audible warning device - needs to function to '...warn other road users of your presence...'
Why should a horn only sound if the driver has the ignition switched on. Scenarios of when the horn is required to be operated without the driver (& ignition keys) being present have been outlined below.
Surely it is more of a help to road safety if the horn is able to function without the need for the ignition to be switched on.
As for older cars, the MoI could read along the lines of:
'for vehicles registered on or after 1st August 1990*, check that the audible warning device operates with the ignition switched on and the ignition switched off'
*made up the date as an example
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 250 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
mine works without the ignition as well , 99 vectra
it did on my old 93 cavalier as well , but not on my 89 cavalier or my various other 80's vauxhalls
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
Ok my own 2 cars just tested with ignition "OFF"..Rover 400sd 1996 it worked..
Audi A6se 1997 it did'nt....Does this mean my Beloved A6 is a hazard on the road,and my super-commuter is not.....
BTW the horn works with ign on..just made sure (the neighbours think i'm potty running about from one car to the other an pressin the horn)..Cheers guys..
As for the hazard switch comment posted!!!!!!Last edited on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 10:08 pm by big..E.
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 250 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
Weetabix wrote: I feel the horn RFR needs amending (or clarifying).
It really should be worded as for the Hazard lights...
MOI 'Operate horn with ignition switched on & ignition switched off'
RFR 'Horn does not function with ignition switched on' or 'Horn does not function with ignition switched off'.
The horn - the vehicle's audible warning device - needs to function to '...warn other road users of your presence...'
to amend for this would only cause more problems , a lot of cars were wired this way when new , would that then mean they had to fail , or would there be an exception for original design feature ?
if there was an exception for original design feature then the new rfr would become pointless & we would need to know which cars needed the ignition on for the horn to work & which ones didn't
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
What about all those cars out there where the horn isn't designed to work with the ignition off? Never had an '88 Golf so don't know if that applies here but have had plenty of cars over the years where the horn (or horn relay) is fed from ignition live. It's quite useful when you have two dogs in the car that have a habit of jumping on things (including hazard switches and horn buttons) if you stop at a shop
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 09:44 pm |
|
I feel the horn RFR needs amending (or clarifying).
It really should be worded as for the Hazard lights...
MOI 'Operate horn with ignition switched on & ignition switched off'
RFR 'Horn does not function with ignition switched on' or 'Horn does not function with ignition switched off'.
The horn - the vehicle's audible warning device - needs to function to '...warn other road users of your presence...'
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
Come on guys were talkin MOT issues here not Insurance claims...Or what we think!!...The fact is it should not have failed on the criteria given...
Next Question from the Audience???...
|
Current time is 01:53 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
