View Single Post
  #207  
Old 22nd August 2019, 08:18
Mister Towed's Avatar
Mister Towed Mister Towed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,328
Mister Towed is on a distinguished road
Default

Nothing wrong with those mudguards, they just add to the whole bonkers theme.

Don't want to labour the point and spoil your thread with an endless debate about the whole daytime MOT thing so my final input on that theme (I promise) is this:

The most up to date version of the tester manual I could find contradicts itself. It says -

4.1.1 Presence, condition and operation
You must test all mandatory headlamps.


Mandatory headlamps’ are a matched pair of main beam headlamps and a matched pair of dipped-beam headlamps.


It uses the word 'Mandatory'. The definition of Mandatory is -

Something that is mandatory must be done, or is demanded by law:


The test manual then continues -

You do not need to test headlamps on vehicles if:

they're not fitted with front or rear position lamps
they have front or rear position lamps that are permanently disconnected, painted over or masked


So, that says that you don't need to have any headlights fitted at all so long as you also don't have front and rear position lamps to pass an mot.

But it then says -

Defect
A headlamp:
with up to ½ light sources not functioning in the case of LED - Minor

Missing, inoperative or more than ½ not functioning in the case of LED - Major


Hmm, so if a mandatory headlight isn't fitted or doesn't work then it's a major defect -

Major MOT faults
A 'major' fault is more serious, poses a potential safety risk to drivers and others. It could also be a defect that has a damaging impact on the environment. These faults will result in an MOT failure and the owner will not be issued with an MOT pass certificate until the issues have been rectified.


So, according to that, presenting a vehicle with missing, disconnected, painted or masked headlights would leave you with a 'fail' due to at least one major defect.

I still haven't been able to find the 'daytime MOT' clause pasted in some replies in the current (2018) test manual https://www.mot-testing.service.gov....ml#section_4.1 but I can see that there's room for a great deal of confusion in the ambiguous and self-contradictory guidance I've detailed above.

I've also read quite a few threads where this is debated, pistonheads, etc, and everyone's got a mate who says he was acquitted at court but I couldn't find a single genuine legal case reported online, which suggests that either nobody's being prosecuted or nobody's being acquitted.

There were, however, several arguments like this one put forward on pistonheads:

A lot of people here seem confused that you can subsequently get nicked on roadworthiness grounds for driving/riding a vehicle which has passed an MOT test. (...) an MOT test is not, and never has been, a pass/fail test for full compliance with legal standards of roadworthiness under various conditions of usage.

Full debate here - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...&t=1696934&i=0

That outlines my position perfectly - the fact that a vehicle can pass an MOT on a loophole in the tester's manual doesn't necessarily make it road legal.

Ultimately, complying with The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations is a legal requirement for any vehicle, as defined by the regulations, being used on the road.

Those regulations use the term 'Mandatory' in relation to headlamps, listing only a handful of exemptions.

There is no exemption for vehicles driven by people who promise to only drive during the day and in good visibility.

The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (Law) outranks and overrules the MOT tester's handbook (guidance).

That means that headlights (and any other Mandatory lighting relevant to the class and/or age of the vehicle) must be fitted for the vehicle to be legally used on the road, day or night.

Oh, and although I never prosecuted a single classic, kitcar or hotrod owner, I did occasionally bring successful prosecutions against drivers with imaginative modifications like 'smoked' rear brake lights that couldn't bee seen in daylight, tiny number plates on the front of Japanese coupes that could't be read, someone driving a completely stripped bodyshell back from the painters while sitting on a toolbox and bikers for riding on the road in a way bikers believe is legal - hint, don't ride through the scene of a serious RTC after a copper in a florry jacket has told you to stop and stay where you are just because he's turned his back on you for a second.

Every single one who took it to court argued that they were complying with the law because they had an mot or believed they knew the law better than plod, but do you know what? I only ever lost one Road Traffic case in Court, an ice cream van driver on his mobile phone whose response to being acquitted was to gush 'Oh, thank you, I won't do it again...'

My case rests.
Reply With Quote