[b][user=2010]jonnyjohnson[/user] wrote: [/b][quote]Would you like to see the minimum standards raised?
If these are raised that would only make them the [u]new minimum standards.[/u][/b]
A broken number plate does not make a vehicle unroadworthy and I would quite happily drive this with my family on board or do you consider this to be a dangerous vehicle and driver.
The same would apply to a noisy exhaust (not leaking).
How about view to front obscured on the outside it’s OK but on the inside of the windscreen the vehicle now becomes unroadworthy?
There are a lot of anomalies but we still have the best and most regulated testing system in Europe.
People will die on or using the roads, it a risk we take.
[/quote]
The standards already present really are good enough if applied correctly I feel.
A number plate is not officially a legal requirement if the vehicle is not registered, the only legal identification of a vehicle is the stamped VIN. The number plates being part of the test is probably just for ease of identification by visual view, ie speeding, accidents etc. A number plate would never be considered a dangerous defect, or can someone give a reason?
Exhaust noise is subjective for the mot test, a tester who may be 85% deaf would not consider an exhaust noisy, but a tester who has 90% earing ability would consider a exhaust noisy if not a standard fit. The only true professional way to establish the correct test is by using a db meter, but the mot does not include that, which if it did, all testers would have the same standard to apply.
The windscreen is yet another good example, some people have really good vision while some others don’t, the drivers view of the road is important as far as VOSA is concerned, but the testers eye sight makes no difference?
Some may say there will always be accidents on the road, this may be true while under human control, but if artificial intellengents takes over, we need to see from experience what that would bring to road safety?
