Granted driver error is probably the greatest cause of road accidents. Sometimes though a driver error, a skid say, (which the driver could normally recover from) is made worse if the brakes pull to one side, say, or the bald tyres caused it in the first place. Just because driver error is a predominant cause of accidents how does it follow that we should then be less concerned about preventable deaths and injuries due to vehicle defects which cause accidents? Do both! Improve driving standards and vehicle safety standards.

[b][user=2010]jonnyjohnson[/user] wrote: [/b][quote]The driver is responsible for his or hers driving and the driver is also responsible for the road worthiness of the vehicle.
 
Driver education to these facts could change attitudes.
 
Who has examined a vehicle and told a driver that a tyre is in a dangerous condition, and then watched as they drive off to the local tyre centre!  
 
It is not for you or I to explain that they are wrong.
[/quote]

The driver is only responsible for the road worthiness of the vehicle before a professional garage has properly serviced it, should the vehicle then be driven on the road and the customer is not aware of a problem, like one I found the other day, explain in a minute, then the garage and or technican is liable.

Let me explain.

I carried out a service on a peugeot 206 the other day, while dismantling to check the rear brakes, the stub axle thread had been damaged by some “Professional” mechanic with his Air Gun speeding the nut back onto the stub axle after checking the brakes.

When the customer had been contacted by us, we advised that the stub axle had been damaged and to secure the locking nut onto the stub axle properly, we would need to replace it. The nut when fitted did not screw onto the stub axle sufficiently to enure that when the nut was locked into position, that it would stay there, if you understand what I mean.

The stub axle is a complete assembly costing £115 + labour + Vat to fit it.

How do I know a professional did it?

The customer showed records that proved the car had always been previously serviced by the Main dealer, the last receipt showed the car had been serviced by them with a breakdown of work completed.

What happens if that wheel had detached on the road?

Not the customers fault, and most certainly not the customers responsibility. Under the Service and Repair legislation 1982 and as amended, the garage is responsible for the satisfactory quality of repair they provide, otherwise the garage is negligent, in this case not that hard to prove, the dealer didn’t even advise the customer of any problem with it.

Garage guilty, add claim to the Billions of wasted money consumers spend? 

[b][user=2010]jonnyjohnson[/user] wrote: [/b][quote]If this same vehicle had been presented for MOT, and there was no excessive play in the rear hub would it have passed your visual check?
 
 
In your last sentence you give the impression that regular maintenance, by whoever is a waste of money, or have I misread this?
[/quote]

There is a slight difference between mot testing and servicing and repairs, the mot is a visual check of the components which can be seen, as the wheel has a cover on it to prevent the hub locking device being seen, if there is no free play in the bearings or wheel at the time of inspection, then nothing can be said.

The servicing of a vehicle is different, correct me if I am wrong but don’t manufacturers recommend time and distance services, ie 12 months 12 000 miles as example, and if so, they also advise what should be checked, and if that check is carried out in accordance with their recommendations, if a fault occured then surely that fault would be a latent defect which the manufacturer would be responsible?

Not all garages and staff are the same, everybody is an individual, everybody can and does have an off day, but when you make a mistake this is where a person must decide whether to own up to it or disguise it, in my example of the Peugeot, the technican decided to ignore advising of his negligence, which if the wheel had come off and injured or killed somebody, the technician would have been in serious trouble.

Down South some time back two Women took a small commercial van into a garage for a service and mot test, the customer advised that there was somthing wrong with the brakes, the garage completely missed the issue and when the women collected the van they drove off, when driving down some major road for some reason the van veered off the road and could not be stopped, the van ran into a concrete pillar and the passenger died. The Old Bailey found the garage negligent and guilty of the offence.

My point, it is up to every individual to do a good job, advise where necessary and don’t try to hind behind a company name or a big business because it will most certainly backfire on the individual technician or tester.

Just like to mention this experience with a colleague I used to work with at Vauxhall some years back.

The manager was getting the younger technician’s to sell more brake discs and pads on peoples vehicles even when not needed, somebody complained and the Trading Standards sent in a vehicle with no defects on it, the technician sent a written report into reception that said it needed new discs and pads, when changed, the Trading Standards officer was all over the management, who blamed the technician who was taken to court and fined £3000, the company had no blame attached.

In summary;

Some techicians are very good at what they do and some are not. It is up to every individual to decide whether that person chooses to do the job correctly or not.

The mot test is a minimum standard road safety check and nothing to do with a vehicle being serviced.

[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?

[b][user=460]nicknak[/user] wrote: [/b][quote]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.

That would mean the standard fitment would be 85% quieter to start with wouldn’t it?
[/quote]

You may be right, but how can you assess that if you have bad earing?

If you ask somebody 85% deaf, they might not be able to ear you:D

pardon

Had a Hearing test today guy’s…The Doc took me out onto the carpark,he asked me to listen to his exhaust….I told him it sounded OK,to my surprise he then told me I am 85% deaf…..              lol………;)

I know this is a bit of a conspiracy theory but don’t you think it strange that 4 2 2 is resurrected just after the recent relaxation in testing standards such as no more worn or pitted discs, headlight image etc. all these rfr’s were popular fails that kept the fail rates up and now suddenly they are taken away

Funny that ?