Seat belts for side seats.

[hairydog]

Wouldn't we all. But meanwhile in the real world ......

I've only been driving for 48 years, much or the time driving all day every day. (well, actually I've been driving a lot longer than that, but not on public roads) I've yet to have one of these "real world" accidents. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but I don't think it is very likely.

 

[mandrake]

That's the great thing about the law: it is writen down in very precise language and it is referenced and indexed. So perhaps you would ask him which law he is referring to? That answer to that would clarify matter a lot.

i dont know which law he a traffic inspector was referring to except the seatbelt and carriage of persons in a vehicle that i asked about .it was just a general enquiry to the persons who carry out and enforce the law . how they interpret it is there prerogative. but after all there word is final when at the side of the road i am sure a person arguing with a police officer whether how that officer rightly or wrongly interprets the law wont make a great deal of difference ,if he thinks he is correct then he can and probably will prohibit the carriage of any passengers he believes are being unlawfully carried in that vehicle if he is of that mind . and lets face it as i see it nobody can tell us 100% true the law on this matter ,it seems the insurance company have the last word on the matter to be true if they think your not complying then they refuse cover .or will void your cover . wrong mabey to some but final .

 

[mandrake]

I've only been driving for 48 years, much or the time driving all day every day. (well, actually I've been driving a lot longer than that, but not on public roads) I've yet to have one of these "real world" accidents. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but I don't think it is very likely.

why is it some people always come out with ,ive been driving blah blah years and its never happened to me . its never happened to me ,in fact i have never had so much as a bump with another vehicle since i was 17 and thats a long time and many miles under my belt professionally and privately ,sorry my motor sport days i have had quite a few , some rather painfull , ,touch wood i never will .but it happens every day somewhere to somebody,and frankly i want to know my grand kids and family will be fully protected as much as i can against injury ,also that i am carrying them legally. by the way the more miles you travel the greater the likely hood of that accident happening . but thankfully many of us go through life being lucky .

 

[AuldTam]

I build Rock and Roll beds as a little side line. I've never fitted seatbelts even when asked, they are ideal for 2 berth van conversions.

 

[mandrake]

you may have hit the nail directly square on the head there . so many laws are open to interpretation and even if in the end if a prosecution was the outcome and the case was found in the persons favour as opposed to the police ,even if the powers to be decided there was no case to answer in the first place it wouldn't compensate for the trouble that had been caused originally so best try to stay one jump ahead and be as sure as you can be

 

[wildebus]

I don't believe there is any connection whatsoever between the number of seats the vehicle has documented on the V5C and the MOT Tests.
My T5 is is recorded as having 9 seats, and that is what it had when I bought it. It right now has just two seats installed, and it passed the MOT without any problems.
The MOT test just checks the seatbelts on seats that are physically fitted to the vehicle and has no connection to what the V5C says.
And to futher that, sometimes not even those seatbelts are tested if the tester cannot properly test it. This is a regular MOT comment on a vehicle I used to own ....
"Advisory notice item(s)
Child seat fitted not allowing full inspection of adult belt".

Quite a common thing for campervan conversions is for the owner to drop the back of a rock and roll bed if fitted to put it into bed mode so the MOT tester will not test the belts if fitted (as it is not a seat at the point of testing), or if no belts fitted will not fail the vehicle as having seats with no belt (as no seats at test time, of course)

 

[wildebus]

Not advising or condoning finding loopholes, just saying how the seatbelt works and what many people do (on the seat/bed front, the seats are usually dropped down to avoid the "no seatbelts fitted" fail for seats that are fitted but are not intended as travel seats anyway, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and is not finding a loophole at all, just a way to make life easier at MOT time)

On the seat side ... My T5 right now has two seats (note I said "right now"). Should I inform the DVLA it has two seats? If I do that, then I would then need to inform them to change the V5C again each time I drop in the double seat in the back that is in my shed.
Also, a lot of VW Transporters are recorded as having 9 seats even when they didn't have 9 seats as that is the maximum potential capacity for those models. On a vehicle that provides flexible seating capacity with various seats removable in minutes, it has got to be best to specify the maximum capacity and not the capacity at a specific time which may be wrong at any other time - hence why the MOT will only test fitted seats.
My T5 .... Physically came with 9 seats. I could convert it within 5 minutes to an 8 seater, a 7 seater, a 6 seater, a 5 seater, 4 seater or a 3 seater - Maybe need a hotline to the DVLA before each journey?
Use of a spanner as well and it became a 2 seater in 30 minutes. ("Hello, DVLA? You know I told you I had 5 seats installed? Well, ......". Think I will just leave that conversion for others )



On the seat belt advisory, I am a little surprised that the owner of the vehicle in question (this was AFTER I sold it) was not advised to remove the child seat to allow the belt testing to avoid a fail, but the MOT rules state that it is tested EXACTLY as presented and nothing can be removed to allow further test or evaluation. So if the wheels are hanging on by one nut each, the others are rattling around in the hubcaps covering the wheel, it would not be a fail as the MOT tester can not be sure (which is why an MOT is not an indication of roadworthiness and in any way and is a snapshot of basic safety at the moment of testing)

 

[trevskoda]

I don't believe there is any connection whatsoever between the number of seats the vehicle has documented on the V5C and the MOT Tests.
My T5 is is recorded as having 9 seats, and that is what it had when I bought it. It right now has just two seats installed, and it passed the MOT without any problems.
The MOT test just checks the seatbelts on seats that are physically fitted to the vehicle and has no connection to what the V5C says.
And to futher that, sometimes not even those seatbelts are tested if the tester cannot properly test it. This is a regular MOT comment on a vehicle I used to own ....
"Advisory notice item(s)
Child seat fitted not allowing full inspection of adult belt".

Quite a common thing for campervan conversions is for the owner to drop the back of a rock and roll bed if fitted to put it into bed mode so the MOT tester will not test the belts if fitted (as it is not a seat at the point of testing), or if no belts fitted will not fail the vehicle as having seats with no belt (as no seats at test time, of course)

All depends on vh age as not all seats require belts only those for convayence and you are only allowed 8 seats max unless it is reg as a bus,i have read through about 300 pages of s--t so as to confront mot chaps and won as i was right and they wrong on my fail 2015,vh construction and use papers are on the net for all to read.

 

[wildebus]

All depends on vh age as not all seats require belts only those for convayence and you are only allowed 8 seats max unless it is reg as a bus,i have read through about 300 pages of s--t so as to confront mot chaps and won as i was right and they wrong on my fail 2015,vh construction and use papers are on the net for all to read.

Quite right about the seats regarding belts, but if there is a simple way to avoid the needless discussion about it at the pertinent times, why not take it, unless one is of the bloody-minded arguement for the sake of it persuasion?

The 8 seats maximum is a common confusion, but it is actually incorrect. The cut off between car and minibus in terms of seats is actually 10 seats in total, which would classify it as a mini-bus, that being 9 passengers plus driver.
This has got confused amongst many insurance companies as being 9 seats in total as they often don't think passenger and driver, just occupants, so when you come to get quotes for a shuttle, some will hike it up as on their system it is (incorrectly) a minibus, others will insure but not for business use, and others will insure it as the vehicle it is - i.e. An MPV.
What is quite funny is that TfL with their CC like the 9 seater Shuttle MPV and they can be exempt from the CC on payment of an annual £10 registration (similar to a minibus I suppose?)
I find it easier to not argue with an insurance co. if they have the wrong info as if they get that wrong, then they will get other things wrong as well in all probability, and will prefer to go with ones which have the correct info.

FYI for anyone interested, this is a photo of my own V5C showing that I have a 9 seater MPV

 

[wildebus]

Well, there you go, it is This very example was quoted to me by an owner of a garage and MOT tester when I was discussing the fact one of our cars failed its MOT at a council centre incorrectly (and retested and passed with no changes at another garage).
Another example was the council tester failed it on rusted brake pipes, but the pipe in question became nice and shiny metal with a slight rub with emery paper - they can essentially look but not touch (or at least dismantle).
Possibly a little unfairly, but also stated was the council testers are there because they were often not good enough mechanics to work at a garage doing repairs as well as tests (but given the MOT in question, such as failing the car on rusty brake discs in imminent danger of breaking, but which I had personally replaced around 9 months and approx 1,000 miles earlier, I suspect he had a point about the testers)

 

[vwalan]

mot testers dont have to be mechanics .
mot testers are mot testers .
mechanics arent mot testers .
its just a daft game we have to play.
run pre 1960 vehicles ,no mot they are exempt . no road tax its free and if hgv you dont need a hgv licence . plus you can get cheap insurance for a classic vehicle .
another game we can play.
why keep buying new , buy old .

 

[wildebus]

Think you have totally the wrong end of the stick and made a reverse assumption here

You said in reply to my post ... "I see this a a good example of why MoT test stations should not be connected to a business that has an interest in doing paid work on failed vehicles"

And in my post I think I made it clear that the COUNCIL MOT CENTRE failed the car on rusty brake pipes and on bad brake disks. The COUNCIL MOT CENTRE cannot by law carry out any repairs, so they have no vested interest in failing a vehicle.
I knew the brake discs were not a genuine failure for the reasons given, but believed the brake pipes were, so booked in the car to a garage I use to have the brake pipes replaced, and then also to do another MOT.
The COMMERCIAL GARAGE AND MOT CENTRE told me that the brake pipes should not have failed the MOT and showed me they were fine - so it was the garage who I booked work in that told me it was not needed.
So this apparent "good example" turns your theory on its head :cool1::cool1:
(PS, it was the same garage that passed the car with no work needed to brake discs either )


PPS, you are also wrong about not being able to drive away a failed vehicle (assuming the previous MOT had not time expired)
See this link here - Getting an MOT - GOV.UK.
It is this common belief that MOT is an indication of Roadworthiness and vice-versa that has confused you I suppose

And again, yes a wire brush would have confirm the brake pipe was actually ok, but I had already explained that the MOT Tester is not allowed to do that.
Once the MOT commences, no work can be done to the vehicle until the MOT ends, no matter how minor or explainitory it may be. If the tester is found to do that, however well intentioned, then he and the station will have a big problem.

 

[wildebus]

I agree with needing to be careful about taking a car for an MOT at a "work creation" garage
In fact, the previous year, the same Council MOT centre passed the car, and the tester made the comment "I'd think about replacing those discs in the spring, but I bet the Garage would tell you they need doing now". I went to the garage (main dealer this time) for another reason, they test drove the car and said "need new discs for an MOT" . I fitted new discs in the Spring (5 months later or so).
This is the reason I have tended to use council testers, but after the last experience, I won't again as I just wasted £50 or so on the test fee.

So yes, I agree with your point, but ... Saying my experience I quoted confirms your opinion made no sense at all as it actually contradicted it (but let's not let the facts get in the way of good argument, shall we )

Not wrong? Um .... "If I am wrong in this assumption, please tell me".... I told you as requested, but just to confirm, you were wrong in your assumption

Times have changed since you were a boy in England. The man with the red flag has gone, the days of slipping the MOT tester a few quid for "adjustements" to get a pass is pretty well gone (as I had done myself 30 years ago), and computers now dictate what can and cannot be done.

About 15 years ago, my Honda HR-V went in for an MOT and came out with 500,000 extra miles on the clock (typo by tester) - couldn't do anything about it as was logged. Didn't worry too much as it was such an obvious mistake (555,000 instead of 55,000) but could have been more serious.

Flexibility is good, and you go on about the French MOT passing your Hymer when it would likely fail in the UK. Not sure if that is good or not, or if the French just operate at a lower standard, but the French system also is extremely anal about modifications as I understand it, and if I took my T5 to France, it would fail an MOT becuase I have added cupboards in the back, changed the front seats and changed the wheels (both genuine VW Transporter items, but even so it wouldn't matter to the authorities there)

 

[mandrake]

not all garages are out to fail a car just to get work ,many garages now you have to book your work in with them there that busy ,one garage i know i took a car for test knowing that a fail was on the cards for an air bag light . went to pick the car up at close of day and was presented with a new mot ,light still on explanation i received was ,had it on the computer mate cannot find the problem ,be right them lights can come on any time, bloody useless forget it .

 

[wildebus]

not all garages are out to fail a car just to get work ,many garages now you have to book your work in with them there that busy ,one garage i know i took a car for test knowing that a fail was on the cards for an air bag light . went to pick the car up at close of day and was presented with a new mot ,light still on explanation i received was ,had it on the computer mate cannot find the problem ,be right them lights can come on any time, bloody useless forget it .

You're right there with those lights.

My sisters car has the DPF light illuminated permanently.
Not much can be done to fix the DPF problem though on it, considering it is a Petrol car . (Bloody French cars!! )

 

[maingate]

I used Gateshead Council to MOT my last van (PHGV) and cannot fault them. They were thorough, knowledgeable and had plenty of commonsense. I had the handbrake adjusted by my regular garage (Tag axle on an Alko Chassis). It was fine at the garage when tested but marginally failed on one of the 4 rear wheels. The MOT tester allowed my Mechanic to attend and adjust slightly and I got a Pass.

As stated earlier, once the MOT Tester starts, the MOT must be completed. The first time I took it to the Council, the Tester told me exactly that. Then he said, "Before I start, have a quick look around the Cab area to make sure nothing impedes the area swept by the wipers as that is a Fail". A bit puzzled, I did as he said and realised he was talking about my rear view Monitor. I quickly removed it and the MOT began. I would recommend them to anyone in my area.

 

[maingate]

He was being helpful. A private Garage could have easily spotted the same thing and kept quiet.

That way, he got the MOT Fee, failed the vehicle then got another Fee for the retest.

 

[wildebus]

He was being helpful. A private Garage could have easily spotted the same thing and kept quiet.

That way, he got the MOT Fee, failed the vehicle then got another Fee for the retest.

But do remember that a retest is either at a lower price or free depending on circumstances.
My Renault Master failed its very first MOT on the handbrake (it was 1% below the minimum allowed). Being a Council centre, they could not touch it despite havign similar vehciles in their fleet they maintained so I took it back to the supplying dealer who fixed it and then took it back within a week and no retest fee.

What is a little annoying is this process does now mean many cars have MOT fails against their record for quite trivial things which in the past would have just be sorted without official notice. I take my Transporters to a garage that specialises in them and last year the T4 failed on the rear numberplate bulbs not working (my bad for totally forgetting to check them before going ).
So I ended up with an MOT fail, then an MOT pass 5 minutes later and a bill for £1.20 for the two bulbs.
Just looks messy on the history, and I had thought of getting a "pre-MOT" to deal with that, but then you have the cost of 30 minutes or so labour rate, so is it worth it? Pays your money, takes your choice.

In terms of MOT 'Honesty', I would rate in order:
COUNCIL Stations (but now I have doubts about competency?)
MOT Only Facilities
Small/Local Garages (They are much more dependant on word of mouth so dodgy stuff will have a big impact)
Small Dealerships
Franchised Dealerships.

I am due to take my DS5 in for its first MOT in October and need to decide who to use (a main dealer MOT might "look" better in the history on a new car??)

 

[maingate]

I would never use a Garage that offered a free retest. They tend to find non existent faults to make more money on labour and parts charges. Their only worry for this is trying it on with an unannounced spot check. The spot checks are not effective because certain Garages had a reputation for sharp practice and the word got round pretty quick. Some of them got away with it for years.

 

[colinmd]

"Before I start, have a quick look around the Cab area to make sure nothing impedes the area swept by the wipers as that is a Fail". A bit puzzled, I did as he said and realised he was talking about my rear view Monitor.

As we seem to be well away from OP, another slight aside.
Yesterday when heading home I noticed a delivery driver going opposite way and I couldn't see the upper part of his face including eyes, eventually I realised it was either a large satnav or ipad which was directly in front of his face!