So, these new MOTs ..

All can see the one which appeared here, can they?

You really are rather more stupid than you first appear.

Have you ever tried suing anyone, Peter? Let alone attempting to recover any damages etc awarded by the court?

I got pulled over for having a rusty wing a long time ago. On a motorway, too.

Yes - some time ago you were far more likely to get stopped when driving a car that looked to be a 'banger'.

Probably no need as there's a lien on the car. I wouldn't wait for storage charges to be more than the value of the car.

A couple of phone calls to the local scrappie, even drivable scrap cars are worth more than zero.

It pays to sus out the punter first to see if they have funds, but Peter is technically correct.

Some people do have more money than common sense.

but but but you are making stuff up = FUD.

The only "dangerous" fail on emissions is for

That isn't failing the opacity test, or gassing and blinding the MOT tester, or any visible smoke with PM filter all of which are "major".

That only applies to Diesels. All colours and quantity of smoke emitted from SI engines are only major. (time for some fun with redex?)

The other dangerous fails in section 8 are for an exhaust system likely to fall off and leaking fuel. Fuel leaks have to be fast enough to cause a defined size of puddle in a set time.

Diesel spills cause skids and KILL. My kneecap has worn the scar for 41 years to attest to the danger posed by Diesel on the road.

Petrol is quite inflammable.

Wrong answer.

NT

Wouldn't bother. Just get a high court judgement and send in the bailiffs like on TV.

e:

exceptional circumstance. A lot of failed cars are safe in reality. When th e UK sets up new rules, such as the MOT test, BR, etc, it does not set up a balance of power, and the rule makers are free to mission creep & wander e ver further from reality. Classifying a car as dangerous because it doesn't meet the latest strict emission test is one more example of this. Never mi nd that most particulates don't even come from engines of any sort.

I've seen too many mot testers bend the interpretation on visible exhaust e missions if they think they might get a job out of it.

NT

OK. How many?

Of course the can't in this thread. But then, you brought the topic here thereby proving that you are nothing but a disingenuous little s*it.

This from one who alters quotes in a vain attempt to look clever. But then anything on that front is well overdue.

No, but as I said do they drive broken down cars or can they move them without driving?

So you do actually agree with what I said.

I never said anyone drove it. That is something you introduced.

They don't have to say so as I said, they can pay the fine instead.

You can really name a garage as a driver can you?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Don't you just love barrack room lawyers.

Which was the existing situation was it not? You have to wonder whether there was any statistical basis for some of these changes or were they introduced just to help pass the thickness tests. I personally suspect that the stricter emission tests are a back door virtually no-cost (to government) scrappage scheme.

It is a specific requirement for all testing stations to provide adequate off road parking

1. Requirements for premises For a site to be considered for approval it must provide the following:

d) adequate off road parking

Interesting. One I know doesn't.

NT

I think that only applies to vehicles that should have a DPF- it is intended to catch cars that should have a DPF that have had it removed.