And of that 1%, how many accidents would have been avoided by having had an MoT beforehand. My guess is probably less than 10%.

I've forgotten how to say 'pot calling the kettle black' in German. If the TUEV standards are indeed higher than British MoT- where are the stats indicating lower accident rates?

 

The lower rates regarding technically faults involved in accidents are lower but total accidents are higher, mainly due to autobahn usage...

According to the Dekra, a secondary company allowed to do the HU which is simply known as TÜV Untersuchung, 36% of all cars involved in accidents had technical faults after they checked them... BUT it doesn't say if they were the reason for the accident. But this statisic is about as useful as a punch in the ***** fo prove that pain is equally felt over the body...

Fahrzeugtechnische Gutachten - DEKRA


My XJ-S failed on oilleaks, insufficient braking and emissions... Headlights, even though RHD weren't a problem as nonavailable. As said, about 3 weels before purchase my XJ-S had an MOT with no problems or advisories... One month later a few problems.

And goung by what many youths have on their cars, like home made spoilers and co (in GB), I would assume technical faults are higher. Rims don't need approval in the UK. Fit what you want. Here the TÜV needs to be consulted. Rims need to have registration stamps. Brakes and lights need KBA approval numbers and stamps. A simple 'I'll LED my headlights' doesn't work here. Nor fitting HIDs to a car without them from factory. Amd if you might manage it, it needs auto height adjustment and a washer system...

 

Mikey_59,

I'm not sure how anyone who lives in the UK "thinks" the govt -published statistics are exaggerated. They are quite precise. 33.28%, being 94,927 cars, failed their first MoT in 2013 on illegal tyres. That's fact. As regards some people using the MoT as a reason to absolve themselves of responsibility for checking their car - I absolutely agree that's probably true. And they would probably be the same people who would absolve themselves of responsibility entirely to maintain their car if the MoT didn't exist. So, if it makes them replace their broken brake light bulbs and illegal tyres at least once a year, then Amen to that.

We may agree to disagree, but I continue to believe that whilst there is undoubtedly a more effective regime that could exist, the UK MoT remains a better solution than not having one at all.

Cheers

Paul

 

The stat is worse than that- it might mislead people into thinking that faulty cars were the cause at least some of the time- and that the number needs to be reduced to zero. Without knowing if none, some, or all of the accidents were due to the technical fault, the number is less than useless.

If you want hear some thing even more inflammatory- I can quote you the exact percentage of commercial aircraft that are flying at any given time with known (not hidden) technical faults.

It's 100%.

Having said that, the faults are so minor that they do not compromise safety in any meaningful manner. Every aircraft has book on board called the MMEL (master minimum equipment list). If the aircraft does not meet the minimum standard of the book, it does not fly.

Two of the three things you mention (leak and emissions) are not safety related. Sounds like the TUEV are up their old tricks as always. I did battle with them in 1994 trying to have a motorcycle I brought from Canada. Took me three attempts to get a pass after I demonstrated that NO motorcycle , including domestically made BMWs met the lighting and reflector standards they were flagging me on.

With respect to the brakes on your car- did you agree with them? Do you believe that the brakes had a fault that meant the car was unsafe and might contribute to an accident?

If yes- why were you driving it?

 

I'd agree with you if there was any data that showed even a minor improvement in 'safety' as compared to places with no inspections.

 

Their old tricks? No, respecting the valid safety laws. And oil leaks and emissions are still points a car should fail it's emission test on... 1 drop of engine oil pollutes around 600l of groundwater... And if my car chucks out loads of coal instead of flowers and air, then something is wrong

The braKing was fine for me driving it, as I had no emergency brake situations. The handbrake worked. The Footbrake worked but the rear axle had an uneben bracing pattern classed as insufficient.

As the engine was so coated in oil, I was advised to get it cleaned up and change some seals - which is why my car has divorced it's engine...

I personally prefer the German TÜV as you can still register a garden shed with engine as a car and it will Pass the MOT. Homemade cars don't Pass here... HomeMade tuning doesn't either. Luckily! An engine blown up infront spiting all oil and water into the tarmac... No thanks! OuR roads are bad but no need to make them NY style

 

Just to continue the hijacking, the specific issue I had with the TueV was an obscure regulation regarding the size (sq. cm. area) of the tail light reflective surface when the vehicle was viewed from the side. Mine failed despite it being the OEM installed piece and there being no alternative Euro-spec piece available. We were at a stalemate as there was no way for them to allow the vehicle to pass and no way for me to modify it. I noticed a newish BMW 750 motorcycle parked nearby and quickly determined that it's tail light also failed the regulation.

Turns out the bike's owner was the inspector's boss who magically made the problem go away.

I learned later that the particular station I had gone to, in the former US section of West Berlin, was known to be tough on foreigners and their strange vehicles.

 

Precisely why we should be very wary of delivering quite unnecessary power and control over individuals' lives into the hands of government agencies and their employees who have no direct accountability to the individuals they are dealing with, nor any concept of common sense application of rules.


Greg

 

The above is not limited to just governments or their agencies. By nature, humans tend to impose their own views on others. In most cases it's well meaning but does impinge on the person's freedom of choice nonetheless.

My mother still won't let me go swimming until an hour after I've eaten. Ironically the local emissions testing station technician couldn't care less.

 

The problem is that cars and vehicles never offer in Germany/the EU require some work to be registered here. Like American classics with sequential indicatorsor red indicators.... They were legal in the states but not here. Red indicators are only permitted for cars until date xxx. Rear foglights are required and must be retrofitted, etc. So the TÜV was'nt being pissey but more so trying to get the right things sorted...

 

No. The guy was being pissy I can assure you.

The exact same make, model and year of motorcycle was offered for sale in Germany, equipped exactly the same as mine. I even went to the main dealer, not 1 km away, asking about the tail light assembly. The part number he had listed for locally-sold motorcycles was identical to what was already on the bike.

This is what Greg is describing above- the wrong person with too much power and no common sense.

 

My word !
The inspection that The State of Georgia (USA) requires every year now is just an
emissions inspection. You know, the automobile version of a prostate exam.
They just stick a nozzle up the tail pipe and run the car on a dyno-meter for about 10 minutes.
Newer cars just get a OBDII connection. $15 - $25 and you are good for another year.

Georgia use to have the "Safety Inspection" and it was proven to be a total waste of
time and money to the consumers.
But then the EPA (Employment Prevention Agency) came along and
said cars were the cause of Global Warming. . . er, I mean Climate Change and
Georgia had to implement an inspection system to monitor the emissions of cars in
the major Metro-Atlanta area.
If your vehicle weighed over 6250Lbs GVWR it was exempt. All those huge trucks
and government owned vehicles were exempt. That includes metro buses.
I proudly own a 6500Lb GMC Suburban which allows me to put my medium carbon
footprint down on the roads occasionally. I honestly want to make snow tires
obsolete.

I never had any problems with the 94 XJS 4.0L passing the inspections. Except for the
gas (petrol) cap test. Fortunately, the Jaguars are exempt from that test.

Wow, no wonder Britain wanted to exit the EU if the German tests were to become the norm.

Regards and POR - Press On Regardless !

 

Britain (or 'Left it') is too small to have regional variations in the standards so we all have to comply with the norm; unless you have a vehicle which is pre 1963 in which case you can do what you want.
'Wooden brakes Sir? No problem but I would recommend a man in front with a red flag'.
'27 litre Zeppelin engine Sir? Off you trot then, lovely job'.
'Tesla Sir? Suggest you wear a crash and and full body armour'.
Many moons ago my brother in law and his siblings designed and built a kit car; the finished product (in GRP) was structurally stronger than the car that it was based on and because it was so well done they were allowed to drive them on the roads and sell them.
All done in rented sheds.