Modern Vespa

I've just returned from taking the LML 200 for its annual vehicle safety inspection (commonly know as the Ministry of Transport test in the U.K).

I had spent a little time the other day giving the scooter a thorough check-over, brakes, steering, tyres & lights, as statistically many bikes fail the MoT due to an easily rectified oversight by the owner. The burly lads in the garage found the bike amusing, whilst the female receptionist thought it was cute!

Fortunately all was well - I think it helps if you present the vehicle in a clean and cared-for-looking condition - and half an hour and £30 less, I had another twelve month safety certificate, so can now relax.

Glad it went well, and while I see the merit of such things for people too illiterate to read and follow their period maintenance schedules, I'm even more glad that we don't have any of this big brother totalitarianist oversight to deal with in the land of the free, Canada.

If we had annual safety inspections in Africa, around 75% of vehicles would not be on the roads.
In ZA, we only do roadworthy inspections when a vehicle changes owners.

That is interesting to hear what does or does not happen in other countries. I wonder if some places rely more on active traffic enforcement Police patrols. I'm pretty sure most of Europe has a similar system to the U.K, even if it is just as a basic test for roadworthiness. With increasing emission control regulations, exhaust gases are now also being checked, although not as yet for motorcycles. A failure on that score could mean a very expensive repair or even scrapping the vehicle.

Incidentally, vehicles over forty-years old are now exempt and classed as 'historic' by the U.K government, so hopefully preserving a lot of interesting cars and bikes.

There has been a useful consequence of the U.K system. Since MoT records were computerised a few years ago, it is now possible to check the previously recorded mileage of a vehicle. So, for example, I was looking at a 20 year old BMW1100 on Gumtree. The owner claimed the mileage to be under 40k miles, which seemed plausible. But, when I checked-out the bike's registration number on the government's vehicle site, the true mileage (at the last MoT test) was 82k! So it sounds like someone has been manipulating the speedo!

SFPD follows the Pirates of the Caribbean philosophy of enforcement.

I hope you pointed out the errors of his ways.

What is this annual vehicle safety inspection of which you speak?

More US states used to require safety inspections but I guess many have dropped them when looking at statistics like these from a 2015 USDOT analysis that shows that only 2% of accidents were attributed to vehicle related critical reasons. A further breakdown shows that most of these were attributed to tires and brakes.

Too bad we haven't put emphasis on more rigorous driver/rider training, operator licensing requirements and traffic law enforcement because that seems to be where the lion's share of the causes exist.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115

Probably been round the clock.

Stickyfrog, the annual inspection (or MoT) was introduced in 1960 and currently applies to all vehicles over three years of age. For motorcycles, it's relatively quick and simple, checking brake operation on a rolling road, ensuring that all lights operate correctly and a general inspection of tyres, wheels and suspension for correct function. A failure can be something as simple as a malfunctioning indicator or stoplight, other minor issues could achieve a pass and be classed as 'advisory'. Often, 'disc brake thinning' is highlighted as an advisory needing attention.

A failed MoT means that the vehicle can then only be rode home or to a repair shop before a re-test. If the failure is classed as 'dangerous' then, strictly speaking it would need to be transported.

All MoT test are now recorded on a central computer, so can be viewed by anyone who knows the vehicle registration number (licence plate). This is useful when considering the purchase of a used vehicle, both for the mileage recorded and any previous MoT failures.

For cars it is rather more involved, checking the underside for rust and wear and the exhaust for emissions. Newer cars seem to have few issues, whereas older cars were prone to terminal rust problems.

When we switched* to annual inspections from 6 monthly all of a sudden people needed to check their tyres and brakes themselves.

*Only for vehicles made after 2000, older cars still need six monthly warrants. Brand new cars don't need a check for three years.

Caddy, to quote you "I will never understand why the most polluting of vehicles ie old 2 strokes and inefficient diesel vehicles get away from paying any road tax whilst modern Euro 5 petrol engines get clobbered."

With an 'historic vehicle', the U.K Government has already had (at least in theory) forty-plus years of annual road tax and MoT fees to spend at their whim!

Beware - insurance companies are now using this information to get out of paying. It's happening!

Example:
MoT has an advisory (not a failure) - "brake pads thin", or "tyre near minimum legal tread depth".

Months later you're in a collision - the insurance companies will check your MoT history, then ask "did you get that work done?". If not, they can use the line that your vehicle wan't properly maintained and that was the cause of the accident (I.e. couldn't stop due to poor brakes or tyres).

That's an interesting point OscarSass, as I suppose they could argue with some justification, that near worn-out brakes or tyres were a contributing factor in any accident. After-all, the advisory is to advise that attention is required soon.

Certainly, when I have browsed the MoT history of some bikes, I have often found the same advisories recurring.