+- The DeLorean Owners Club UK Forum (http://www.deloreans.co.uk/forum)
+-- Forum: GENERAL DELOREAN DISCUSSION (http://www.deloreans.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Members Cars (http://www.deloreans.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=40)
+--- Thread: Front indicator functionality legality (/showthread.php?tid=5783)
Front indicator functionality legality - Rissy - 27 Mar 2018
So another year, another MOT. Lexi passed her MOT on Friday.....just.
A grumbling point.....again, is indicators. I was nearly failed for the front indicators flashing bright-dim-bright (with side lights on of course) instead of on-off-on, like the back do. I know the deal. I understand the functionality. I had to explain this to my MOT man. What I want to know and understand is the legality point of view on this. Is it, or is it not legal for these cars front indicators to be doing this? I'm quite frankly fed up being pulled up for things on MOT's which no other owner seems to be. The good news is, that's the last time my car will be MOT'd in Scotland at that garage. Next year, I have to start the knowledge-base with a new MOT tester all over again in Rugby.
Thanks in advance for any help
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Chris Williams - 27 Mar 2018
No reason why it should do that anyway if it's wired up correctly, however there going to be MOT exempt soon anyway so why worry!
Chris
(edit; since chatting to Chris I realise he has his car as OE with US spec sidelights indicators. That's why they do it.)
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Rissy - 28 Mar 2018
(27 Mar 2018, 18:47)Chris Williams Wrote: going to be MOT exempt soon anyway so why worry!
I didn't believe that was a certainty yet (if it becomes true at all)
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Guinney1971 - 28 Mar 2018
There is a rolling 40yr exemption for MOTs and Road Tax coming in, although as I understand it, if your car
is 'substantially modified from standard' then MOT exemption may not apply.
TBH, I think MOT exemption is ridiculous and dangerous, for the sake of £30 a year I'd rather know that my
car is safe rather then drive along thinking its ok, when I cant physically inspect stuff under the car like brake pipes.
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Rissy - 28 Mar 2018
If it's going to be set to 40yrs, like the road tax exemption, then at the earliest, we can all still wait until April 2022 for that.
For information, I got charged the full legal MOT rate on Friday. So £54.85 for my very stressful MOT.
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Nick H - 28 Mar 2018
(28 Mar 2018, 11:56)Rissy Wrote: If it's going to be set to 40yrs, like the road tax exemption, then at the earliest, we can all still wait until April 2022 for that.
For information, I got charged the full legal MOT rate on Friday. So £54.85 for my very stressful MOT.
Rissy, If your really worried about next years MOT. Come on over to Peterborough (not a million miles from Rugby) and use the guy I have used for years. Kev likes his classics and yank tanks.
I don’t have the indicatior issue as I have the hella low beam headlights with the sidelights built in (no need to cut the headlight buckets).
Nick H
P.S. Totally agree that getting rid of the MOT for older cars is crazy. Always better to have a second set of eyes look at your car.
RE: Front indicator functionality legality - Rissy - 28 Mar 2018
(28 Mar 2018, 12:37)Nick H Wrote: Rissy, If your really worried about next years MOT. Come on over to Peterborough (not a million miles from Rugby) and use the guy I have used for years. Kev likes his classics and yank tanks.
My regular MOT guy for the other cars is keen to get his hands on LEX from next year onwards. I have a good rapport with him. He's never seen a D' before, so we'll see how he deals with it next year. If he gives me issues, then i think i will have to find somewhere new again.
For the MOT rules book, i could only find one reference which might be interpreted as a fail for the car as it's wired, but it all comes down to interpretation. I would say its performing as designed, and not adversely affected...
Reason for rejection:
"h. adversely affected by the operation of another lamp e.g. dual function lamps on foreign vehicles."