All three rear belts were fastened when I collected the Focus after its MOT.
Why?
The obvious answer is to test the belts.
But I would have thought the tester would want to make sure the buckles came undone as well, so he would fasten them and then unfasten them.
Leave it how you found it is not a bad maxim, either.
|
The tester would probably have fastened the belts, unfastened them, and fastened them again, checking the mechanism completely.
Why leave them fastened?
As a visual reminder that he had done that task.
In a similar way, when I would drain the oil, I would take out the sump plug, and drop my spanner on the floor. I would only ever pick the spanner up to finally tighten the plug, before replacing the spanner in the tolbox. Therefore, if my spanner is on the floor, the sump plug is out, or loose, and if the spanner is back in my toolbox, the sump plug must be tight.
It sounds silly, but, if you are doing a complicated series of tasks quickly, then leaving the odd clue is very helpful.
|
|
Good reasoning, NC. But in my limited experience all testers seem to leave the belts engaged, so is that part of a standard routine?
|
|
|
snipquoteIt sounds silly but if you are doing a complicated series of tasks quickly then leaving the odd clue is very helpful.
That's a very good point NC.
Whenever I drain the oil I take the keys out and leave them on the seat. That way I know not to start the car until both the sump plug is back and the engine refilled.
Similarly when replacing a wheel I tighten the nuts as far as possible up on the jack, but leave the brace hanging. Then I don't forget to do the final tightening after the car is back on the ground.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 27/11/2008 at 10:37
|
|
One of the things I always remember from a motor vehicle tutor at the Tec College has always stood me in good stead - If you are going to replace a bolt/nut/fastening, then either tighten it fully then and there or don't bother to even start it.
|
|
|
|
|
Chap I know always fastens the rear seat belts if he is carrying something heavy in the boot in cars with folding rear seats. Idea being that it adds extra strength to the folding mechanism in the event of an accident and might help to prevent the contents of the boot flying into the cabin.
Probably a sound theory but one I have never remembered to put into practice. He is a bit of a pessimist generally though.
I find trying not to crash more diverting but he almost certainly has a point.
|
|
I do the same HB, but only to save delving down the back of the seat squabs to retrieve the plug-in part of the seat belts when I return the seats to the normal position
|
|
|
|
It's because the next part of the check is to pull the entire length of the belt off the reel and check it for damage.
If the belt is unbuckled, then you end up with an armfuls of belt; buckled, half of it is out already and you can easily pull out the rest with one hand.
Leaving it buckled is just laziness though.
|
>Leaving it buckled is just laziness though.
So perhaps it is done to provide evidence that the belts have been checked?
|
As far as I'm concermed, the MOT is a complete waste of time and money. Whilst I realise that it is currently mandatory and a car's road tax could not be renewed without one, why does the MOT (VOSA) have that get out clause, the wording which escapes me at present, saying something like 'this does not mean that the car is in a satisfactory condition'.
What is the MOT test for if, at the time of testing (if nothing else) it cannot quarantee the conditon of the car in question?
From the conditon of my car when tested last week, I am not sure whether my washers and wipers were even operated. Usually I see signs of dried washer fluid or wiper marks etc.
|
There is a difference between "satisfactory condition" and "probably safe on the road" which is what an MOT seems to be for.
When I take mine in they always ask me to turn the wipers on, give it a squirt and a beep of the horn before checking all the lights and the rest of the stuff.
|
|
|
>>What is the MOT test for?
The MOT only makes sense if you view it as a quality check for your maintenance regime. If you look after the car, it should pass. A snapshot; nothing more.
For the money you pay, and time the test takes it cannot be a rigorous and complete safety check, far from it.
That is why it cannot guarantee the condition of the car in question, because that's not what the MOT is for. An inspection which would guarantee the condition of the car would cost a fortune - c.f. shaken
It's not a complete waste of time and money, it catches safety critical defects, and removes the worst cars from our roads. Any positive impact the MOT does have on road accident figures is admittedly small.
But, beefing the MOT up would only serve to make it more expensive, without bringing a commensurate improvement in accident figures - a true waste of money!
|
It's not a complete waste of time and money it catches safety critical defects and removes the worst cars from our roads. Any positive impact the MOT does have on road accident figures is admittedly small.
The benefit might be bigger than it appears. Ireland had no MOT equivalent until the National Car Test (NCT) was introduced in 2000, and in that year only 8-year-old-or-more cars were tested. Only 3.9% of them passed the test first time round, with a further 44% getting a "fail advisory" warning; but over half were off the road until re-tested. (see www.ncts.ie/test_stats.html#2000 )
The pass rates have been climbing steadily over the years. For example, in the year 2000 43,000 pre 92 cars (i.e. 1 in 6) were identified as having defective brakes, and that doesn't seem to be the case any more. The first-time pass rate for 1992-96 registered cars was 9.1% in 2001, but when vehicles of that year were tested six years later in 2007 they had a first time pass rate of 35%.
This suggests to me that the NCT is leading to a higher standard of vehicle maintenance, so it's effects go beyond the relatively small number of dangerous wrecks taken off the roads as a result of test failures. If so, I would expect the MOT to have had a similar effect.
|
I wasn't saying that the MOT doesn't catch dangerous faults, just that the link between dealing with dangerous faults and reducing accidents is nowhere near as strong as you might think.
Studies of MOTs in the Netherlands have shown this - the link was helpfully posted in a recent(ish) MOT discussion thread. I'll see if I can dig it out, because it was a very good read.
|
It was the link kindly posted by jbif in this thread;
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68822&...f
|
I think that this is the link you mean: www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_MOT.pdf
Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
