Squeaky bum time
- Thread starter 85genius
- Start date
Any news yet?
Reason(s) for failure
nearside Headlamp aim too high (1.8 )
offside Headlamp aim too high (1.8 )
nearside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)
nearside Brake pipe excessively corroded front to rear as marked (3.6.B.2c)
offside Brake pipe excessively corroded front to rear as marked (3.6.B.2c)
offside front lower Suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement rear bush (2.4.G.2)
lurker, first poster here. This thread drew me.
I'm amazed and impressed by your MOTs. Here in the states we have "safety" inspections of varying degrees of usefulness ranging from none at all to making sure the doors won't fall off. The most stringent I've ever experienced was in New York, where they actually checked brake linings or pad thickness, as appropriate. Most places, simply stopping before running into a wall is sufficient demonstration of braking ability. Here in Hawai'i the inspector checks lights, horn, and wallet.
How important, I wonder, are the inspections? That is, how many accidents are prevented? My impression is that mechanical failures that still allow the vehicle to be driven but that cause or contribute to an accident are relatively rare. Is it that the inspections are a holdover from an earlier era, a feel-good exercise, or that mechanical failures are seldom identified as a root cause simply because they aren't spotted, so driver error or road conditions get blamed?
At any rate, I'd actually be comfortable with a higher level of inspection than we currently have here. Perhaps not quite to the level of detail that you all "enjoy", but something a bit more stringent than nothing.
Sorry for the longish rant. And yes, I have a Z; 2005 in the lovely Malediveblau.
I'm amazed and impressed by your MOTs. Here in the states we have "safety" inspections of varying degrees of usefulness ranging from none at all to making sure the doors won't fall off. The most stringent I've ever experienced was in New York, where they actually checked brake linings or pad thickness, as appropriate. Most places, simply stopping before running into a wall is sufficient demonstration of braking ability. Here in Hawai'i the inspector checks lights, horn, and wallet.
How important, I wonder, are the inspections? That is, how many accidents are prevented? My impression is that mechanical failures that still allow the vehicle to be driven but that cause or contribute to an accident are relatively rare. Is it that the inspections are a holdover from an earlier era, a feel-good exercise, or that mechanical failures are seldom identified as a root cause simply because they aren't spotted, so driver error or road conditions get blamed?
At any rate, I'd actually be comfortable with a higher level of inspection than we currently have here. Perhaps not quite to the level of detail that you all "enjoy", but something a bit more stringent than nothing.
Sorry for the longish rant. And yes, I have a Z; 2005 in the lovely Malediveblau.
Attachments
Kamuela said:
You have a good point, as much as hate MOT time I'd rather have to go through it myself safe in the knowledge that every one else on the road with me has to have the same checks every year than have it asap relative free for all with any old shed potentially crashing into me at the next red light
south yorkshire
Sorry to hear of your woes James- the brake pies are a funny one- mine weren't even picked up as advisory in MOT yet at service BMW (a few hundred dry miles later) they were advised to replace and on looking at them I had to agree as if they go, that's it no brakes! Hope you get sorted soon!