Aren't MOT's amazing

In message <[email protected]>, AJG
<[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>, Nige
><nigel.inceNO****[email protected]> writes
>>
>>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Whilst I don't really see the point of bull bars, they are not actually more
>>> dangeros than the front end of a bog standard series, however on cars which
>>> have impact absorbing bumpers you are compromising the pedestrian safety.
>>
>>That's not right matey, there have been tests done & they
>>significantly increase the likelihood of
>>serious head/chest injuries at even the lowest speed. Also, if you
>>**** something really big they can
>>utterly knacker your own vehicle.
>>
>That's not strictly true, this 'study', if it is the one I recall, is
>purely statistical and made no real study of type of collision or
>vehicle type involved.
> In some vehicles bull-bars will cause these results however it depends
>on the front-end design of the vehicle. I would be interested to see a
>scientific study of being hit by a 44ton artic at 25mph with a bull-bar
>and one without ... then compare that to being hit by a mini metro both
>with and without a similar bull-bar ... statistics can always be bent
>to fit the intended mould
>
Personally, I'll listen to all these arguments about bullbars when the
motor industry faces up tot he fact that the standard bumper height on
cars is about the worst it possibly could be wrt injuries. (AIUI)
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

IME they do. Last MOT I had I was advised that rear discs were low, and
also that exhaust tail pipe was split, but because it was behind rear
box was not a failure. Subsequently I've dealt with both, at my leisure.

Hugh

In message <[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
writes
>I think a sensible test would warn you or any impending problems, like if
>your tread were close to the limit or your brakes only had a few hundred
>miles left in them.
>
>
>--
>Larry
>Series 3 rust and holes
>
>
>"Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "AN6530" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> No but It just goes to show that the MOT is only a test
>> of roadworthiness at the time of testing and should not
>> be relied upon for 12 months of "my car's OK it's got
>> a MOT certificate"
>>
>> Andy
>> --
>> SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
>> It's big, it's mean it's really, really green
>>
>>
>
>

--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting