 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
big..E.
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
Had a Hearing test today guy's...The Doc took me out onto the carpark,he asked me to listen to his exhaust....I told him it sounded OK,to my surprise he then told me I am 85% deaf..... lol......... Last edited on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 05:40 pm by big..E.
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21st, 2009 09:15 pm |
|
| Can you go over that again?
|
Rebel
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21st, 2009 08:53 pm |
|
| pardon
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21st, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
Vehicle Assessor wrote: nicknak wrote: Exhaust noise is subjective for the mot test, a tester who may be 85% deaf would not consider an exhaust noisy, but a tester who has 90% earing ability would.
That would mean the standard fitment would be 85% quieter to start with wouldn't it?
You may be right, but how can you assess that if you have bad earing?
If you ask somebody 85% deaf, they might not be able to ear you
What?
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21st, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
nicknak wrote: Exhaust noise is subjective for the mot test, a tester who may be 85% deaf would not consider an exhaust noisy, but a tester who has 90% earing ability would.
That would mean the standard fitment would be 85% quieter to start with wouldn't it?
You may be right, but how can you assess that if you have bad earing?
If you ask somebody 85% deaf, they might not be able to ear you
|
nicknak
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21st, 2009 05:32 pm |
|
Exhaust noise is subjective for the mot test, a tester who may be 85% deaf would not consider an exhaust noisy, but a tester who has 90% earing ability would.
That would mean the standard fitment would be 85% quieter to start with wouldn't it?
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 08:04 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: Would you like to see the minimum standards raised?
If these are raised that would only make them the new minimum standards.
A broken number plate does not make a vehicle unroadworthy and I would quite happily drive this with my family on board or do you consider this to be a dangerous vehicle and driver.
The same would apply to a noisy exhaust (not leaking).
How about view to front obscured on the outside it’s OK but on the inside of the windscreen the vehicle now becomes unroadworthy?
There are a lot of anomalies but we still have the best and most regulated testing system in Europe.
People will die on or using the roads, it a risk we take.
The standards already present really are good enough if applied correctly I feel.
A number plate is not officially a legal requirement if the vehicle is not registered, the only legal identification of a vehicle is the stamped VIN. The number plates being part of the test is probably just for ease of identification by visual view, ie speeding, accidents etc. A number plate would never be considered a dangerous defect, or can someone give a reason?
Exhaust noise is subjective for the mot test, a tester who may be 85% deaf would not consider an exhaust noisy, but a tester who has 90% earing ability would consider a exhaust noisy if not a standard fit. The only true professional way to establish the correct test is by using a db meter, but the mot does not include that, which if it did, all testers would have the same standard to apply.
The windscreen is yet another good example, some people have really good vision while some others don't, the drivers view of the road is important as far as VOSA is concerned, but the testers eye sight makes no difference?
Some may say there will always be accidents on the road, this may be true while under human control, but if artificial intellengents takes over, we need to see from experience what that would bring to road safety?
|
jonnyjohnson
Contributor
| Joined: | Fri Sep 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 06:23 pm |
|
Would you like to see the minimum standards raised?
If these are raised that would only make them the new minimum standards.
A broken number plate does not make a vehicle unroadworthy and I would quite happily drive this with my family on board or do you consider this to be a dangerous vehicle and driver.
The same would apply to a noisy exhaust (not leaking).
How about view to front obscured on the outside it’s OK but on the inside of the windscreen the vehicle now becomes unroadworthy?
There are a lot of anomalies but we still have the best and most regulated testing system in Europe.
People will die on or using the roads, it a risk we take.
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: If this same vehicle had been presented for MOT, and there was no excessive play in the rear hub would it have passed your visual check?
In your last sentence you give the impression that regular maintenance, by whoever is a waste of money, or have I misread this?
There is a slight difference between mot testing and servicing and repairs, the mot is a visual check of the components which can be seen, as the wheel has a cover on it to prevent the hub locking device being seen, if there is no free play in the bearings or wheel at the time of inspection, then nothing can be said.
The servicing of a vehicle is different, correct me if I am wrong but don't manufacturers recommend time and distance services, ie 12 months 12 000 miles as example, and if so, they also advise what should be checked, and if that check is carried out in accordance with their recommendations, if a fault occured then surely that fault would be a latent defect which the manufacturer would be responsible?
Not all garages and staff are the same, everybody is an individual, everybody can and does have an off day, but when you make a mistake this is where a person must decide whether to own up to it or disguise it, in my example of the Peugeot, the technican decided to ignore advising of his negligence, which if the wheel had come off and injured or killed somebody, the technician would have been in serious trouble.
Down South some time back two Women took a small commercial van into a garage for a service and mot test, the customer advised that there was somthing wrong with the brakes, the garage completely missed the issue and when the women collected the van they drove off, when driving down some major road for some reason the van veered off the road and could not be stopped, the van ran into a concrete pillar and the passenger died. The Old Bailey found the garage negligent and guilty of the offence.
My point, it is up to every individual to do a good job, advise where necessary and don't try to hind behind a company name or a big business because it will most certainly backfire on the individual technician or tester.
Just like to mention this experience with a colleague I used to work with at Vauxhall some years back.
The manager was getting the younger technician's to sell more brake discs and pads on peoples vehicles even when not needed, somebody complained and the Trading Standards sent in a vehicle with no defects on it, the technician sent a written report into reception that said it needed new discs and pads, when changed, the Trading Standards officer was all over the management, who blamed the technician who was taken to court and fined £3000, the company had no blame attached.
In summary;
Some techicians are very good at what they do and some are not. It is up to every individual to decide whether that person chooses to do the job correctly or not.
The mot test is a minimum standard road safety check and nothing to do with a vehicle being serviced.
|
jonnyjohnson
Contributor
| Joined: | Fri Sep 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 02:31 pm |
|
If this same vehicle had been presented for MOT, and there was no excessive play in the rear hub would it have passed your visual check?
In your last sentence you give the impression that regular maintenance, by whoever is a waste of money, or have I misread this?
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 01:13 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: The driver is responsible for his or hers driving and the driver is also responsible for the road worthiness of the vehicle.
Driver education to these facts could change attitudes.
Who has examined a vehicle and told a driver that a tyre is in a dangerous condition, and then watched as they drive off to the local tyre centre!
It is not for you or I to explain that they are wrong.
The driver is only responsible for the road worthiness of the vehicle before a professional garage has properly serviced it, should the vehicle then be driven on the road and the customer is not aware of a problem, like one I found the other day, explain in a minute, then the garage and or technican is liable.
Let me explain.
I carried out a service on a peugeot 206 the other day, while dismantling to check the rear brakes, the stub axle thread had been damaged by some "Professional" mechanic with his Air Gun speeding the nut back onto the stub axle after checking the brakes.
When the customer had been contacted by us, we advised that the stub axle had been damaged and to secure the locking nut onto the stub axle properly, we would need to replace it. The nut when fitted did not screw onto the stub axle sufficiently to enure that when the nut was locked into position, that it would stay there, if you understand what I mean.
The stub axle is a complete assembly costing £115 + labour + Vat to fit it.
How do I know a professional did it?
The customer showed records that proved the car had always been previously serviced by the Main dealer, the last receipt showed the car had been serviced by them with a breakdown of work completed.
What happens if that wheel had detached on the road?
Not the customers fault, and most certainly not the customers responsibility. Under the Service and Repair legislation 1982 and as amended, the garage is responsible for the satisfactory quality of repair they provide, otherwise the garage is negligent, in this case not that hard to prove, the dealer didn't even advise the customer of any problem with it.
Garage guilty, add claim to the Billions of wasted money consumers spend?
|
jonnyjohnson
Contributor
| Joined: | Fri Sep 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 09:11 am |
|
The driver is responsible for his or hers driving and the driver is also responsible for the road worthiness of the vehicle.
Driver education to these facts could change attitudes.
Who has examined a vehicle and told a driver that a tyre is in a dangerous condition, and then watched as they drive off to the local tyre centre!
It is not for you or I to explain that they are wrong.
|
Tom James
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Mon May 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 08:21 am |
|
| Granted driver error is probably the greatest cause of road accidents. Sometimes though a driver error, a skid say, (which the driver could normally recover from) is made worse if the brakes pull to one side, say, or the bald tyres caused it in the first place. Just because driver error is a predominant cause of accidents how does it follow that we should then be less concerned about preventable deaths and injuries due to vehicle defects which cause accidents? Do both! Improve driving standards and vehicle safety standards.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
Vehicle Assessor wrote: jonnyjohnson wrote: FACT the vast majority of accidents are driver fault not vehicle defects.
What makes vehicle repairers or examiners so special that they require a licence?
Tiredness and lapse of consentration can happen to anybody, one minute your driving ok and the next your involved in an accident and don't know why, the police arrive and statements are given, each person points the blame at somebody else, but the evidence never lies.
Try reading Horror Stories in the latest Matters of Testing, that is only one reported problem. My other job as well as testing vehicles is in assessing accident vehicles and their causes, and although vehicles most of the time are not blamed for the accident, this does not mean that they are in a road worthy condition.
Take the mot test as an example and ask yourself as a professional, when your vehicle has passed the mot test, which has just met the minimum standards above scrap level, do you really consider that the vehicle is roadworthy?
Billions of pounds are spent by consumers each year on vehicle repairers, if they where repaired to the correct standards do you then think that there would be so many volentary organisations trying to regulate the trade, no there wound not because nobody would be complaining. The fact remains that although there are good engineers out there, there will also be a lot which should not be allowed anywhere near a vehicle, or a pram for that matter.
In conclusion, try getting approved as an mot tester without being given a smart card, is that not like a license where you have been approved?
Hello DAVID,thought it was you........
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:51 pm |
|
jonnyjohnson wrote: FACT the vast majority of accidents are driver fault not vehicle defects.
What makes vehicle repairers or examiners so special that they require a licence?
Tiredness and lapse of consentration can happen to anybody, one minute your driving ok and the next your involved in an accident and don't know why, the police arrive and statements are given, each person points the blame at somebody else, but the evidence never lies.
Try reading Horror Stories in the latest Matters of Testing, that is only one reported problem. My other job as well as testing vehicles is in assessing accident vehicles and their causes, and although vehicles most of the time are not blamed for the accident, this does not mean that they are in a road worthy condition.
Take the mot test as an example and ask yourself as a professional, when your vehicle has passed the mot test, which has just met the minimum standards above scrap level, do you really consider that the vehicle is roadworthy?
Billions of pounds are spent by consumers each year on vehicle repairers, if they where repaired to the correct standards do you then think that there would be so many volentary organisations trying to regulate the trade, no there wound not because nobody would be complaining. The fact remains that although there are good engineers out there, there will also be a lot which should not be allowed anywhere near a vehicle, or a pram for that matter.
In conclusion, try getting approved as an mot tester without being given a smart card, is that not like a license where you have been approved?
|
jonnyjohnson
Contributor
| Joined: | Fri Sep 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 06:37 pm |
|
FACT the vast majority of accidents are driver fault not vehicle defects.
What makes vehicle repairers or examiners so special that they require a licence?
|
Vehicle Assessor
Contributor
| Joined: | Thu Jan 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
martins wrote: I don't know what you've been reading on this forum, but of course defective vehicles make the roads unsafe. Brakes, lights, windscreens, tyres, if defective and especially in combination with each other plus wet roads, at night - even a good driver would be asking for it.
Totally agree. look in latest Matters of Testing at the "Horror Story", ask oneself who in their right mind would fix/botch up brakes like that and put it on the road?
I don't know how the rest of you would feel about a license to repair vehicles, like Corgi have, but I think we should have one.
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 05:30 pm |
|
| I don't know what you've been reading on this forum, but of course defective vehicles make the roads unsafe. Brakes, lights, windscreens, tyres, if defective and especially in combination with each other plus wet roads, at night - even a good driver would be asking for it.
|
jonnyjohnson
Contributor
| Joined: | Fri Sep 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 04:16 pm |
|
By the forums own admission defective vehicles do not make our roads unsafe.
Defective drivers are to blame in the main.
This comes into the same category as speed cameras, congestion charges, fixed penalties and parking fines!
Why not admit it is another tax by different name.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15th, 2009 11:30 pm |
|
Well If it makes our roads "Safer" for us to travel to work on then I Fully Agree.
£200 or a Bulb? No Issues. (a dozen in 12 miles)
Really makes you wonder what else does the Vehicle actually require!
Laters, Wes.
Last edited on Thu Jan 15th, 2009 11:40 pm by Wesley
|
Current time is 08:33 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
