MOT time

[750ynot]

I'm aware that an MOT is not permanent proof of roadworthiness. However, it does show that the vehicle met the minimum legal safety standards within the year which makes it more likely to be safer than a vehicle that has never had an MOT. It's about ticking boxes for insurers as well.

The law does not work like that, facts only.

This is not true. You can be fined up to £2500, be banned from driving and receive 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. If someone steals your bike and you report the vehicle as stolen to the police, it would be the thief who would be driving the vehicle in a dangerous condition and therefore liable. If you willingly lent a dangerous vehicle to someone or parked it on a public road, then you might risk prosecution.

You are wrong pal, this is true, I know for a fact, a friend had his bike nicked, the bike was chased by Police and crashed, police took bike and inspected it, telling him he will get prosecuted for the unsafe vehicle if it was found to be at fault, you now see motorcycles outside bike shops with warning letters on if they are not road worthy.

The catch is, the thief had no way of knowing the bike was faulty, its the same thing with glass on your wall to stop a thief, if they injure themselves your liable, its no good saying they shouldn't of nicked it, or they shouldn't have been trying to break in my house, that is no defence, same as I didn't know, I remember a case were a lad fell through a roof trying to break in, he sued the owner for damages for his injuries as the roof was deemed unsafe.

An MOT is not a get out of jail card but on paper a vehicle that passes an MOT every year is more likely to be in a roadworthy condition than one that has never been tested and that is possibly how insurers might see it. Insurance companies are full of actuaries.

When you tax your exempt vehicle, you tick a box saying that you self certify that the bike is in roadworthy condition, that is all the proof you need in the eyes of the law.

You don't need to be a mechanic or have any special training to do this.

I am giving you all the facts on this, not old wives tails and I would thinks, facts, and the law only works on facts.

Any insurance company telling you different is trying it on.

[750ynot]

This is one of the reasons I MOT mine EVERY year. I heard about a guy with an absolutely stunning Honda CB750 his insurers had given him an agreed valuation of £10k. It was stolen from his garage and all they paid him was £4K? The reason they gave him for the low payout was in their words he couldn’t prove the bike was safe and in roadworthy condition! That was two years ago and he’s still fighting the case. £25 doesn’t seem so expensive in this case does it?

but a clean MOT certificate will show that it met the minimum legal safety standards within that year which could definitely help to show that the vehicle has been maintained, so I agree that the £25 is worth it. Hopefully, that guy is successful in his fight to get the proper payout. Sounds like the insurance company is trying it on as they like to do and its worth having all the boxes ticked so it's more difficult for them to do that.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The self certified MOT box was ticked when bike was taxed, that is as legally binding as an MOT.

They have to abide by the law, same as use, the law says you need to self certify, so that' what you need do.

An MOT is a very basic test, especially for our old bikes, Lights & horn work, no structural defect, tread on tyres, bearings good, brakes work and don't stick, chain & sprockets condition & tension, suspension working, that is about it.

You should carry out daily checks, every time you ride your vehicle, and lets face it, our 40 odd year old bikes are in far better condition than any 5 + year old bike, they are molly coddled and polished to within an inch of their lives, take plenty of photos of the bike to show condition.

[750ynot]

Proving Liability In Stolen Vehicle Accidents

If a vehicle that is stolen is involved in an accident it does not mean that this driver is liable. As with any road traffic accident, liability must be proven. As per the Highway code all road users owe each other a duty of care to keep one another safe on the road. Although a driver driving without insurance breaches this duty it does not mean they are automatically at fault for the accident.

This is why they take vehicles for inspection when involved in serious accidents, to prove liability.

If the vehicle is at fault, you are the custodian of that vehicle, liability falls to you.

Crazy as it sounds I know, but that is the law.

Bare this in mind, it may well save you money and hart ache, ignore my words at your peril, your choice.