Safe Speed Forums

It may invalidate you insurance. Also, only exceptionally may you drive to a pre-arranged test appointment or to a garage for repairs required for the MOT test.

Sorry, that is not correct.
Having no MoT cannot invalidate your insurance which is a legal contract between you and your insurer.
If you have no MoT because your car is in a dangerous condition, then you are in breach of the terms of your contract whereby you are required to inform the insurer of anything which has an effect on the insured risk. An MoT, or not, does not effect the risk, a vehicle in an unsafe condition may well do so. Thus, it's the state of the vehicle which would invalidate the insurance cover, not the MoT certificate which, in any case, nly confirms that a vehicle meets the requirements of the test at a specific time on a specific day once every year.
If your vehicle has a valid MoT (maybe 11 months old), but has no brakes, then if you drive knowing this before you set out, then your policy could be void. However, even in a case such as this third party risks are still covered.
The MoT does not confirm that the vehicle currently meets all the C & U regulations, just that it passed its test on the day stated. In fact, I have just got home from taking my Mini Cooper for a test and, looking at the MoT Cert it states 'A test certificate is not evidence that the vehicle is in a satisfactory condition'.
The MoT cert s not a document which an insurer can rely on to confirm the vehicle is roaworthy, nor is a lack of such a cert evidence otherwise.

Ok, whatever. What I said is what it says in the highway code. I haven't the time nor inclination to argue with you about it. You are right. You win.

I wasn't trying to 'win'. I was trying to help, but if you want to consider it a 'competition' so be it. Perhaps I shouldn't bother. Sorry.

Sensible arguement lost in a chorus of envy!

I've got an Audi TT that is essentially a company car, I'm in L3 when I'm overtaking something in L2 and L2 when.....I think you get the point. The car is usually filthy this time of year but thats not for deliberate reasons other than after 800 miles a week I'm not particularly inclined to wash it in the dark on a march evening!

Why A TT? because I've worked my f*cking backside off and I bloody well want one! My salary and conditions allow me to have one so i will. My next car will probably be an a6.

As for the point about the government creating criminals ....spot on. They are criminalising the motorist so the motorist will adapt accordingly. The people who drive the 'jags, audi's, mercs, bmw's etc are high achievers who (in the main) will be fairly intelligent and know that the speed fixation is wrong so they take other steps (assuming i dirty plates are a concious act). I know of friends who have got home only to realise that a tesco bag has accidentally obsured the fromt plate.

The government should have been aware of these unintended consequences. You didn't need to be russell grant to predict it!

And whilst not condoning it, the increase in drivers driving whilst disqualified will also be increased by the spiteful cameras when drivers who feel 'victimised' by the system decide to risk it in order to preserve their jobs, careers, families and homes.
The risk of being caught is low and the 6 months would soon pass. Of course, that is one time you definately would not be insured. Imprisonment if caught? Unlikely for a first offence if the offender is a family man of good standing (as Civil Engineer's examples).
Criminalisation of middle England for no good reason except to collect cash and further control the individual - New Labour's secret agenda?

While sharing some of your concerns LeveL, I do think you might try calming down a bit, and then maybe you'll reach 30, 40, 50, 60 years old rather more pleasantly - if I may say so.

Best wishes all,
Dave - a part time grumpy.