Ethics / legality of failing on dashboard warning light.

The new warning lights that we now have to check all came from a directive from Europe. The UK (and all member states) had to comply by 1st January 2012. Because the introduction was delayed in the UK by around 15 months meant that UK Plc had to pay fines to Europe (the rumour is that it was around £10,000 a day!).

As more features are added to vehicles over time you will find that the regulators will add further checks and tests. Some will be retrospective to all vehicle ages and others wont. An example of this is tyre pressure sensing system warning lights - these are checked but only on vehicles first used on or after 1st September 2010.

A lot of testers (me included) will agree with some of your points but have to test what they are told to and are not allowed to pick and choose items to ignore if they don't agree with them.

Edited to add...



We only test once a year so to give a blanket cover for the other 364 days is impossible.

One factor is the fact that the program may be modified or disabled when the warning light is on.

Some engine management warning light faults can reduce power from the engine, to allow the vehicle to be driven to a garage without causing further damage.

More dangerously an ABS warning light may stop the ABS working. "So What?" you may say, "the car stops ok on conventional brakes" However things are not that simple. A typical conventional braking system may have a brake effort reducing valve fitted to the rear axle, which helps prevent premature locking of the rear brakes. A car with ABS does not need this valve because the ABS can deal with this. If the ABS light is on the car may become unstable under heavy braking. As MOT testers we have a limited time to carry out a specific inspection, we can't spend time working out whether the fault is present, whether it's dangerous, or whether it is going to be a rediculous price to repair. We are asked to check the status of the light.

They can seize open @daveg, or they can seize closed. I can't imagine the two faults would have the same result when driving.

However both would have the same result at MOT, and thats a fail because we are not asked to determine whether the brakes work better than they should, we are just asked to check the operation of the valve.

I am not sure about this Phaetonott"I would of inserted a link" but the server on this forum has problems.

If what you say above is correct, i.e. the can seize in the open and closed positions, then surely you can't have the same results can you?

By example, the series connected pressure regulating valves are in the normally closed position and when the footbrake is depressed, the increase in hydraulic pressure lifts the valve off its seat against spring pressure, and when the foot brake is released the return spring forces the valve closed.

Maybe you are referring to a different type of valve than I am thinking about?

Daveg

That is a design feature of Jags, Mercs and a few others. If the seatbelt is plugged in without a certain weight on the seat the car decides that deploying the passenger airbag would be inappropriate, maybe because a child seat is fitted. This is not a fault, just another example of cars being too damned clever.

I would agree that the mot is a indication of a vehicle at the time of test,when a vehicle is presented for test with a testable warning lamp illuminated which is indicating a fault,then at that time its a failure as somewhere in that system a fault has occurred,and that system is not going to work when required.

If the part of the system that has caused a fault has been repaired then the system will need resetting manually after the repair has been done to activate the system back to its normal function of operation,once this is done and the system controller (ecu)after it has done its self diagnosis is satisfied that the repair is good then the lamp will extinguish and only then can you say the fault no longer exists as the system is fully working.

What you are saying is that a component which is faulty with in the system has been replaced,this makes the system working,only the malfunction lamp is on,so its not a true indication of the vehicle at that time.(you are saying)
Just because a component has been replaced does not necessarily mean that system is fully operational again,the fault still exists until its wiped off the controller, until this action is performed the system will not work correctly.
In that case it would still come down to the fact that in fact its still is a true indication of the vehicle as the system will not perform as it should meaning that such warning lamps do comply with mot policy.

These systems/malfunction lamps require hardware to retrieve information to rectify and re-set controllers,if the person is competent at fixing the fault why would the person not re-set the ecu rather then leave the lamp illuminated and the system still not working as it should do.
Their will be people out there that think a fault is repaired,the fact that the malfunction lamp is still on means nothing and unless the controller can work out for itself(as some can and re-set themselves) that a fault has been fixed,it will need telling with hardware.

Hardware is available now to reset all malfunction lamps,who has or can afford the equipment would depend on weather the vehicle has to go back to the dealers,Other areas of a vehicle that fail the mot may have to back to the dealers for repair for one reason or another,its not about legality its about who has the knowledge and the equipment.
Its not case if the government wants these items mot testable,its now a case they are.

Can't say the issue has happened to me when moving the seat(not yet ) but if/when it does then I would fail it .
Try and resolve the issue at the end of the test