Next round of VTS Council meetings

Would this be the place to ask for clarification on the latest SN?

I believe they've got it wrong.

They specify that a chip is not a failure if it does not affect your view of the road, which is where I feel they have made a mistake. I have looked at a few damaged screens recently to try to reconcile this matter in my own mind and still feel there is an issue.

A couple of cars I have tested have damage a few inches above the wiper blades. This seriously sffect my view of the tarmac about 20m ahead of the car, but they have no bearing on road safety. If a kiddie suddenly pops up in that area I'm going to splatter him, He's already within my stopping distance, and I'm not likely to see him there as I make my observations further ahead than that.

I would have seen that kiddie wandering towards the edge of the pavement 50metres ahead, Well I would have seen him if the large chip I just advised because it didn't affect my view if the road wasn't blocking my view of the pavement.

I had to wait at the side of a road for a short while a few days ago so I played around with some stickers positioned above the line of the road. With a 10mm disc it was possible to "lose" a cyclist or pedestrian without obscuring any tarmac.

We are supposed to check that the sunvisor stows securely. The sunvisor obscures your view of the sky (where the sun is) and the trees, and the traffic lights, overhead motorway signs and other high up things. If your sunvisor is blocking your view of the road you probably have your car upside-down.

Maybe we are taking the wording too literally, by sticking to the view of the road. All MOT testers should be drivers should we not be able to assess that damage may affect your ability drive safely in most traffic situations within the UK?

Thanks

I would say it's well on topic, the sort of thing that should be brought up at council meetings for discussion. Like the new phrase used for testing driver's view according to the special notice, 'materially affects the driver's view'. How is that to be measured? It makes no sense. It appears to be designed to alter the fail criteria, but does it? I can't really say, because I can't pin down a definition for 'materially affects'. That needs explaining.

Would this the right place to bring up refresher training as I was told that these courses will change in 2016?
The 5 year frequency really should not be extended just to save money.

Web based training was mentioned, but as this is open to fraud, remote training really should be avoided for mandatory training. With ideas & standards changing frequently it could be said that 5 year's is not frequent enough!

Then as a CM there is a possibility that it could be brought up with vosa before it has been changed,as stopping a change is probably easier than getting it reversed.

Just my opinion, but rather than an annual web based test the refreshers should be reduced to two or three year intervals and if DVSA must have a test that could be done at the end of the refresher course, similar to the three day course and tests.

Also if web based or refresher testing should come about do we know what happens if we fail, do we get another chance and if so how many or do we start looking for another job.

I know i have some questions for the May meeting and i hope to get some answers that will be useful to us all.

A man in a suit from Policy Branch at Bristol

Who