wammers, just took a look at your link, thats not the vosa site for testers, i don't know if you have to be a tester to access it, but the tester i spoke to looked it up whilst i was standing next to him in the garage, why would he put it down as an advise and risk his job when he could of just issued a fail?
Holy reincarnationthis thread is 2 years old.
Well done for quoting the spam.
SRS light on at MOT time - PistonHeads
and it is a fail but dont need the bulb????insane but appears to be true.....
and it is a fail but dont need the bulb????insane but appears to be true.....
Total bollocks that was dated 2012. The requirement to check SRS came in on 1st January 2012. But was stated by VOSA that non conformity would be an advisory until further notice along with several other checks. A non functioning SRS lamp has been an MOT fail since March 2013 when the grace period expired.
Right have done some digging on this subject. Apparently it is correct that if SRS lamp does not light with ignition it is just an advisory. The advisory is given as a CMA option. This comes about because of VOSA Special notice 01 2013. Which stated that the "SRS light does not illuminate with ignition" option was removed from the computerised reasons for fail choices menu. Because some SRS lamps do not come on to do a self check with ignition, but only when there is a fault. So the option for fail was removed. VOSA seem to have created a loophole in their system.
i knew i was right, i was beginning to think that the tester may have made a mistake, first time iv'e talked "total bollock's" and been right!
Yes it does seem your Total bollocks remark was correct. VOSA really have made a mockery of the test with this one. A split rubber cover on an otherwise serviceable ball joint is a fail yet they have created a loophole that can be wriggled through very easily. They have removed Special notice 01 2013 from the government web site though, maybe to try and hide it from public view. Wonder what they will do now it is out in the open?
Thebest4x4byfar
New Member
Yes i have seen that, but it is not special notice 01 2013 which was issued the month before, it is just a wording change to accommodate the new ruling. That cannot be found on the VOSA site. As far as i can gather it said that because certain vehicles did not do a system check and the only time the lamp came on was to indicate a fault. The former instruction to fail if the lamp did not come on with ignition then go out after system check was removed from the reasons to fail options on the menu. The only reason to fail left on the menu reference the lamp, is lamp illuminated indicating a fault. So if the lamp is not lit because the bulb is not present or it has been covered the only thing the tester can do is issue an advisory to cover his arse. Even a dash message of SRS FAULT has to be ignored. They have got themselves into a really tight corner with this one. But i still await the outcome of all the rest of the EU crap they have not yet brought in, which may cause utter meltdown of the after market parts industry in the UK if fully implemented. There won't be any legal P38s on coils that's for sure.
Datatek
Well-Known Member
It's totaly daft, computerised MOT systems should know which cars illuminate the lamp and which do not. Typical UK bureaucratic cock up
It's totaly daft, computerised MOT systems should know which cars illuminate the lamp and which do not. Typical UK bureaucratic cock up
Yes i agree, rather like some testers trying to fail the P38s because the ABS lamp does not go out until 5 MPH is reached. To be honest i don't understand why the SRS is a testable item. It does not make the car less safe on the roads. Which was the original idea of the test. Checking brakes lights and steering being the most important consideration.
Datatek
Well-Known Member
I agree, but the bureaucrats love to be in control of all aspects of existance
It should be restricted to brakes, steering, lights and unsafe mods.
I agree, but the bureaucrats love to be in control of all aspects of existance
Yes that seems to cover everything required from the safe vehicle view point.
