On 4/28/2018 at 11:17, jeallen01 said:

The Octy twin horns aren't (in my opinion!) loud enough,

 

 

On 4/28/2018 at 21:22, jeallen01 said:

Have you had YOUR hearing tested lately? - because I have, and the report was not that good,

 

 

Maybe this is why you think they are not loud enough, though????????? 

http://gov.uk/check-mot-history 

 

Going to be interesting seeing any cars now getting a Fail & a 'Dangerous Fail' on something and people driving those way from MOT Test centres.

http://gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test 

http://gov.uk/getting-an-mot/the-mot-test 

 

My Pickup failed it's MOT when tested this year before the MOT had expired at the end of the month, 

& the DVLA Auto Renewed the VED before it was retested & had a Pass, but then that was how it was up to this month.

No Dangerous Fail and the Valid MOT continued until it expired, even when it had failed a MOT in the month before the test expired.

S444 KAP  if you want to check...

(There is even an outstanding recall on it, a 1999 vehicle, the recall appeared a few years back,

only that is for when it was a Manual Gearbox, and it is an Automatic which a different engine.)

 

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by Offski

"Driving a vehicle that’s failed

You can take your vehicle away if your MOT certificate is still valid.

If your MOT has run out you can take your vehicle to:

• have the failed defects fixed
• a pre-arranged MOT test appointment"

 

That's the same as it is now, isn't it?

No.  Changed. 

Do not drive away one with a Dangerous Fail anymore.    You are knowingly driving a vehicle with a dangerous fault. 

 

Going to be fun. 

Grey Area,  like being allowed to drive to a Pre Booked Test was,  dodgy motors, needing welding, failed, and then driven away again. 

New law means you can be fined £2,500 even if your MoT is still in date - Plymouth Herald.mhtml

3 minutes ago, Offski said:

No.  Changed. 

Do not drive away one with a Dangerous Fail anymore

 

I don't see that written in your links?

 

Ah, wait, you mean this bit?

 

"In both cases, your vehicle still needs to meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times or you can be fined."

 

Hasn't that always been the case though?

 

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by Wino

Jeallen01 quoted       "I'm totally with you on all of that - and the same is true with the " young idiots" who seem to think  that THEIR safety is someone else's problem when they walk out in front of "US" whilst "on their phones"!.  

 

Well, sadly, they'd be right. The highway code says pedestrians have priority over moving traffic. Granted, you don't expect someone to walk out into oncoming traffic but how often have you been driving along and turned in to a new road, only to see a person in  that road? They may be nearly across or just stepping off the kerb, the result is the same, they have priority! Its a fairly well known rule but almost always ignored by motorists, who sound their horns at them or flick them off etc, which is actually then an offence as you should not drive or way in manner that harasses another road user. 

The same rule applies not just in new roads though but EVERYWHERE!

 

Also, although the MOT rules did not specify air horns as being illegal, the tester used his discretion and followed the rule saying "Harsh or grating"... I am sure you would agree air horns ARE harsh and grating?  Why else would you fit them?  You want more noise, to warn those who cannot or who choose not to take notice of your standard horn. This, as owner of the vehicle, is your prerogative but please, do not blame the MOT tester for using his prerogative in failing the vehicle. He is a trained professional and he used his discretion, quite possibly as he knew the sound would shock and annoy passers-by, to fail you. You then disabled the horn and he then, quite rightly, passed you. If you think this makes him the ass-wipe, this is your opinion and you know what they say about those? 

Personally, I find the average car horn to be at least as effective as it needs to be. Some are a little feeble, some louder but I don't thin k the need for excessive horns is valid. My granddaughter is a hearing aid wearer. You would think you are doing her a favour by having a louder horn but you would be wrong! Her aids pick out her missing frequencies and boost them so things she can hear are left, things she can't are amplified. Car horns, emergency vehicles, motorcycle and aircraft engines actually HURT her ears and scare her! If I heard someone like you, unnecessarily sounding those air horns as you passed her, it would NOT be the horns I would want to rip off!

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by mrgf

11 minutes ago, mrgf said:

 

Also, although the MOT rules did not specify air horns as being illegal, the tester used his discretion and followed the rule saying "Harsh or grating"... I am sure you would agree air horns ARE harsh and grating?

 

The tester failed them for "too loud". That failure is not in the mot test manual so he used his prerogative and made up a failure. I'm  or sure his "prerogative" (whether he's a trained professional or a Kwik fit fitter who's been on a course) extends to making up his own failures on a government required and regulated test. Does it?

http://gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test 

 

The bit the Government / DVSA / DfT have not really made clear. 

Bottom of the page. 

Driving an unroadworthy vehicle,  but that is now a 'Dangerous' vehicle, if a fail was 'Dangerous'.   Once a tester has a 'Dangerous fail'  it is on the Database as a fail and a Dangerous one, 

so even the 'Insurance' that you might have now driving to and from a test could be void, cover 3rd parties only, 

you know you have a 'Dangerous vehicle'.  

They / DVSA say it can be towed away,   they are not clear, the tyres should not be on the road, invalid insurance and no MOT, 

even though it had maybe 28 days to run.

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by Offski

11 minutes ago, Rustynuts said:

The tester failed them for "too loud"

 

Have another look at the OP (third paragraph), it doesn't say that exactly, which is why I keep suggesting to jeallen01 that he looks up what the tester actually logged as the fail code.

That's correct. However at present all we have is "too loud" so the presumption the failure was "harsh or grating" is speculation.

It's all speculation until he looks up the facts.

15 minutes ago, Rustynuts said:

 

The tester failed them for "too loud". That failure is not in the mot test manual so he used his prerogative and made up a failure. I'm  or sure his "prerogative" (whether he's a trained professional or a Kwik fit fitter who's been on a course) extends to making up his own failures on a government required and regulated test. Does it?

So you think "TOO LOUD" would not be harsh and grating? If I shouted in your ear and you deemed it "TOO LOUD", you could or would also describe it as harsh and grating.  Semantics!

 

As for the Kwik Fit fitter, if he/she has been on a course, passed said course and is now employed as an MOT tester, then they ARE a trained professional. They may be inexperienced and this is where people usually go by the book but they are qualified to undertake the task. 

Oooh this is getting divisive, I'm just off to order some popcorn, then I'll be back. (If it gets a bit exciting, the term "professional" might open a can of worms, someone toot a horn to alert me, cheers )

Here's what the 2018 MOT Inspection Manual says in section 7.7 about the horn

 

Quote

7.7 Audible warning (Horn)

An audible warning must be loud enough to be heard by other road users. It must not be a gong, bell or siren, nor have more than one tone.

On vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1973, the sound emitted must be a continuous or uniform note and not harsh or grating.

On vehicles first used before 1906 the audible warning can be a gong, bell or siren.

If you take the phrase I have highlighted literally then any car fitted with two horns of a different tone will fail - which since the factory fit on many cars is two horns of slightly different tone means that even OE fitted horns COULD be failed by an inexperienced MOT tester.

 

I would speculate that isn't the intent of that phrase, which is probably meant to make alternating (or tune playing) horns a failure.

 

Another example of a poorly worded regulation???

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by SWBoy

You're ahead of the game there @SWBoy, that's valid from 20th of May onward.

The current one as quoted in my earlier post says - on the subject of two tone horns:-

 

 "Note: When operated, a two or more tone horn automatically produces a sound which alternates at regular intervals between fixed notes"

 

[My colouring emphasis]

 

 

 

Edited 2 May, 20188 yr by Wino

12 minutes ago, Wino said:

You're ahead of the game there @SWBoy, that's valid from 20th of May onward.

The current one as quoted in my earlier post says - on the subject of two tone horns:-

 

 "Note: When operated, a two or more tone horn automatically produces a sound which alternates at regular intervals between fixed notes"

So the wording was correct in the version valid until 19th May but will cause confusion in the version valid from 20th May - how many MOT testers will fail to understand the subtle difference between "tone" and "note"?

 

That's stupid - unless they really want most cars to be an MOT failure because of the two horns fitted at the factory by the manufacturer?

2 hours ago, mrgf said:

So you think "TOO LOUD" would not be harsh and grating? If I shouted in your ear and you deemed it "TOO LOUD", you could or would also describe it as harsh and grating.  Semantics!

 

As for the Kwik Fit fitter, if he/she has been on a course, passed said course and is now employed as an MOT tester, then they ARE a trained professional. They may be inexperienced and this is where people usually go by the book but they are qualified to undertake the task. 

If you're an MOT tester and you fail someones car, you fail it by the test criteria. You cannot make up a terminology from your own brain cells and fail a car based on your own parameters and criteria. If it's failed because it's either harsh or grating then that's what it would be failed on. If that's the failure code then why would he say "It's failed because the horn is too loud!" when that's clearly incorrect.

Neither you nor I know what the failure was for, so without any other criteria to base an opinion on, I'm currently sticking with the OP (who let's be fair is the only person at the moment who's in a position to say) and his "too loud" failure. Unless you know otherwise of course?

IF you are stupid enough to go to Kwack Fat for anything other than tyres or exhausts, then I'd suggest you get all you deserve.

But having said that, some testers have problems with the regulations ( or are trying for repair work). I quote report 1-

• Nearside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
• Offside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)

tested on

9 October 2006

on a vehicle registered in February 2004 with a recorded mileage of

14,739 miles

Since then ,every year or so , I get the same advisory. I did consult a RAC bloke once and he said what was confusing the tester was that the disc was not swept on the outside by the pads and thre was a build up of metal. What is also SO strange is that on the vehicle's check at a main dealer on health check and at an Indie , I asked about this to be told that this was normal,for reason I'd given above.

 

17 hours ago, Rustynuts said:

Neither you nor I know what the failure was for, so without any other criteria to base an opinion on, I'm currently sticking with the OP (who let's be fair is the only person at the moment who's in a position to say) and his "too loud" failure. Unless you know otherwise of course?

Yeah, funny how the original OP has now decided not to follow on his original gripe! I would conclude that they have re-read their fail report and decided that the too load quote was not actually a quote but his interpretation of the reason for failure. As I said before, semantics. You say potato I say Maris Piper! He failed, it was too loud. He disconnected, he passed, not too loud. Just because someone uses the phrase too loud, that does not mean that was the actual phrase used. Whilst the MOT tester MAY have used the wrong terminology, the outcome was the same. For this though, we only have the original OP's version of events and the tester cannot comment, most likely doesn't even know there is a debate. The OP had an axe to grind, a point to make, based on what he thought. He thinks its ok to fit modded parts to his car, others will disagree. Funny how he has remained silent though, since Wino offered to do all the legwork, prompted for the details etc, in order to obtain the "Official" fail report. BTW, this report will now follow the car for life so if the OP has re-fitted the horns and they stay fitted, the next time round he may fail again. Get stopped by the Po-Po, they look up the MOT status and see he has re-wired the horns, they MIGHT just deem him to be driving a vehicle unfit for public roads. The MOT pass only means it met the criteria at the actual time it was presented. It has been shown to have a likely fault, which is why that history stays with the car. Advisories so you know of potential risks/faults and failures for actual ones that then need rectifying. Fit a spare wheel as you had a bald tyre, pass test and re-fit the old wheel, will render the car illegal. Disconnect the horn that was deemed inappropriate for road use...

 

It is funny, I would have thought it not a real problem myself, many years ago but with age and common sense, I now see BOTH sides. I get wanting a loud horn but I also get that it CAN be too loud, annoying and , to be frank, unnecessary. If you need to use it that much, you are not really driving that safely and reading the situation well. If you use it to "Scare" pedestrians and other road users, thats just being a ladies front bottom so really, there are very few times it will really and I do mean really, legitimately, be needed. Its a toy and you know the saying-boys and their toys!

FWIW, I have not replied to the recent posts because I was curious to see how the thread has "developed", am still of my original opinion, and I have a lot of far better and more important things to deal with!

?

Are you not able or willing to say what the code was for the failed MOT?

 

2 minutes of your very busy life to post that.  Its like having to give way to pedestrians and others, you can make up the time lost.

Edited 3 May, 20188 yr by Offski

Please tell us the fail code. Thread is worthless without it.

9 minutes ago, Wino said:

Please tell us the fail code. Thread is worthless without it.

That may or may not be the case, but, as I just said, I have a lot more important things to do ATM - maybe after the weekend?

Ok, thanks.

Posting your Registration Number would be all that was needed and we could read it ourselves.