Just a heads up for anyone who has the integrated tail light/indicator set up on their bike. Mine just failed it's MOT yesterday, even though it passed last year. Shop said that the DVLA had issued a statement a few months ago specifically identifying this feature as not conforming to some bollox legislation. So I have to fit my indicators and pop back next week to get a pass. They also said that technically I had to unwire the indicators from the rear light so they don't flash.

Also failed on small numberplate because I forgot about changing that over. Now I have to go and find my legal one that's somewhere in about 100 removal boxes and I haven't seen it in years.

Yeah someone I know took his blade in with integrated lights just fitted a few months ago on the day they changed it! Unlucky.

You should have given them the old mason's handshake Bic.

For All you Yanks that are mystified by all the MOT talk you see by our British cousins, here is a brief rundown...

"The Ministry of Transport test (usually abbreviated to MOT test) is an annual test of automobile safety, roadworthiness aspects and exhaust emissions required for most vehicles over three years old used on public roads in the United Kingdom.
The name derives from the Ministry of Transport, a defunct Government department which was one of several ancestors of the current Department for Transport, but is still officially used. The MOT test certificates are currently issued in Great Britain under the auspices of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), an agency within the Department for Transport. Certificates in Northern Ireland are issued by the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). The test and the pass certificate are often referred to simply as the "MOT".
Many local car repair garages throughout Great Britain are authorised to perform testing and to issue certificates. In Northern Ireland tests are performed exclusively at the DVA's own test centres.

The MOT test was first introduced in 1960 under the direction of the Minister of Transport, Mr Ernest Marples. The test was originally a basic test including brakes, lights and steering check which was to be carried out after the vehicle was ten years old and every year there after. This became known as the “ten year Test”, or alternatively the Ministry Of Transport Test.In 1962, the first Commercial Vehicle exam was created and a valid certificate was required in order to receive a tax disc, and in April 1967 the testable age for an MOT was reduced to 3 years. On 1 January 1983 the testable age for ambulances, taxis and vehicles with more than eight passenger seats, excluding the driver's was reduced to one year.
The list of items tested has been continually expanded over the years. Including in 1968 – a Tyre check; 1977 – checks of windscreen wipers and washers, direction indicators, stoplights, horns, exhaust system and condition of the body structure and chassis; 1991 – checks of the emissions test for petrol engine vehicles, together with checks on the anti- lock braking system, rear wheel bearings, rear wheel steering (where appropriate) and rear seat belts; 1992 – a stricter Tyre tread depth requirement for most vehicles; 1994 – a check of emissions for diesel engine vehicles; 2005 – introduction of a computerized administration system for issuing non-secure test certificates; 2012 – checks of secondary restraint systems, battery and wiring, ESC, speedometers and steering locks.
A lot of the more recent changes have been brought about due to UK being a member state of the European union. All vehicle Testing is now determined by EU Directives which set minimum standards for vehicle Testing in member states."


Basically, once a year you gotta take your vehicle (take a day off work?) to some dude that makes sure it complies with all rules and regs. They check headlights, brakes, turn signals and stuff... EVERY FREAKIN" YEAR! It costs 50 bucks for a Superduke.

With all due respect to my over-the-pond cousins reading these kind of things my belly burn and my head sore.

Sing it Hank...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9cK4Bjr_JI

Oh yeah, I really need an integrated unit for my new SD. PM me. Hell, I'd be willing to buy as many take-off's as I can get.

I don't have a problem with getting a MOT tbh. You used to see some right shit vehicles on the road that were never road worthy when I was a kid. This helped put a stop to that. Added to that lots of people don't take their vehicle for regular services so this would be the only way they would know the suspension was about to collapse or the brakes down to wear limit. The test is getting stupidly strict those days and will only get worse with EU interference but as a way of trying to insure vehicles are road worthy it's not bad.

Stupid indicators back on for the re-test. Oh, and the stupid reflector I had to buy from the shop to also comply with regs. I don't have a legal plate so now I have to order one on-line and wait for it to come before I can get back on the road legally. I forgot how big they are!

The reflector bit always makes me laugh when you already have a reflective plate on the back of the bike.

I have the original KTM reflector stuck just on the bottom of my full size plate - when I swap plates for the MOT the reflector is already there - nothing to forget & no unsticking/cleaning glue afterwards.


Afraid I'm not a fan of the integrated indicators, the ones on the back of some VWs are hard enough to see & let along something squeezed into the side of a slim rear light.

Yea they are really Poo........ whats the point anyway, you get hit up the arse by a half blind geriatric busy on a mobile phone, you get nothing because your super cool integrated indicators are not legal, the shuffler gets off Scot free NCB intact

If a moron on a mobile runs up my arse at a junction it won't have made a jot of difference if I had a had, or didn't have, a reflector on the back of my numberplate. They weren't concentrating and didn't notice me even though I'm taller than a car and have a big back light on, not to mention the illuminated number-plate as well.

Legally, yes, someone might say I didn't conform to some petty legislation. It would be a shame if the law behaved in an arsehole way and precluded me claiming compensation from moron driver and they got let off. But it still doesn't make me want to comply with the petty rules these people make and I will choose not to have an ugly, useless bit of plastic stuck on my bike. (except for one day of the year when I have to pass the MOT) Thankyou.

Whilst I agree with your point regarding petty legislation, possibly ending up crippled, brain damaged or worse due to a dubiously effective bike fashion item is not my thing,
I had to witness my best friend and riding buddy going through years of slow recovery due to brain damage in a bike accident where he was hit from behind while waiting to turn left by a repmoblie doing 70 in a 40 limit, plod said at the time his mini indicators may have contributed

I would like to ensure that your journey on our roadways is as safe as a sound group of people can make it.
We have determined that at a minimum, a light source with x lumens and y spacing has greatly increased your safety.
We as a society feel that in cooperating with these standards the better group as a whole can live.
I do not wish to slam you in the ass and as such would like you to take the standards handed down into consideration and if they seem to strict please obey and help change, not simply disobey cause you "smarter" than the rest.
MOT saves lives.
What cost freedom?

If I was overly concerned with personal safety then I would wear a big yellow dayglo belt or jacket. But I don't.

If I was not a designer then I maybe wouldn't be bothered about being forced to place ugly, state endorsed features on my bike. But I am, so I do. In my opinion anyone who volunteers to ride about with reflective bits of crap stuck onto their bikes' tail and front fork outers is aesthetically retarded and a bit of a goody, goody two shoes. Same as the huge sail of a numberplate we have to bear in the UK It's excessively large and ugly so I prefer to conform to the law enough to not get pulled up all the time but verge on the side of something I can personally live with. It's a case of compromise, give and take, and I expect the powers to be to accept this a bit. And they do. Just not at MOT time.

Its like at business conferences, Duke Dribble, when the organisers tell you that you need to wear a name badge saying who you are and what you do. Would you wear yours? Me........I throw mine straight in the nearest bin. Don't tell me what to wear or assume I'm a moron and can't introduce myself, I can manage to make friends on my own, don't see how a fooking name badge helps me in the slightest. It's a piece of quasi- legislative shit but when you look round 90% of people are wearing theirs.

So, the meeting is about determining what I.Q. level should be assumed will cover the masses.
Regulations needed to protect the mostest will be need to be instituted down to the level that covers tge smart guy and the near idiot.
The smart guy has cents enough to push his motorcycle out of harms way when it is dark out and the lighting is malfunctioning. He has removed any reflectors that make his bike look like he is a goody goody two shoes and must compensate for this act.
The meeting starts and there are a few in the room with name tags. They seemed to need an extra amount of instruction as to what the meeting is about. It is getting dark outside and the tagless want to end the meeting so as not to put the tagged into dangerous surroundings.
Fukkit the tagless leader replies, we need to make regulations for the dumbest fukkwits on the planet and then break as many I we see fit till we are all at the same level of danger.

The meeting name on the tag reads, "Going far to far legislation meeting".

First on the agenda is a movement to propose a new law to force all road users to carry 1000 small T lights and a box of matches. This is in the event that it is dark outside, their vehicles have all suddenly suffered from defective lighting systems and the streetlights have simultaneously failed. It's the stuff that nightmares are made of, every road user here at the convention, wants to know if they can get it passed, it would make life so much more secure and reassuring.

Dribble presents a lovely slide show illustrating what Route 66 would look like with thousands of little T lights lining the roadside, each group of cosy yellow flames lovingly tended by a concerned, but ultimately smug, member of the road going public. State troopers and CHIPS cruise up and down with spare lighters helping out and some people even add to the effect by making little reflectors out of tin cans and bits of foil. Classic American cars cruise down the illuminated tarmac, V Eights rumbling, candle light reflecting of their reflective bodywork. Pretty, cheerleader type girls lean out of window waving at the helpful bystanders. There's something of a carnival atmosphere. But central to the images is the certainty that everyone will be guided home safely in the light, even the idiot guys with no brains. No-one is going to be left in the dark on their own this terrible night, no sir.

The motion is passed. Everyone is happy. There is applause from nearly everyone.

A door opens and closes with a bang. The guy without a tag has left the room.

I tend to roll with the punches with legislation because if I think about it too much I start to think it is ME that is going mad. "Why am I the only one that questions all this stuff Etc ..."

I do get amused however by my fellow countrymen (I'm a limey living abroad) being able to introduce legislation about amber lights when they can't even stop young twats wheeling Ducati's out the front door of a shop

So I take it in the US you have no annual test to see if a vehicle is road worthy?

For me its not so much that someone might kill themselves because they failed to maintain their vehicle, that's their own stupid fault. However anyone else in that vehicle or another vehicle that was struck by it didn't make the decision to drive something not fit for the road. This to me is what the MOT is there to protect. In the US you would probably just sue the arse off the driver who was driving the shite vehicle. Given a choice between paying £40 car, £25 bike, for a MOT (all of which goes to the garage owner for doing the work and not the government) or living in a litigation nightmare, I'll take the MOT thanks. The "blame culture" is the worst export to come from the US IMO.

On the flip side I refuse to wear a seat belt in a car, I was in a car accident as a rear seat passenger,16 years old, the driver my mates older brother lost control on an icy road late at night the car went off the road overturned and caught fire, three of us escaped the driver could not get out due to hanging upside down in his `Safety` belt..........
Only been nicked once for it in the last 20 years, been warned and explained why a few times though.............

Yes its your life you only get one, following the rules will not ensure you live to a ripe old age [/quote]


that makes about as much sense as the morons who dont wear helmets. seatbelts/air bags (... and helmets) are great inventions and do save countless lives. man the accidents ive seen people walk away from these days amaze me, and im sure they are much better now than they were when you were 16! there are always gonna be exceptions to the rule, like the lucky bastard that "had to lay his hardtail down at 120mph to avoid the truck infront of him" that got up and walked away even though he was not wearing a helmet. ...but like you said its your life.

there are also reasons why vehicles are designed to have reflectors and indicators the way they are. is not all about legislation. its about seeing something and being able to react at road speed and to understand the intent of the vehicle in front of you. we are hard enough to be seen with a compliant bike, why make yourself more invisible?

I was pondering the Pretty cheerleader type girls hanging out the car.
Tell me more bic, tell me more.
There was a motorcycle manufacturer here in the US, in there infinite wisdom, they decided that two headlamps were better than one. They made a model for touring that had side by side lamps.
Later it was found that this particular model was in far more head on collisions on the highway.
It was also exhibited to happen during the night.
It was determined that drivers in cars that were trying to overtake a slower car saw what looked like plenty of distance ahead for room to pass because the cars headlights coming the other way looked plenty far off into the distance.
Depth perception, especially at night can be severely limited and the double lights on a motorcycle can look like the headlights of an oncoming car much further off.
Suffice it to say the manufacture did not need Nanny to tell them to fix the problem, they just used the scare that thier pockets would be empty from courthouse cases to decide change was in order.
What is an eternal truth of the universe? peopke do stupid shit?

This is a never ending debate.
Departments or ministries claim to act in the interest of thier constituancies.
Smart dedicated safe responsible citizens are fed up with regulations stifling the spirit of individualism.
Societies are formed to create safe environments for those inhabitants that share equall concern.
The higher evolved creatures loose ability to empathise with thier idiot brethren.
Simple Simon says I did'nt see you, Safe and sane Sarah says We need a brighter idea.
We are our brothers keepers and as such we regulate behavior for the good of Darwinism.

Speaking of Darwinism.... No amount of inspections, lights, reflectors, education or fear could stop these idiots.

What species of animals are these???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5G6FPcGXps

What is it with hogs and ramps?

"Vern, how in the hell am I gonna get that hog into my truck?"
Vern; "I seen em lode some such hogs with a ramp"
He forgot his blinker before he exited right

Here's an MOT to get behind...

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/sex/your-pe ... ems-solved