Missing SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp != MOT Failure?

I was always of the understanding that a *missing* SRS malfunction indicato r lamp would be an MOT failure, and indeed that's many online manuals appea
r to suggest e.g. http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_540.htm (ref: 5.4.2)
However, on checking with the horses mouth at http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htd ocs/m4s05000401.htm I see that the bit about the lamp being 'inoperative' c ounting as a reason for rejection has seemingly been removed!
Furthermore, I see that even the method of inspection has seemingly changed from 'check the presence and operation' to 'check [the lamp] does not indi cate a fault' so it definitely sounds like an intentional change of ruling rather than an oversight with the specific reason for rejection wording.
I bet some testers will still fail it though if they're not keeping up with the fine print! If however these changes in the test are widely communicat ed does anyone know why this bit of the test has been relaxed?
I note that the ABS malfunction indicator lamp still much be present/workin g/fault-free so it strikes me as odd the lack of consistency although grant ed it's not necessarily comparing apples with apples.
Mathew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2013 06:22 PM, Mathew Newton wrote:

lamp would be an MOT failure, and indeed that's many online manuals appear to suggest e.g. http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_540.htm (ref: 5.4.2)

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s05000401.htm I see that the bit about the lamp being 'inoperative' counting as a reason for rejection has seemingly been removed!

from 'check the presence and operation' to 'check [the lamp] does not indicate a fault' so it definitely sounds like an intentional change of ruling rather than an oversight with the specific reason for rejection wording.

the fine print! If however these changes in the test are widely communicated does anyone know why this bit of the test has been relaxed?

present/working/fault-free so it strikes me as odd the lack of consistency although granted it's not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

Not an answer to your question, but can I suggest that you use a false sender's address, otherwise it will be harvested for spam.
Andy C
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:44:42 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

Pfft. Even spammers have given up on Usenet now. My GMail spam folder used to be huge. Now it's next-to-nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2013 07:19 PM, Adrian wrote:

Just a thought ! ;-{
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2013 19:53:42 UTC+1, Andy Cap wrote:

No, it is appreciated. Years ago I wouldn't have dared use a valid address online but nowadays I don't see it as an issue. I run the mail server for m y own domain and find that my anti-spam measures are more than a match for the spammers and allow me to use my address(es) how/where I want to.
Mathew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2013 19:19, Adrian wrote:

Well I'm still getting some to addresses that were harvested at least 10 years ago. Last one to address I used on this group peter.urcm was 2/4/13. Last one to another peter.uxxx was yesterday.
--
Peter Hill
replace nospam with domain host name to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2013 18:44:42 UTC+1, Andy Cap wrote:

It's pretty much a dead mailbox - I effectively only use it as a username f or Google services. It's been live now for a couple of years and I don't re call it ever actually get any spam despite being scattered around Usenet. A s Adrian says I think spammers have all but given up on Usenet (alas, like most others I'm say to say).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2013 18:22, Mathew Newton wrote:

lamp would be an MOT failure, and indeed that's many online manuals appear to suggest e.g. http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_540.htm (ref: 5.4.2)

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s05000401.htm I see that the bit about the lamp being 'inoperative' counting as a reason for rejection has seemingly been removed!

from 'check the presence and operation' to 'check [the lamp] does not indicate a fault' so it definitely sounds like an intentional change of ruling rather than an oversight with the specific reason for rejection wording.

the fine print! If however these changes in the test are widely communicated does anyone know why this bit of the test has been relaxed?

present/working/fault-free so it strikes me as odd the lack of consistency although granted it's not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

It has been suggested in the past that those wishing to dodge the "test" on the MOT for warning lights remaining on could wire in a lamp on a timer set to extinguish after 4-5 seconds or so. Thus enabling the light to come on when the ignition is switched on but then go off as it should.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mathew Newton wrote:

If it is not working at all then it is indicating a fault.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.