lansalot Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Emailed this to LRM editors on the off-chance. If you have this month's LRM, take a look for yourself. Unsafe vehicles While reading this months mag, I was reminded of the trial of Nigel Gresham and subsequent coverage of his unsafe vehicle in the media (LRM included?). Mainly because two of your contributors, Thom Westcott and Frank Elson both admit in their columns that they were driving vehicles they highly suspected to be MOT failures. Thom admits to ropey headlights and excessive play in the steering, but basically goes for it on the off-chance it passes. And then seems surprised that other things are wrong with it. Frank on the other hand admits he knows his brakes are down to the metal and the disc is scored, but says "he took a chance with them" and "reckoned it would be OK". Byline for the column - "When Frank's Range Rover Vogue fails her MOT, he can't help but feel someone's made an error" - is suggesting that requiring working brakes is an error ? But apparently he's more focussed on the "cosmetic" welding of a couple of holes instead. Safety last ? Comically, his column ends with "maybe I .... should have shown up his lack of professionalism and knowledge". Frank, I think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I presume you write your column as you know something about Land Rovers, so perhaps keeping yours in safe working order would be a start. What sort of message does this send to readers - should we all be running around ignoring essential safety items, only putting them right when and if an eagle-eyed MOT tester spots them, while quietly hoping they don't ? A rather ridiculous state of affairs I think, and highly dangerous. Next time some 4x4 disaster hits the press, I'm sure you'll be right at the front championing safety and how we should all clean our own acts up. You might like to start with your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sparkes Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I haven't seen this months LRM, but based solely on 'the way you tell it', I find it nice to know that there still exist people brave enough to have a pop at the 'sacred cows' of the Land Rover world. I think you are correct to point out that people seem to have short memories when it comes to recalling the loss experienced by the Mother and Siblings of those children killed in the Nigel Gresham incident. That the same sort of thing 'can never happen to them' seems to be to widely accepted by these sacred cows. I wish I still had your enthusiasm to tackle the situation myself. I no longer do, but I will cheer you on. Good Luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtail4x4 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I notice that few rebuilds in land rover comics ever get a Q plate?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Taking a car for an MOT with a known fault is beyond belief, driving with an unknown problem is a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I notice that few rebuilds in land rover comics ever get a Q plate?? Yes, astounding.... seem to remember recently there was a bobtail disco being made, for the road, by a staff member, but no mention of SVA/IVA or the legal requirements after such a change at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 A simple rebuild could quite often perfectly legally remain on its original plate... Obviously once you get into the realms of bobtails and hybrids then its IVA time, but a streightforwards restoration will quite often be fine. I wouldnt say this problem is restricted to magazines though. You see many trucks going around that should quite likely have had an SVA/IVA and be on a Q plate, still wearing their original plates. Its probably a little OT for this thread though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top90 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 They seem to make no attempt to check that a featured vehicle is even legal, which they should do if they are not just "off-road specials". Makes you wonder how much this lack of integrity leads readers to modify the same way. I applaud you for you efforts to actually make the writers think what they are doing. One of the reasons I gave up reading the monthly magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have felt for some while that UK Magazines are sadly run by "Journalists" ...where in the US and Austraaaaaliaaa mate they are run by "Enthusiasts". The ones we have make blatent mistakes, have their respective heads up their Journolistiic A****s, and belive they 'know all there is to know about 4x4s'. The USA / Australiaaaaa lot are seriously clever, often turning out personal superb work, (not via as in the UK a editorial of bolted balgged shi*te that is praised as its bolted on....) show a humility and ability to write fab articles,.... and are lucky to have their hobby as a pay cheque, .....and often say as much Thats why I subscribe to them now The UK mags could IMHO be improved vastly if the staples were removed and the pages joined up in a rolled up fashion, popped on a roll, pages then seperated by being torn off as required Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Turner Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've got agree with Nige! i do buy most of the comic's as there are a few article's that are worth reading...... but there are so many mistake's...... i was just reading this months LRM......... FFS a nice line up of Pinz's and they call them MOG's!! and it goes on and on and on page after page It's as you say Nige, the mag's are run by ''Journalist and Publishing'' people who have not got a f**king clue what there reading or looking at! I'm in the process of writing letters them ...... but i'm taking my time as i dont want to miss anything out ok! back to the mag's.............. but not a UK one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've got agree with Nige! i do buy most of the comic's as there are a few article's that are worth reading...... but there are so many mistake's...... i was just reading this months LRM......... FFS a nice line up of Pinz's and they call them MOG's!! and it goes on and on and on page after page It's as you say Nige, the mag's are run by ''Journalist and Publishing'' people who have not got a f**king clue what there reading or looking at! I'm in the process of writing letters them ...... but i'm taking my time as i dont want to miss anything out ok! back to the mag's.............. but not a UK one I do have a LRM subscription, partly to fuel my offline land rover happiness when my internet connection is taken away and also for the classifieds. but i am constantly apauled by the carp that is written sometimes most of the time, this months especially! I cannot believe the amount of mistakes they make, from the 'Mogs' this month, to getting engines wrong! One of the LRM mags, i dont remember when had a whole load of mistakes, i was going to write in... but quite frankly, i couldn't be arsed! and then onto the rebuilds they do, surely some of these should be on a Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoggyN Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The UK mags could IMHO be improved vastly if the staples were removed and the pages joined up in a rolled up fashion, popped on a roll, pages then seperated by being torn off as required You'd only end up with sh*te smeared up your back. The pages are far too glossy to make effective bogroll. LRO also did untold damage with their seriously flawed and ill researched greenlane roadbooks. A few years ago I used to by four mags a month. Now I buy none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quagmire Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 What sort of message does this send to readers - should we all be running around ignoring essential safety items, only putting them right when and if an eagle-eyed MOT tester spots them, while quietly hoping they don't ?A rather ridiculous state of affairs I think, and highly dangerous. Next time some 4x4 disaster hits the press, I'm sure you'll be right at the front championing safety and how we should all clean our own acts up. You might like to start with your own. Hear Hear! People tend to forget that the MOT is the minimum safety standard, we should all be aiming to not only pass the MOT, but do so with flying colours. I take pride in the fact that my vehicle is 25 years old and yet still carries me to work and back 70 miles each day with no issues. That isnt through luck, but by being (and i usually hate this management BS word ) proactive with my maintenance. Fix something before it breaks, not after where possible. Not only is it safer, but it can save you money too. Why ruin your discs, when you can change the pads earlier and avoid the expense?? Allowing something critical like brakes to get to such a state knowingly and still not rectify them is suicidal, and the real problem is that when the idiots driving vehicles like this do have an accident then i bet they wont be the one that pays the price. Some innocent bystander will be the one that gets injured/killed. Pat on the back for writing in. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest otchie1 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Taking a car for an MOT with a known fault is beyond belief, driving with an unknown problem is a different matter. Not really. I've seen plenty come in for an MoT with new exhaust and new tyres - the 'obvious' faults clearly rectified. Complete waste of time & money when it fails on everything else. If you don't know the condition of the vehicle and are unable to check yourself then it is far better to get the MoT man to check it for you in order to get a professional opinion. That said, the MoT relates ONLY to the condition of the tested components at the time of the test. it does not now and never has been proof that a vehicle is road worthy or safe. To hand off your responsibility for ensuring your vehicle is safe to a 45 minute test once a year is beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Not really. I've seen plenty come in for an MoT with new exhaust and new tyres - the 'obvious' faults clearly rectified. Complete waste of time & money when it fails on everything else. If you don't know the condition of the vehicle and are unable to check yourself then it is far better to get the MoT man to check it for you in order to get a professional opinion.That said, the MoT relates ONLY to the condition of the tested components at the time of the test. it does not now and never has been proof that a vehicle is road worthy or safe. To hand off your responsibility for ensuring your vehicle is safe to a 45 minute test once a year is beyond belief. Good point. I suppose it's a matter of degree. If you have a Metro with a rotten floor that will cost more to fix than the car's worth you wouldn't bother testing it. If you have a fault that's cheap enough to fix you may test it to see what else is needed and then make a decision. I'd mention it to the tester though, I wouldn't want him to think I was taking the mickey. I had a petrol leak which occurred on the way to test so I switched to LPG and told the tester. As it was presented on LPG he passed it with an advisory about the leak. If it's a cherished car I'd fix everything I could see and if it failed on something else fair enough, but there'd be no point in taking it with obvious faults in case there was nothing else wrong wiith it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lansalot Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 The tone of both articles was that they knew there were faults with the vehicle, especially the brakes, and decided to chance it anyway to see if it passed. Not that they put it in expecting it to fail, and would get a list of things to sort out of it. At least that was my take on it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest otchie1 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The tone of both articles was that they knew there were faults with the vehicle, especially the brakes, and decided to chance it anyway to see if it passed. Not that they put it in expecting it to fail, and would get a list of things to sort out of it. At least that was my take on it anyway. I don't know a tester that would pass brakes worn below the limit - it's not only a visual check but also the rollers to get past. I suspect journalistic 'enhancement' in order to make the article more appealing to their notional target audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retroanaconda Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 There is a difference between taking a vehicle in with known faults with the intend of getting a 'to fix list', and taking one in and hoping it'll pass. My Defender went in for it's MOT with a rusty outrigger, I knew it would fail, but wanted to make sure I could do all the work at once so got it tested to give myself a job list. Nothing wrong with that, if I want to pay £50 for the privilege. If for some reason it had passed with the problem I would have pointed it out, as the prospect of driving an unsafe vehicle around doesn't sit very well with me. As for the magazines, well I confess to buying them now and again...but just to have something LR-related to read. I don't really take any of the articles/advice given seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 .... and feeling confident. i seem to have forgotten the little matter of my ropey headlights and am ignoring a bit of play in the steering, which has been making itself increasing evident. I am in fact, labouring under the delusion that the winning combination of that lovely Lightweight and I will somehow charm ourselves an MOT So a vehicle was presented for a MOT with two known faults which are cause for a straight failure. Now IF she had charmed a MOT certificate for an unroadworthy vehicle then she would have real cause to complain. Maybe she harks after the days when MOTs could be bought in the pub for £10? OK the MOT tester did not know that Series LR did not have a rubber pad on the brake pedals. Somehow I would not expect the average MOT tester to know the finer details of changes in the specifications of all vehicle ranges over the last 50 years. The 1989 Range Rover Vogue that I own failed an MOT the other day. One thing was the rear brake discs. I admit I took a chance with them. One side had been down to the netal and the disc was scored somewhat. I reckoned that it would be OK... but the tester disagreed........ slid underneath to see two new discs (oh, and a caliper, the blinking pistons were seized when we took it apart) Surely this all points out to a poorly maintained vehicle which should not be on the road until the defects have been sorted? Who's opinion is more valid the MOT tester or the disgruntled owner? As for the rust holes in the inner wing and the front panel/front crossmember I have not got a clue how important or otherwise to the physical integrity of the vehicle. As for not tapping the newly welded patches if he could clearly see that the patches had been welded on properly what is the point of tapping them? It isn't the first time that I've had problems with testers who, quite simply, do not understand the way Land Rovers are built.. . . I dunno, maybe I should have appealed and shown up his lack of professionalism and knowledge Sounds very much like that he makes a habit of presenting vehicles for MOT which are not capable of passing a MOT without having defects corrected. Certainly shows that he is not prepared to maintain his vehicles to a high standard. In both cases the MOT testers did their jobs properly in failing both vehicles on defects known to their owners. Maybe the MOT tester knowledge on minor details about Land Rovers is lacking but the cavalier attitude of both of these journalists to repairing known serious defects to their vehicles is appalling. Then for the pair of these journalist to whinge in a national magazine about the MOT is disgusting. Regards Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyw Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Good for you writing in and giving them some well deserved flak. Some mags are well known for writing a load of @#4P. I gave up reading LRO a number of years ago when I read a techie 'how to' article that even I knew was way off the mark. It is worrying that a huge number of owners will read these features and take them as gospel. When I was a new LR owner I learned a lot from the mags, but I think the quality was somewhat better 20 years ago These days I read LRE, I appreciate James Taylor's in depth historical knowledge. I'm sure he has made mistakes too but I think he could be classed as an enthusiast, so I'll let him off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicks90 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 although i detest the attitude certain journalists have displayed with this MOT malarky - i have scraped through an MOT knowing there was a fault. leaky rear hub oil seal caused by a blocked breather. I order a new breather kit but it didnt show up in time for the MOT. So i cleaned the rear disk and pads with degreaser and presented it for the mot. It passed. Yeah i know, totally dangerous as the seal leaked on the way home. BUT, the breather pipes turned up the next day and it was immediately fixed. I think thats were i differ from the idiots at LRM. If their motors had passed, would they have bothered to fix it or would they have left it? hmmmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's for this reason that commercial operators are measured on their 'first time pass rate'. The MOT test is a measure of roadworthiness at the time. He won't tell you when your oil needs changing or that your clutch is starting to slip - if you want to keep your big complicated machine in good order, service and maintain it to a schedule or pay someone else to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Most car mags that do mods are just as bad on the same things - bodges, illegal bits, SVA/VIC avoidance and generally having their heads up their backsides, although the off-road comics do suffer more than most. I vote with my wallet, saves the price of a stamp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Any reply from LRM Lansalot? We run 3 Land Rovers, one which is 32 years old. Normally they get a MOT no problem, ok occassionaly we get an advisory. I am not a mechanic (hence some of my basic questions on here) , I just make sure they are maintained by people who are good LR mechanics. Personally I think one problem with Land Rovers is they are percieved as simple vehichles and many people 'tinker' with them sometimes beyond their mechanical abilities. Regards Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lansalot Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Clipped reply: To respond to your two points specifically. My opinion of what Frank wrote is that he believed that the brakes on his Range Rover were OK although he recognised that there was a possibility that a tester might not agree. In the end the tester didn't agree and Frank changed the brakes - as Frank says "fair enough", so it seems to me that on that occasion the MOT test did its job and Frank recognises that without question. That wasn't my reading - saying a disc is scored and the pads are down to the metal doesn't sounds that he thinks they are OK to me. Maybe my understanding of how brakes work is deeply flawed however.. Thom's mention of 'ropey headlights' and steering play does, again I believe, show the success of the MOT process and how it points up a vehicle's inadequacies and ensures that owners put them right. If I have a criticism of anything in that article it's the revelation that the tester appears to have allowed her to sit in the vehicle while it was on the lift. That seems like a safety issue in itself, and I thought, although I could be wrong, that the owner is not allowed to have contact with the vehicle while it is being tested - I thought that switching lights, operating the brakes and so on had to be done by an independent person but, as I say, maybe I'm wrong. I had thought the owner wasn't supposed to be partaking in the test, in case they were fiddling the system, but anyway - take from that what you will... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyb Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I vote with my wallet, saves the price of a stamp. The OP sent an email, but you can get your quill and ink out if you want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.