Vinny the Mackem wrote:It's a "construction and use" issue. No matter the outcome of the MOT, it's the owner/driver's responsibility to ensure that the car is in proper running order at all times. For example an enire wing or bonnet fell of the vehicle, a drive couldn't rely on an argument that it had passed it's MOT some weeks or months ago.
How a person would know about emissions from their exhaust pipe is quite another issue, but the responsibility remains the owner/driver's.
True, but as you say there is a world of difference between owners, wittingly or unwittingly, driving cars with bodywork hanging off and the particulates coming out the exhaust pipe exceeding a ppm limit.
I would welcome roadside, random mini-MOTs, and driver testing along with breath testing (alcohol not halitosis) and sight tests etc. But that is the domain of VOSA not GCC. It's true Glasgow has an air quality problem, but is targeting car drivers in this way an effective way to tackle it? Do GCC feel that their random tests are more effective than, or enhance the systematic (annual) tests by VOSA? Hence money well spent. Ironically, if a driver has just added fuel system cleaner to reduce their emission in the long term, they might fall foul of roadside testing as the accumulated crud is expelled out the exhaust pipe.
I wonder how a case for exceeding particle emissions would stand up in court as there is no 'reasonable' method by which a driver can check their emissions before taking to the road. In other words, can you be convicted of something if it is
impossible to know if you are complying with the law or not?