MOTs for Bikes In France? Non!

[daveuprite]

This is an important development for us bikers out here in France, especially those with multiple bikes. There's been a proposal to introduce Controle Techniques (equivalent to a UK MOT) for bikes for ages, but never implemented. At the moment your car is tested every 2 years and vans have a full CT every 2 years plus an annual emissions test. Motorbikes are exempt - there is no test at all. There have been mass bike rideout protests etc whenever the proposal to impose a bike CT gets close to fruition. As explained in the article below, it's not going ahead now. Actually it's a good example of how individual EU member states can decide rules for themselves if they want despite EU plans for block-wide regs, if there is sufficient justification for it.



https://scontent.fcdg2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=60B0FB46

[Born2Ride]

Sounds logical to me, makes me wonder why need an MOT in the UK. I think 99% of people who own and ride bikes over here look after them to a point where they are spotless. Rare to meet a biker that doesn't have a good grasp of machine mechanical safety.

Common sense says it will hurt you if left unattended to so why would you?

[bowber]

There was an article a few years ago with mot failure rates, on bikes it was a tiny amount and the majority were things like headlight aim.

Steve

[Tonibe63]

Sounds logical to me, makes me wonder why need an MOT in the UK. I think 99% of people who own and ride bikes over here look after them to a point where they are spotless. Rare to meet a biker that doesn't have a good grasp of machine mechanical safety.

Common sense says it will hurt you if left unattended to so why would you?

I wish I had your confidence. I think riders need less mechanical know how as bikes get more technical and need main dealer plug ins to diagnose dashlights etc. Couple this with pcp (even on used bikes) and a general move towards being a temporary renter of bikes just doesn't require the rider to be technically aware of anything mechanical. Both of these are a perfect recipe for bikes with unknown faults to be on the road.
At one time I was in to Hot Rods which very often don't require an MoT due their supposed 'historic' status even though mechanically the bore little resemblance to the original car. However looking at various owner modifications at shows etc soon highlighted many very dangerous vehicles.
I think the yearly MoT is a good thing.

[daveuprite]

Sounds logical to me, makes me wonder why need an MOT in the UK. I think 99% of people who own and ride bikes over here look after them to a point where they are spotless. Rare to meet a biker that doesn't have a good grasp of machine mechanical safety.

Common sense says it will hurt you if left unattended to so why would you?

I wish I had your confidence. I think riders need less mechanical know how as bikes get more technical and need main dealer plug ins to diagnose dashlights etc. Couple this with pcp (even on used bikes) and a general move towards being a temporary renter of bikes just doesn't require the rider to be technically aware of anything mechanical. Both of these are a perfect recipe for bikes with unknown faults to be on the road.
At one time I was in to Hot Rods which very often don't require an MoT due their supposed 'historic' status even though mechanically the bore little resemblance to the original car. However looking at various owner modifications at shows etc soon highlighted many very dangerous vehicles.
I think the yearly MoT is a good thing.

Fair point Toni. I can see both sides. I haven't been one of the anti-CT protesters here in France exactly because it wouldn't be such a terrible thing to have to hold a test - especially if it's biennial, as for cars. But there would be a high price here for providing testing facilities specific to bikes that do not already exist, and the benefits don't appear to outweigh that cost (i.e. the very low accident rate attributable to bad maintenance).

[Tonibe63]

In the UK there is only the rolling road brake test that requires special equipment for bikes and the £30 test fee more than covers the investment. A mate does all my bikes and another mate does my cars/van, both have recently invested in new equipment, both only do MoT testing (no repairs) and both are long standing businesses so it is financially viable.
The way the car and bike retail market is heading click and deliver is definitely the future and I just don't think there is a need for owners to be mechanically aware. The MoT is an important way of keeping dangerous vehicles off the roads especially when the ANPR camera's can identify them before a crash happens.

[mr_diver]

Sounds logical to me, makes me wonder why need an MOT in the UK. I think 99% of people who own and ride bikes over here look after them to a point where they are spotless. Rare to meet a biker that doesn't have a good grasp of machine mechanical safety.

Common sense says it will hurt you if left unattended to so why would you?

After working in a dealers... Wrong!
90% of the bike owners that brought bikes in wouldn't know where the oil went in and even less clue how to check if there was enough in there let alone if something like a wheel bearing being naffed.

I've had guys argue round in circles that a cracked disk is not dangerous and it's not a fair reason to fail a bike on an MOT apparently.
Don't get me started on the state of tyres on bikes and the arguments about the legal limits.

I took my bikes for MOT and though they passed it was picked up that the bearings on the shock linkage are showing signs of wear and allowing vertical play in the swingarm. The other bike had slight play (tiny) in the fork bushes.

Not things I would generally check for, I do all my own maintenance, valve checks, clutch replacement, and general repairs - I'd class myself as a capable home mechanic yet my bike has issues that need attention and were picked up on the test.
Yes the annual nature of the MOT is sometimes frustrating but it reduces the number of dangerous vehicles on the road and that is the only reason for the test.



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Born2Ride]

Good debate people, I am not saying I disagree with having an inspection at all, in fact it gives me a bit of confidence that my own spannering is up to a good level. Perhaps my view is tainted by the small biker community I ride with who all have immaculately turned out machines. As with all things there is another side. I agree that the more modern units do require greater assistance from main dealers which will certainly have the effect of reducing home based knowledge as there becomes less need, a bit like gps and maps - can't recall the last time I got a map out!

I still think my own safety, wanting to have a mechanically sound machine under me is a prime driver for me to look for things going wrong each time I ride.

Good job we are all different, be boring otherwise

[Brenhden]

As a buyer of second hand bikes I'm a big fan of MOT. Buying from you lovely folk is a pleasure and bikes are usually kept with fighter jet maintenance. However if I was 17 and I was buying a bike from another teen there would be no way to tell if it was a death trap. Whilst MOT doesn't offer total security its a big help in many cases.

[mark vb]

Yes, I agree that MoT's are a good thing and will to an extent weed out neglected and indeed some downright dangerous machines which should not be on the road. And I know owners who readily admit they are mechanically incompetent and (foolishly, perhaps) rely on the MoT as a definitive safety marker.
Mechanically competent owners, some of them anyway, are bound to moan that the MoT is pointless for them but that's a weak argument for not having the test, and at 29£ it's cheap imo. As for me, I reckon I'm pretty good mechanically but still welcome a second opinion. As for 'minor' points like headlight aim, that's not minor - it can be blinding for oncoming vehicles, which could in turn have serious consequences.