I'm guessing that the point is that they
should fail the MOT, as being not legal.
(that's should as in fact, not opinion
)
But, at the end of the day, how many times have we seen Auto Express et al run 'shock' exposures of cars that should be scrapped getting an MOT pass.
For me, as I mentioned above, I'd be less concerned about failing an MOT, and rather more concerned with being involved in a crash at night.
Note thats 'involved in' not 'causing'...
Say you are happily driving down the road, perfectly legally (except HIDs
), at night.
Car in opposite direction, driver is arguing with his girlfriend, looses concentration, and drives into you.
Air bags pop all over the place in the Civic, both cars a write off, you are ok, but other driver is in a knackered old Ford and ends up paralysed from the waist down.
Police arrive on scene.
Sharp eyed copper notices your HIDs.
Which go into the police report.
Which is given to each insurance company.
Which the other driver gets hold of.
Or his girlfriend overhears the copper / notices your HIDs / whatever.
His story of events now reads:
I was driving along, when I was suddenly blinded by the car coming in the opposite direction.
I attempted to stop, but as I could not see anything, I must have swerved into his path.
Do you
really believe that at this stage your insurance co is going to fight tooth and nail for you in the
hope that they win the case? When the chances are that you will loose, and they will have a
huge payout?
Or are they going to drop you like a lead ballon and walk away with zero costs - and you with no insurance?
Now.
At this point, your £200
HID conversion has cost you:
£200 for the kit
£16,000 for a written off Civic
£20,000 (?) per year for life for the other driver
£gawd knows how much fine for driving with no insurance
£gawd knows how much fine for driving without due care - or worse, dangerous driving.
Would
I fit them?