New Motorcycle Mot Rules For 2021

My MOT is in june so cheers for the heads up.
Luckily, only 15mins to swap out (and then put back in afterwards) but forewarned etc..
But, how can they tell if it's factory or done by the owner? I suppose a bit of a google by the tester or a list maybe?
Also, if you buy a bike thats been converted already and you didn’t know about it until MOT time, it’d be a smack in the nuts me thinks!

Text from the gov site below:

4.1.4 Headlamps - Compliance with requirements - Sentence changed from 'Some motorcycles may be fitted with high intensity discharge (HID) headlamps. Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with HID bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.' to 'Some motorcycles may be fitted with high intensity discharge (HID) or light emitting diode (LED) headlamps. Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with HID or LED bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.'

 

So what is the logic here? Presumably OEM LED lights are fine?

 

Could that give you a problem if you needed to claim on your insurance? You know how they like to wriggle out of paying based on small and often irrelevant reasons.

 

Good point.
Aways any excuse and I suppose it's as good as any that they use.

 

I gave the WTF emoji as the headlights on my 2010 Speed Triple are notoriously bad, they focus about 5m in front of the bike and very little peripheral light
I swapped mine out for the Wisamic LED units and the beam is a lot wider, a lot brighter and makes me much more visible
So long as these units are angled correctly, I see no reason for the MOT failure

Luckily I kept the original units and will have to swap them out for the MOT

 

Im having to replace the Suzuki headlight so thanks for posting this.

 

Thanks for the heads up by the way

 

Dont need an MOT anyway but I do like to be within sensible guidelines.with that in mind I see I can have a black number plate so I will get one.

0.1. Identification of the vehicle - Registration plates - Changed sentence 'display white, grey or silver characters on a black background - only on motorcycles manufactured before 1 January 1977' to 'display white, grey or silver characters on a black background - only on motorcycles manufactured before 1 January 1980'

 

...although
'Some motorcycles may be fitted with high intensity discharge (HID) or light emitting diode (LED) headlamps. Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with HID or LED bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.'

From the highlighted text, I can read this as existing lamps can't have the bulbs changed to LED bulbs.
But as my Wisamic is a whole unit, it is not a bulb conversion but a unit swap. Therefore I may argue that this would not apply to a headlamp unit, but just if the bulb is swapped

I'm no legal eagle by any means, but I can be pedantic

 

I read it to mean whole units are fine.

 

I hope whole unit replacements are fine as the bike I'm buying at the moment has a full unit in it.

I wonder if Triumph dealers will take a similar approach to Harley dealers do with exhausts whereby as long as a suitable legal exhaust is on the premises then they'll pass it and make an observation on the MOT.

I seem to recall that the tester is limited in what they can move to inspect items, so would a headlamp mean that they cannot fail it?

 

That means MOT guys have all references of bikes with led/halogen, etc?
If they see a RD350 with led sure they'll know , but what about recent models? How do they know all specs?
There must be a big part of subjective judgement?
Just for my knowledge, we don't have MOT on motorcycles in France yet.

 

Reminds me about something I heard on the radio a few years ago about the data showing that the MoT has no appreciable effect on accident prevention between countries that have it and those that don't. I can't remember details now except that unsubstantiated ire from people like the AA and other motoring people who could follow the logic (of testing) but not the data that showed it had little impact (no pun intended). It was a classic case of "don't want to hear it - you're just wrong". At which point I lost all respect for the head of the organisation taking part in the discussion.

 

In France the Motorcycle MOT (controle technique ) raise a lot of discussion, and those statistics come in perspective.
A motorcyclist takes care of his bike, it's rarely a daily driver, something you get when you have the money to properly maintain it.
Car is different. people need a car, and that makes a difference. Lots of cars are not maintained as a bikes are, for obvious reasons.
I'm convinced car MOT reduce accidents, not sure motorcycle MOT will.
In Switzerland the motorcycle MOT is very strict also. The big advantage is that the bikes are stock. No funny "custom" stuff.
Bought a bike there for that reason.

 

Thinking about it a little more, that radio piece was suggesting that the MoT could be every two years (I think) with no effect on accident figures. It'a bit vague in my mind but I seem to remember they weren't advocating abandoning testing entirely. Just suggesting motorists could save money by not having to test so often and still be as safe.

 

Our car MOT is 4 years for a new vehicle, then every 2 years. Cost us around 80 Euro to test.
I think that was to match Brussels guidelines ? For you there it's now different

 

I think that this was posted on the forum somewhere in the past, can't remember where though. Not seen any evidence based reporting, but it does seem to make sense though.

 

It's 3 years for a new vehicle here (I think) and then annual testing. It's been that way for a long time so we didn't align with the EU if that's been the case elsewhere. To the expense of UK vehicle owners, it appears.

 

I don't mind annual testing. The test fee itself is relatively minor, and it ensures that vehicles are maintained properly.