Now, whilst the MoT had run out, it is perfectly legal to ride to an MoT station, as you well know, and that is what I was doing (despite the anticipation of it failing the MoT, as the rear tyre was balder than Patrick Stewart!!!). I was about three miles from the testing station when I clipped some dozy cyclist who wobbled as I went past him. The net result of that was we both ended up on the floor and the Old Bill then turned up. The police officer was fairly sympathetic until she saw the rear tyre and then she turned on me.
The outcome of that was she has stuck me on for the bald tyre after giving me a proper telling off as it was raining. Then, to add insult to injury, my insurer has said that if they have to pay out anything to the cyclist, they will come after me for the money because I was riding around without an MoT. In fact, now I have checked, the insurance policy states I must ‘…ensure [my] motorcycle is taxed, has a valid MoT and is in a roadworthy condition’. My argument is that legally I don’t need to have an MoT to ride to the MoT station and therefore I have a defence to the bald tyre; and my insurer should pay out without coming after me. What do you reckon?
Answer
There are several issues to unpack here. The first is the criminal law side of things. The second is the civil law side of things. As a general starting point, you shouldn’t ride your motorcycle on the road if the MoT has run out. However, you are correct in that there is an exception to this if you are riding to a pre-booked MoT test. However, it is still illegal to ride around with a bald tyre. Therefore, the police officer was correct to ‘stick you on’ for that. If you plead guilty (and you should) or are found guilty, it’s three points and a fine for the bald tyre.
As for the civil side of things, whilst it is legal to ride to a pre-booked MoT, it appears you have a problem with your insurer as contractually the policy is clear in that you needed a ‘valid MoT’ and your bike needed to be ‘in a roadworthy condition’. Unfortunately, you fall down on both counts. If the cyclist does not claim, then all well and good. However, if the cyclist does claim for his injuries, etc., your insurer may well have to pay out to him if you were to blame (either in full, or in part).
However, as you have breached the terms of the policy, your insurer will likely be within their rights to come after you for any money they paid out due to the accident. In this scenario, if you do not pay your insurer back, then they could take you to Court and they will likely win I am afraid.
Andrew ‘Chef’ Prendergast
More Bikes – December 2024
Is he riding to a pre booked MoT with or without insurance? If his insurers say he has to have a valid MoT then it seems he’s without insurance. Surely that’s criminal too, even if he didn’t have an accident?
Could you expand on the clients statement of “I clipped some dozy cyclist who wobbled as I went past him.” please. Surely the motorcyclist is also open for a Due Care & Attention ticket for failing to give the cyclist enough room.