RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Wednesday 23rd May 2012
Judging by your responses to the news on Monday that compulsory MoTs are to be scrapped for cars built before 1960, there are plenty of PHers out there of the opinion that this is a mad, bad and potentially dangerous move on the part of the Government.
E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Don't like the plans to scrap a compulsory MoT for older cars? Voice your opinions here!
Well, it seems like Classic & Sports Car's James Elliott quite agrees; he's set up an online e-petition opposing the Government's plans
"Clearly a lot of people strongly disagree with the Government's plans, so I have started one of those e-petition thingies to oppose it," he says.
The petition reads as follows:
"The Government has announced its intention to scrap the MoT for all pre-1960 vehicles from November. This petition recognises the critical importance of an annual inspection of all older vehicles by a qualified third party and calls for the hopelessly unsuitable current MoT not to be abandoned, but to be replaced with a mandatory, more appropriate annual basic safety check for all classic and historic vehicles of more than 25 years old."
If you are so minded, you can sign James's petition here.
Discussion
Am I missing something? Are we really going to complain that we think the government is being too relaxed about this?
When was the last time you saw a pre-1960 car cause any form of accident due to a failure which would have been prevented by an annual MoT, or which isn't captured by the obligation to maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition?
Yes, the MoT is irrelevant to older cars and in an ideal world it should should be replaced by some other more relevant form of test, but is it really worth the time and effort to come up with this new system and train all the MoT testers to deal with it? There are many more important things going on at the moment...
Come on, people, get a grip.
When was the last time you saw a pre-1960 car cause any form of accident due to a failure which would have been prevented by an annual MoT, or which isn't captured by the obligation to maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition?
Yes, the MoT is irrelevant to older cars and in an ideal world it should should be replaced by some other more relevant form of test, but is it really worth the time and effort to come up with this new system and train all the MoT testers to deal with it? There are many more important things going on at the moment...
Come on, people, get a grip.
Birdthom said:
When was the last time you saw a pre-1960 car cause any form of accident due to a failure which would have been prevented by an annual MoT, ...
Um, well obviously we haven't because they currently have to have anual MoTs. 
Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me. The fact that someone owns an old car does not mean they look after it properly. I don't see the problem with the current system really.
kambites said:
Um, well obviously we haven't because they currently have to have anual MoTs.
Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me.
Most pre-60 cars now fall into two categories:Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me.
1. Rusty old snotters which require total restoration
2. Restored or preserved cars which are kept shiny in garages
The first category would be very obvious if anyone tries to use them on the road, and are covered by existing legislation without any reference to MoT testing. The second category aren't a danger to anyone.
I have two pre-war cars tucked away in pristine condition. I don't get to use them very often, but they are maintained perfectly and nothing ever goes wrong on them - there is nothing to break or wear out. Quite often I find that I can't use them when I want because the MoT has lapsed and I haven't had it renewed. It's not easy to take two old cars over to the other side of the county to find a sensible MoT tester who is able to look at a car like that, and it is a completely pointless exercise.
My everyday car is more modern, gets used all the time, suffers more wear and tear and has more consumable and perishable parts so an MoT is absolutely necessary. It's a massive waste of time and effort on the older cars though.
kambites said:
Um, well obviously we haven't because they currently have to have anual MoTs.
Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me. The fact that someone owns an old car does not mean they look after it properly. I don't see the problem with the current system really.
I have to agree with this. Not every 50 year old car is going to be a thorough restoration garage queen. I don't understand the reasoning in removing the MOT for cars of this age, if they are to be driven on public roads.Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me. The fact that someone owns an old car does not mean they look after it properly. I don't see the problem with the current system really.
I would say abandon it generally. You may need a car service to take care of your car, but you definately don't need a goverment to guide you. If you do, then you are not mentally eligible to drive a car and should not pass a drivers licence test in the first place. I see this as a whiff of common sense, you need more of that in UK I think, not sign a petition against it. There is one thing I cannot understand as a non UK person - you have probably a highest concentration of car enthusiast from all countries over the world, but on the other hand you have one of the most restricted traffic legislation as well. Be it laughable highway speed limit, no presumption of innocence when your car is caught on speed camera (don't sure about that though), CO2 taxes, city center congestion charge. Maybe my point of view is distorted as I don't live in UK, but it seems for me that all of your traffic legislation was created by communist to the bone.
Edited by Zajda on Wednesday 23 May 11:48
I'm in two minds about this. Providing the MOT stations use a degree of common sense and understand that, say, a 1909 Wolseley isn't going to generate as much brake force as a modern car then I guess an MOT is probably a worthwhile safeguard to have.
However, I also understand the argument that a tiny number of (usually) scrupulously maintained classics doing a handful of miles a year at low speeds aren't really a significant factor in road safety.
From that point of view I applaud the minister responsible for this proposal for trying to do something nice for once. It may have been seen as a low-risk vote winner, but motoring is very much a minority interest these days and I think it's great to see an MP supporting that rather than trying to curry favour with the NIMBYs by further restricting it.
So perhaps not the best idea in practice, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.
However, I also understand the argument that a tiny number of (usually) scrupulously maintained classics doing a handful of miles a year at low speeds aren't really a significant factor in road safety.
From that point of view I applaud the minister responsible for this proposal for trying to do something nice for once. It may have been seen as a low-risk vote winner, but motoring is very much a minority interest these days and I think it's great to see an MP supporting that rather than trying to curry favour with the NIMBYs by further restricting it.
So perhaps not the best idea in practice, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.
I think they missing the point. MOTs are getting more and more stringent to the point where old cars have no chance of passing the test. By relaxing the rules the government are helping these old cars to stay on the road and not being scrapped because they can't pass the MOT. Any 52 year old car will be a classic status car being loved and looked after by an enthusiast. The last thing anyone would want is for these cars to start failing MOTs and thus being rendered unroad worthy.
Galileo said:
I think they missing the point. MOTs are getting more and more stringent to the point where old cars have no chance of passing the test. By relaxing the rules the government are helping these old cars to stay on the road and not being scrapped because they can't pass the MOT. Any 52 year old car will be a classic status car being loved and looked after by an enthusiast. The last thing anyone would want is for these cars to start failing MOTs and thus being rendered unroad worthy.
And this is a fair summary of the rationale behind the change. It has been led by the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group. Details here: http://www.historicvehicles.org.uk/
I'm surprised parts of the more modern Classic Car lobby are against it. In 20 years time, I bet they'll be the ones lobbying for similar changes to enable their preferred era of cars to get through MOTs.
Zajda said:
I would say abandon it generally. You may need a car service to take care of your car, but you definately don't need a goverment to guide you. If you do, then you are not mentally eligible to drive car and should not pass a drivers licence test in the first place.
What? Do you have any idea how complex a modern car is and what the MoT involves?Anyway, I see why they want them scraped and also why others want them to stay. Looking at 1960 however I can see why they chose this date. I don't think there will be any deathtraps comeing out. If it went later I thinke we would sudenly see a whole load of MG B's and Minis etc. being pulled out of garages accross the land which people have not wanted to put through an MoT for a few years because they know something is going to fail.
Edited by PaulMoor on Wednesday 23 May 12:01
This seems like a common sense way of keeping the MoT current, but not pushing classics off the road.
In these straitened economic times, better to do this that waste money cooking up separate tests for older vehicles.
As has been pointed out, you can still be busted for driving a wreck, so why not choose a simple, sensible solution for once.
I agree, we Brits are a schitzophrenic lot, we both b
h about "the rules", but can't seem to get enough of them.
In these straitened economic times, better to do this that waste money cooking up separate tests for older vehicles.
As has been pointed out, you can still be busted for driving a wreck, so why not choose a simple, sensible solution for once.
I agree, we Brits are a schitzophrenic lot, we both b
h about "the rules", but can't seem to get enough of them.A bloke I know who does MOTs for a Subaru dealership told me that the problem with MOTs these days is that so much is no longer at the discretion of the tester. The emissions checks for example are timed on the computer and cannot be fudged because the computer produces the pass/fail result. Many older cars struggle with these tests and there is only very limited amount that the tester can do about it.
Also, the basic requirements for roadworthyness still apply to these older vehicles, so the hysterical nonsense I have seen about people being freely allowed now to visit their local scrappy and pull a wreck off the yard for use on the road is simply not true.
The only argument in favour of keeping the MOT for these very old vehicles is that it provides some sort of sanity check in case the owner has missed something that is crucial to the safe operation of the car on the road. But do we need a full-on MOT for that? Surely a system that combines a second tier inspection at designated centres coupled with self certification and the existing roadworthyness laws is all that would be required (if that even)
Also, the basic requirements for roadworthyness still apply to these older vehicles, so the hysterical nonsense I have seen about people being freely allowed now to visit their local scrappy and pull a wreck off the yard for use on the road is simply not true.
The only argument in favour of keeping the MOT for these very old vehicles is that it provides some sort of sanity check in case the owner has missed something that is crucial to the safe operation of the car on the road. But do we need a full-on MOT for that? Surely a system that combines a second tier inspection at designated centres coupled with self certification and the existing roadworthyness laws is all that would be required (if that even)
Galileo said:
I think they missing the point. MOTs are getting more and more stringent to the point where old cars have no chance of passing the test. By relaxing the rules the government are helping these old cars to stay on the road and not being scrapped because they can't pass the MOT. Any 52 year old car will be a classic status car being loved and looked after by an enthusiast. The last thing anyone would want is for these cars to start failing MOTs and thus being rendered unroad worthy.
Not quite - my experience with all my classic cars (and those of friends) has been that the MOT testers exercise a bit of judicial discretion, not expecting brakes to meet the required forces (and fiddling the computer to sort the results) and ignoring wheel bearing play and other things that were quite alright in the 60s and not so now. A similar approach is adopted to things like seat belts, which are only lap belts in my car and dont exist at all on some cars within the family.What about older tractors, they dont need any MOT. I have an old David Brown used as a scrapper, this is in need of repair, nothing serious, bushes, new tyre etc, yet there is nothing to stop me taking it on the road. I also have an old Land Rover, one from 1958, last year it did 300 miles. Its kept undercover and is looked after. I actually think that this is a good idea, as long as insurance and a road tax disc is in place, i really dont see a problem!
Galileo said:
I think they missing the point. MOTs are getting more and more stringent to the point where old cars have no chance of passing the test. By relaxing the rules the government are helping these old cars to stay on the road and not being scrapped because they can't pass the MOT. Any 52 year old car will be a classic status car being loved and looked after by an enthusiast. The last thing anyone would want is for these cars to start failing MOTs and thus being rendered unroad worthy.
The more stringent parts of the MOT don't apply to old cars anyway, very few things have been back-dated - if it only had rear wheel brakes, no brake lights and no wipers when it was new, then it still passes so your point about old cars failing MOT and being scrapped is twaddle.On one hand I'm happy that my 1951 car won't need an MOT, on the other, I'll probably take it for one anyway so that I have a second opinion on the work I've done but it will be nice to know that if I don't get round to it by the expiry date I can still go to a show and sort it out later.
Scrapping the MOT test for these cars is a worrying idea to me as it may encourage people to buy a car that falls into this category as they no longer need to worry about the cost of any remedial work required for failing a test. Coupled with buying a pre 1973 car and you get no road tax either.
The minimal requirement should be for an annual MOT (possibly bi-annual) to at least ensure basic items such as steering and brakes are functional (at least to the standard of when the car was registered) and no major damage has happened to chassis etc since the last test. This could be provided at an approved specialist if the regular MOT testing stations do not want to do the work and would provide another (albeit small) income stream for the specialists we all rely upon to look after our older cars.
The minimal requirement should be for an annual MOT (possibly bi-annual) to at least ensure basic items such as steering and brakes are functional (at least to the standard of when the car was registered) and no major damage has happened to chassis etc since the last test. This could be provided at an approved specialist if the regular MOT testing stations do not want to do the work and would provide another (albeit small) income stream for the specialists we all rely upon to look after our older cars.
PaulMoor said:
What? Do you have any idea how complex a modern car is and what the MoT involves?
Don't know what your MOT check involves, in our country we have a emission test and then something called State Technical Inspection, which is pretty much about checking the basic functions of your vehicle - brakes, suspension, lights, bodywork and its supporting elements. So more or less it's about things you can recognize yourself they are in need of repair. These elements are either working - you pass, or they are not working, you fail and nobody help you to identify a accurate cause of the problem. I gained the impression that your MOT test is more complex so it maybe could bring somewhat usable information to the owner. Then it is worth only when this inspection is cheaper then the inspection in commercial car service.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff