RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Discussion
I notice that the motoring journalist who started this petition wants all cars tested by "suitable" people would this by any chance be the specialist classic car garages who advertise in the motoring press & therefore pay his wages. They would stand to make a nice profit from classic car owners if they claim that current mot stations were unsuitable to test our cars & we then had to take them to a select few "specialist garages"
When modern cars corrode why expect pre-60s stuff not to:
http://www.rtracing.co.uk/content/tvr-chassis-rest...
When all car owners are different and can't be easily categorised why do we think all owners of pre-60s can? It doesn't make sense.
http://www.rtracing.co.uk/content/tvr-chassis-rest...
When all car owners are different and can't be easily categorised why do we think all owners of pre-60s can? It doesn't make sense.
Does anyone else wonder if the 'opposition' to this isn't simply a concoction of people who are either against anything that the current government does or ones who just oppose any relaxing of the nanny state's motoring regulations and actually has nothing to do with the actual justification or likely effect of the proposal?
Where does 'Speed Kills' using the hard shoulder to increase capacity around junctions on busy M-ways, and a more stringent MoT with regard to electronic safety systems on other cars fit with making cars 52 years old exempt from an annual safety check?
How many three year old cars fail their first MoT and what do they fail it on?
When we have people asking in other forums whether they can buy some car and then drive it hundreds of miles home as long as it's booked into an MoT test centre at the far end, why do we doubt that stuff that needs to be repaired or condemned will be driven around as 'road legal'?
How many three year old cars fail their first MoT and what do they fail it on?
When we have people asking in other forums whether they can buy some car and then drive it hundreds of miles home as long as it's booked into an MoT test centre at the far end, why do we doubt that stuff that needs to be repaired or condemned will be driven around as 'road legal'?
Fraz30 said:
I notice that the motoring journalist who started this petition wants all cars tested by "suitable" people would this by any chance be the specialist classic car garages who advertise in the motoring press & therefore pay his wages. They would stand to make a nice profit from classic car owners if they claim that current mot stations were unsuitable to test our cars & we then had to take them to a select few "specialist garages"
Dammit, rumbled and all because I made the schoolboy error of asking that safety checks be done by people qualified to carry out safety checks instead of random people pulled out of bus queues.Hands up, I started this whole thing solely because myself and an insidious cabal of classic car "specialists" have hatched a plan to create a Government-backed cartel that charges people £1000 for an annual compulsory safety check that they have voted for, just so we could buy up Premier League football clubs.
You can't blame us for trying, everyone fell for it when we faked the moon landings.
Edited by jamesatcandsc on Wednesday 23 May 19:11
pingu393 said:
Any ideas how much a voluntary safety check would cost?
No idea, whatever a garage wants to charge you because, as far as I know, they don't even exist at the moment. That is precisely why this whole thing needs formalising and regulation instead of a wholesale scrapping.jamesatcandsc said:
pingu393 said:
Any ideas how much a voluntary safety check would cost?
No idea, whatever a garage wants to charge you because, as far as I know, they don't even exist at the moment. That is precisely why this whole thing needs formalising and regulation instead of a wholesale scrapping.Had you planned a set safety check, for all vehicles? I can imagine that the test, if set for a late 1950s vehicle will be as irrelevant for a 1908 one as the current one. Or are you planning different age bands? In which case, how would something that was 'ahead' of its time be tested - like our water cooled 1920s Scott or a 30s Brough Superior with rear suspension? What about someone like yourself that does loads of miles, should they have more regular tests? If that's the case, how about someone who uses a 1920s motorbike daily (I know of someone that does) without a speedo? How would you know how many miles they've done?
In some part, I kind of agree with you. I've bitten because there's so many people on PH that are ill-informed and jumping on he Daily Mail bandwagon.
I seriously think though, that you haven't thought out your idea. I can't see a garage doing a safety check for less than a current MOT, in which case people will just get an MOT done?
Its an odd law but who really gives a crap. I can't remember the last time I even saw a car this old on the road. Worry about the tit in the Audi A3 tailgating you on the M25 instead.
I bet there are ten times as many cars with bent MOT's on the road than there are pre-1960 cars!
I bet there are ten times as many cars with bent MOT's on the road than there are pre-1960 cars!
Edited by SuperHangOn on Wednesday 23 May 19:44
James Elliott what a tosser! How can you complain about any relaxed form of legislation regarding your hobby? The MOT is irrelevant to older cars as it's so full of grey areas most cars could pass it anyway. He should use his position to campaign for the reinstatement of the rolling 25 year road tax abolition instead.
PILCH 23 said:
I cannot believe that any true motoring enthusiast would sign this stupid e-petition. MOTs are just another layer of hassle and cost and Mike Penning's logic is sound. This is a rare case of the government doing something to benefit motoring enthusiasts and then some so called enthusiasts want to complain about it. What a bunch of t
ts!
Well, you need to start believing. Have you at all considered why this is a bad idea FOR motoring enthisiasts.ts! from here
http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/our-cars/mixed-feel...
Those who keep their cars right up to the mark won’t be affected, and those without a conscience who maintain theirs very badly will find life a lot easier.
But the majority who fall somewhere in the middle (I’m one) always benefit from the flinty-eyed inspection of their pride and joy by a professional inspector with no axe to grind. Old-car appreciation is so seasonal in this country: which of us hasn’t pushed our nail into the April sunlight with flat tyres and battery, mildew on the seats, rusty brakes, a clutch that won’t disengage and cobwebs all over the place? The threat of a no-excuses inspection is what encourages us to get it going properly.
The question that bugs me is: why have the the authorities done it? Some suggest it is because modern MoT procedure has become so exacting and time-consuming, and is so completely tuned to today’s electronically governed cars that pre-1960 models now take too long and require too many exemptions.
Pessimists reckon it’s the first step in an EU-led plan to place restrictions of use on old cars, such as exist elsewhere already
Two things bother me
The MOT ensures the future condition of a classic or vintage vehicles by keeping good cars roadworthy and enure bad cars supply the parts.
What is the EU up to here, seperation is not good, I belive this is a precursor to something. I'm not going to talk down to you, if you don't want to listen then so be it.
srob said:
jamesatcandsc said:
pingu393 said:
Any ideas how much a voluntary safety check would cost?
No idea, whatever a garage wants to charge you because, as far as I know, they don't even exist at the moment. That is precisely why this whole thing needs formalising and regulation instead of a wholesale scrapping.Had you planned a set safety check, for all vehicles? I can imagine that the test, if set for a late 1950s vehicle will be as irrelevant for a 1908 one as the current one. Or are you planning different age bands? In which case, how would something that was 'ahead' of its time be tested - like our water cooled 1920s Scott or a 30s Brough Superior with rear suspension? What about someone like yourself that does loads of miles, should they have more regular tests? If that's the case, how about someone who uses a 1920s motorbike daily (I know of someone that does) without a speedo? How would you know how many miles they've done?
In some part, I kind of agree with you. I've bitten because there's so many people on PH that are ill-informed and jumping on he Daily Mail bandwagon.
I seriously think though, that you haven't thought out your idea. I can't see a garage doing a safety check for less than a current MOT, in which case people will just get an MOT done?
The priority is to get the issue readdressed and then to try and institute a properly thought out system that is suitable and appropriate for all different types and age of classic vehicles, rather than be presented with – and asked to endorse – one poorly conceived option.
If the consultation had been about what was the correct way to proceed with this instead of whether people simply wanted or didn't want an already decided (without any consultation as far as I know) option, I don't think we would be in this position.
For the record, the current MoT already makes so many allowances for classic cars that surely it isn't a big step to simply have a two-tier system of modern MoT for modern cars and a simplified, computer-free annual safety certificate for classic cars checking fundamental stuff: structural integrity, the brakes working as well as they should for a vehicle of its type, lights working etc. Simply that the vehicle is fit for purpose with no dangerous faults for a vehicle of its type.
All the objections (from enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts alike), all the potential issues about crashes, private plate transfers, insurance and selling eradicated in a trice.
crostonian said:
James Elliott what a tosser! How can you complain about any relaxed form of legislation regarding your hobby? The MOT is irrelevant to older cars as it's so full of grey areas most cars could pass it anyway. He should use his position to campaign for the reinstatement of the rolling 25 year road tax abolition instead.
Good point, well made.someone needs to tell this chap to keep his moggy, who cares about the brakes, its never going to fail an mot again!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/morris-minor-1957-/27098...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/morris-minor-1957-/27098...
One question how many vehicles are there being driven on our roads without an MOT, road tax or insurance, Answer far more than all the pre 1960 vehicles that still exist I bet. Not to mention the "foreign" drivers who dont give a monkeys about having any of them. The word I am getting to is perspective. Look at the numbers this will change nowt and save nowt it is just window dressing by Cammy and Co
b16ugg said:
One question how many vehicles are there being driven on our roads without an MOT, road tax or insurance, Answer far more than all the pre 1960 vehicles that still exist I bet. Not to mention the "foreign" drivers who dont give a monkeys about having any of them. The word I am getting to is perspective. Look at the numbers this will change nowt and save nowt it is just window dressing by Cammy and Co
Have you read any of the previous posts?Lurking in a garage I know is a reasonable looking but crikey don't look underneath Midget with chrome bumpers etc. God only knows what would happen in an emergency stop. Now from afar you'd think cute car - but we keep it off the road cos the MOT requirements would cost more than it is worth. So now happy days - fancy a gentle blast to the Dog and Mildew - crank the old snotter up and set forth! Trouble is I reckon it's a death trap but I guess it's the kids fault for being on the Zebra crossing!!
If you don't remember tales of people putting their feet through the rotten bodies of cars when you were a kid - it's becuase of the MOT!!
If you don't remember tales of people putting their feet through the rotten bodies of cars when you were a kid - it's becuase of the MOT!!
jamesatcandsc said:
For the record, the current MoT already makes so many allowances for classic cars that surely it isn't a big step to simply have a two-tier system of modern MoT for modern cars and a simplified, computer-free annual safety certificate for classic cars checking fundamental stuff: structural integrity, the brakes working as well as they should for a vehicle of its type, lights working etc. Simply that the vehicle is fit for purpose with no dangerous faults for a vehicle of its type.
^ This is the way it works in France. Over here, a few years ago, the reverse happened:
Before 2009, classics (then defined as being over 25 years old, with a rolling boundary) didn't require any test.
Moderns had to have a contrôle technique (MoT) once every 2 years.
In 2009 the rolling limit for classics was extended to 30 years and a simplified test was introduced.
Brakes, steering, lights, checks for leaks and shell integrity and that's pretty much it, required every 5 years.
Moderns kept their test every 2 years, albeit toughened up a bit.
None of this seems unreasonable, especially when you're accustomed to a yearly test, but there was an awful lot of caterwauling when people realised their classics - cars that in many cases had never seen any test whatsoever - would now need one.
All of which rambling brings me to the point I wanted to make, which is that even within the "moderns" test there are tiered requirements for a pass, with pollution test stringency being perhaps the most obvious example. Everything goes into a database and passes are handed out, or not, depending on the laws that were applicable in the year of production. It certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for the system to sustain multiple parameters.
'punt
Edited by Cunning Punt on Thursday 24th May 01:55
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff