RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Discussion
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.
While not impossible there are implications:-some bugger and committee will actually have to sit down to create a 2 tier system and write it out point by point with all the convolutedness that the current MoT has. Any such tier will still not suit all or even most classics as vehicles have varied so much over the years.
-MoT test centres will then need additional training and certification to perform these tests. So more cost, time and hassle to everyone. And at the end of it, the MoT testers will still be no more expert on vintage vehicles and will likely still face the EXACT same issues they face today, which is likely the driver behind not MoTing pre 60's vehicles. In short a huge amount of effort, time, money for zero result!
-Also would you want to pay the same amount for an MoT 'lite' test? I suspect most wouldn't, so MoT places would have to charge less, but that would then be less profitable for them and less of an incentive to even want to conduct them.
Numeric said:
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!!
MG Midget wasn't launched until '61 so the children will live. 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!!
Numeric said:
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!!
What I don't understand, is if you know the car won't pass an MoT - what on Earth makes you suddenly think it'd be safe to use just because it doesn't need an 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!!
I guess the biggest thing this proves is there are plenty of idiots who really can't look after themselves at all. And sadly on that evidence and for prats with your mindset, then maybe all cars should be banned rather than MoT'd. As evidently you are in no sane mind to make a rational decision on if it's legal and safe to use on a public road.
Shame, I thought humanity was supposed to be evolving, not reverting back to mindless sea creatures.
There are two problems - one is people who think it's safe to drive any car just because it's legal and so will drive a car they know has dangerous faults; and the other is people who simply don't bother to/know how to check. The MoT test doesn't actually solve either of these problems, it just reduces their scope.
I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
kambites said:
There are two problems - one is people who think it's safe to drive any car just because it's legal and so will drive a car they know has dangerous faults; and the other is people who simply don't bother to/know how to check. The MoT test doesn't actually solve either of these problems, it just reduces their scope.
I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
I agree. Although for the former, who's to say those same people wouldn't drive an unsafe car at other times anyhow? And chances are, even if unsafe, the most likely thing is they'll be stopped or throw it in a ditch, which then really is their fault and for them to deal with.I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
Chances of one of these cars causing a major RTA/RTI and the primary and only cause was due to no MoT is less likely than winning the Euro Lottery.
With the latter - how likely is this happen and more importantly in number terms how much more risky is it than the same person not checking their 10 year old either, regardless of if it's been MoT'd or not? If the numbers are almost identical, then yes it's an issue, but one that isn't affected by this change at all.
Incidentally, and accepting it has no scientific merit. While out driving yesterday I thought I'd try and sport classic and pre 60's cars. I saw many classics, including a Type 2 VW, a Beetle, Series Land Rover, Escort MK1 and quite a few others. However none, not a single one was pre 1960. They where all newer and would all need an MoT.
I know this was only one day and only over 'x' distance. But to me at least it did reinforce that having seen what I suspect was several thousand cars and many classics, pre 60's cars are indeed very rare on the roads.
300bhp/ton said:
kambites said:
There are two problems - one is people who think it's safe to drive any car just because it's legal and so will drive a car they know has dangerous faults; and the other is people who simply don't bother to/know how to check. The MoT test doesn't actually solve either of these problems, it just reduces their scope.
I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
I agree. Although for the former, who's to say those same people wouldn't drive an unsafe car at other times anyhow? And chances are, even if unsafe, the most likely thing is they'll be stopped or throw it in a ditch, which then really is their fault and for them to deal with.I know there are people in both categories who own pre-1960 cars.
FWIW, there were three definitely pre-1960 cars in my work car-park yesterday lunch-time and three models whose production spanned 1960. You're just not looking in the right place.
s in pimped up Austin Healeys, i'll take the comment back!kambites said:
Oh I agree, and you see them all the time (blown bulbs, smoking engines, etc.). But at least the current MoT system to some extent limits both the time and scope of such problems.
But does it/would it?kambites said:
FWIW, there were three definitely pre-1960 cars in my work car-park yesterday lunch-time
Cool, what were they?kambites said:
and three models whose production spanned 1960. You're just not looking in the right place.
lol Some of the cars I saw had production spans that started in the 50's, however all the ones I saw where later post 1960 examples.
kambites said:
An MGTC; an MGTF; and an Austin Seven, of all things.
The maybes were an MGA and a couple of split-window Type-2 camper vans. I didn't look close enough to work out the age, even if I could have remembered how number-plates work that far back.
That's pretty cool.The maybes were an MGA and a couple of split-window Type-2 camper vans. I didn't look close enough to work out the age, even if I could have remembered how number-plates work that far back.
An 'A' suffix was 1963, so if it's a year related plate then it'll be post 1960. Split window Type 2 VW's were built 1950 to 67, although my hunch is, there are more post 1960 ones on the road.
kambites said:
An MGTC; an MGTF; and an Austin Seven, of all things.
The maybes were an MGA and a couple of split-window Type-2 camper vans. I didn't look close enough to work out the age, even if I could have remembered how number-plates work that far back.
Jesus, where do you work?! The maybes were an MGA and a couple of split-window Type-2 camper vans. I didn't look close enough to work out the age, even if I could have remembered how number-plates work that far back.
I work for a car company, which is well above average in terms of car mad - sell the house before your car Engineer types - and whilst there's a few 60s cars (two Elans, a couple of E-Types, various Minis and a Mustang) that I walked past today, I don't think I've ever seen a pre-war car in the car park! There is an XK120 about quite often, that's the earliest I think.
Lucky bloke having all that lot to look at daily!
I also still think that operating a tiered system would be really hard to set up, as there's so much variety between eras that you'd need loads of classes for it to really work as intended. If you're saying that a 1959 car shouldn't be tested in the same way as a four year old Mondeo, then should a 1908 belt-drive, block braked, single speed Triumph be tested in the same way as a late 1950s DBD34 BSA Goldie? The setup and training costs for a garage would mean that the tests would end up costing far more than a current Mot, or only a few specialist places would be allowed to carry out the tests. Which would be a royal pain in the arse, if there's not one local. People would just end up having to have an Mot done as they do now.
On a seperate note, I wonder what would happen if you booked your car/bike in for a voluntary MoT and it failed spectacularly - I guess they'd still be logged somewhere?
srob said:
On a seperate note, I wonder what would happen if you booked your car/bike in for a voluntary MoT and it failed spectacularly - I guess they'd still be logged somewhere?
Presumably it would fail, because the need for an MoT which allows cars without seatbelts, lights, etc. would vanish. Anyway you wouldn't get it MoT'd would you; you'd take it to the garage and ask them to do an "MoT-like safety check" for you. I have a 1965 4.2 E Type, but its presently outside the scope of the pre 1960 issue, it has been owned for 13 years, restored, improved, modified it is still obscenely fast for a nearly 50 year old car, I understand it, know its condition and look after it, However it should be subject to independent test routine and any issues addressed. This comment applies to any pre 1960, albeit less numbers and less performance - the vehicle is still a lethal device irrespective of age,but dependent upon being roadworthy.
I cannot understand the logic of dropping the MoT, find an old fashioned garage and most over 50 testers have an idea of old car plus/minus issues.
Bet I am wrong on this again, see other thread and not a Daily Mail reader.
I cannot understand the logic of dropping the MoT, find an old fashioned garage and most over 50 testers have an idea of old car plus/minus issues.
Bet I am wrong on this again, see other thread and not a Daily Mail reader.
urquattro said:
I have a 1965 4.2 E Type, but its presently outside the scope of the pre 1960 issue, it has been owned for 13 years, restored, improved, modified it is still obscenely fast for a nearly 50 year old car, I understand it, know its condition and look after it, However it should be subject to independent test routine and any issues addressed. This comment applies to any pre 1960, albeit less numbers and less performance - the vehicle is still a lethal device irrespective of age,but dependent upon being roadworthy.
I cannot understand the logic of dropping the MoT, find an old fashioned garage and most over 50 testers have an idea of old car plus/minus issues.
Bet I am wrong on this again, see other thread and not a Daily Mail reader.
But are you saying, that unless legally forced/required to have your car inspected. That you then wouldn't bother having it looked over at all? I find this a strange and illogical rational.I cannot understand the logic of dropping the MoT, find an old fashioned garage and most over 50 testers have an idea of old car plus/minus issues.
Bet I am wrong on this again, see other thread and not a Daily Mail reader.
kambites said:
Presumably it would fail, because the need for an MoT which allows cars without seatbelts, lights, etc. would vanish. Anyway you wouldn't get it MoT'd would you; you'd take it to the garage and ask them to do an "MoT-like safety check" for you.
Which would be charged per hour, as opposed a set price?srob said:
kambites said:
Presumably it would fail, because the need for an MoT which allows cars without seatbelts, lights, etc. would vanish. Anyway you wouldn't get it MoT'd would you; you'd take it to the garage and ask them to do an "MoT-like safety check" for you.
Which would be charged per hour, as opposed a set price?300bhp/ton said:
But are you saying, that unless legally forced/required to have your car inspected. That you then wouldn't bother having it looked over at all? I find this a strange and illogical rational.
No, perhaps I didnt make the comment clear, the car should and must be checked every year to MoT certification or similar, there should be no exceptions even though I claim I know the car and am 100% responsible for its mechanical wellbeing and safety.davepen said:
C & S would have been better to keep out of this as all they have done is antagonise some readers - two I know won't buy the magazine again.
Why didn't JE wait and see what happens - it seems old heavy commercial vehicles have been exempt from a test for a long while: have you seen where they caused any accident? NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY C & S DIDN'T PRINT MY COMMENTS ON THIS POINT, AND THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT ABUSIVE. Maybe vested interests where their advertisers are concerned? We all know what happens - trials bikes MOTd over the telephone, cars in the 1970s accompanied by a 'mule'for thre emissions test.
WHY DON'T C & S AND FBHVC PUBLICISE THE ONLINE PETITION TO PERSUADE THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISE TO BRING BACK A ROLLING DATE (30 YEARS?) FOR ROAD TAX CONCESSIONS - £220 A YEAR TOO MUCH FOR A FEW MILES. Oh, and congratulate Greg Knight MP for his efforts........ his van can now escape the test!
Why didn't JE wait and see what happens - it seems old heavy commercial vehicles have been exempt from a test for a long while: have you seen where they caused any accident? NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY C & S DIDN'T PRINT MY COMMENTS ON THIS POINT, AND THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT ABUSIVE. Maybe vested interests where their advertisers are concerned? We all know what happens - trials bikes MOTd over the telephone, cars in the 1970s accompanied by a 'mule'for thre emissions test.
WHY DON'T C & S AND FBHVC PUBLICISE THE ONLINE PETITION TO PERSUADE THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISE TO BRING BACK A ROLLING DATE (30 YEARS?) FOR ROAD TAX CONCESSIONS - £220 A YEAR TOO MUCH FOR A FEW MILES. Oh, and congratulate Greg Knight MP for his efforts........ his van can now escape the test!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff