RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT

RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT

Author
Discussion

Pontoneer

3,643 posts

185 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
That's pretty cool.

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.
There are exceptions - like my 1957 Mercedes , which only arrived in the UK in 1964 and thus has a 'B' plate , such was the policy at that time .

gaz9185

105 posts

170 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
marshalla said:
People seem to be assuming that the MOT-exempt vehicles will remain in more or less standard configuration. If there is no regular check on condition, what's to stop someone modifying such a car extensively to make it something completely different and more dangerous ?
The MOT man generally would have no idfea whether or not you had modifgied it sinc the last test. Get real!

jamesatcandsc

232 posts

155 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
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!
Where did this quote appear? First time I have seen it.
Anyway in response:
1) What comments didn't C&SC publicise? News to us. Maybe we didn't get them. Maybe they never existed. Think some clarification is called for.
2) This vested interest nonsense. I/we are far from the only people concerned (Steve Cropley at Autocar has written a blog about it, Mark Dixon at O**ane has just had a letter in the Telegraph expressing exactly the same reservations) so maybe there is not a massive conspiracy. Or maybe all the journalists are in it together! Or maybe, just maybe, a bunch of people don't trust or welcome this move because of the potential wider implications for future classic car ownership and usage and, as enthusiasts, we want to safeguard our hobby for everyone. That's our remit.
3) We have publicised the many VED exemption petitions many times and continue to press for it publicly and privately.

Before anyone thinks this is an arsey response, it isn't. I accept that everyone has a different view and standpoint on this and welcome and encourage the debate.
However much my opposition to the legislation has angered a few people, the fact that the majority seems to be sceptical is all the validation I need.

gaz9185

105 posts

170 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
WELL SAID.......C & S WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO KEEP THOIR NOSES OUT OF THIS AND CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE TO SIGN THE CURRENT ON-LINE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF A ROAD TRAX CONCESSION FOR CARS 30+ YEARS OLD.
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"

davepen

1,460 posts

269 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
jamesatcandsc said:
davepen said:
C & S would have been better to keep ... his van can now escape the test!
Where did this quote appear? First time I have seen it.
First time I've seen it...

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
marshalla said:
People seem to be assuming that the MOT-exempt vehicles will remain in more or less standard configuration. If there is no regular check on condition, what's to stop someone modifying such a car extensively to make it something completely different and more dangerous ?
eh? confused

What's to stop this happening even with an MoT? Also an MoT doesn't check for such things, even if present.

davepen

1,460 posts

269 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
petition said:
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.
I do think adding 25 years to the debate just confuses the issue, the original consultation was pre 1920, pre 1945 or pre 1960. This was in line with the EU directive and getting it changed would require other governments to agree to a new historic definition. Difficult in countries where the use of historic vehicles is limited by law.

I don't think the MOT is hopeless unsuitable. The Ten Year Test was introduced in 1960 for these cars. The test has expanded to include the features of more modern cars. The real issue was that the new computer system forced the test to take 40 minutes. The current test, or even the original ten year test would be used as the basis for any historic basic safety check. (Lights, brakes, tyres, suspension, smoke (emissions))

I can see the MOT for moderns become more strict, and even required to be done at special centres, compare with the bi-annual TuV test, so a more general opt out is welcome. I can however see that the "old car movement" might want to adopt some self regulation, if only to avoid too much interest from BRAKE! and their friends.

So I'd prefer rather than this petition, that Classic and Sports Car magazine had supported the generation of a basic safety check for pre 1960 cars with the various stakeholders, (owners, clubs, garages (MOT and restorers), insurance under writers and even the RAC-MSA*). This could be used as part of the voluntary test mention in the statement, and could be done as say a bi-annual check. The insurance companies offering discounts for cars with a certificate.

So a missed opportunity, I guess The Automobile Magazine or the FBHVC might get involved.

___________________________________________________________________________

  • The original consultation mentioned low millage, say 500 miles, I can do that in a weekend when entering the VSCC Welsh Navigation Rally. At signing on, one has to present a MOT certificate and some further basic MSA checks are done. For a driving test at say Brooklands, the MOT isn't required - private road, but more checks are done on the (spoked) wheels for instance.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

189 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
jamesatcandsc said:
the fact that the majority seems to be sceptical is all the validation I need.
Since when has a majority ever proven to be the right thing. Most people need hand holding for most aspects of their life, hardly conclusive that they are then in a position to say what is better or not.

Adam-MGTF

21 posts

180 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
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 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
Can I ask where you live so I can move there!?

Being a petrol head in the UK is a constant war against the government. They seems to enjoy any chance they can get to make our lives hard and more expensive.

Sadly we just sit back and take it, unlike other countries where people engage in politics such as the US and France, we don't protest or use our vote to change things. The country as a whole is politically apathetic and it seems that's why we are walked over by politicans. If the motorist and petrol heads, (as a huge group) can't change what they want, what hope do we have?

I don't know about the communist edit, though our left wing does enjoy to create as many pointless laws as it can (though probably just to say it makes more than the right wing!)

Adam-MGTF

21 posts

180 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
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!!
And because you don't have to MoT it you will use it?

Well done, one of 2 things will now happen:

1.

you've now hit thoes kids. The police will come along and asses the car. You will have not used your common sence. You have driven a car unfit for use on the road and cause an accident.

You will be prosecuted for causing death or injury by dangerous driving (or rather driving something dangerous)

You will spend evening with bubbas big fat one put places in your body that should be exit only.

2.

You brake and the brakes fail. You hit a wall and the chassis snapps. You are killed.

You were an idiot and died for that reason. Natural selection at its best! The human race is now better off without your DNA in the gene pool.


The government is allowing something very rare here, and something we have all demanded for years "the return of common sence". A move away from stacks of legislation, to allowing the individual to be responsible for his or her actions.

If you choose to be irrisponsible it would be your choice and you would be punished should the worse Happen. If it was me, I wouldn't take the risk.





My car would be and is 100% safe. I know I built it (oddly though it does have a dodgy MoT lmao) but it is 100% safe!

jamesatcandsc

232 posts

155 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
davepen said:
So I'd prefer rather than this petition, that Classic and Sports Car magazine had supported the generation of a basic safety check for pre 1960 cars with the various stakeholders, (owners, clubs, garages (MOT and restorers), insurance under writers and even the RAC-MSA*). This could be used as part of the voluntary test mention in the statement, and could be done as say a bi-annual check. The insurance companies offering discounts for cars with a certificate.
There's nothing to stop us doing that now.

Birdthom

Original Poster:

788 posts

224 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
Have to say, my biggest surprise is 1960, I'd have thought if they were going to do this it would have been pre 1950 or 1940s??

1960 does allow some much more modern and higher performance cars into the mix, although most cars of this era are not of ilk.
I agree with this. I think the principle of dropping the MoT for historic vehicles is a very good one but 1960 might be an inappropriate cutoff point. Several people on here have expressed concerns about rusty Beetles/campers/MGs/Landrovers which perhaps do still need checking, and I can see their point.

However, I certainly won't be signing a petition against something which I still see as a good thing for motorists overall, and there are still laws to take rustbuckets off the road and punish those caught using them.

As mentioned by several others, most of the people raising objections don't seem to own (or have any hands-on experience of) pre-1960 cars or how the MoT test is applied to them in the real world.

benjfrst

700 posts

189 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
Birdthom said:
300bhp/ton said:
Have to say, my biggest surprise is 1960, I'd have thought if they were going to do this it would have been pre 1950 or 1940s??

1960 does allow some much more modern and higher performance cars into the mix, although most cars of this era are not of ilk.
I agree with this. I think the principle of dropping the MoT for historic vehicles is a very good one but 1960 might be an inappropriate cutoff point. Several people on here have expressed concerns about rusty Beetles/campers/MGs/Landrovers which perhaps do still need checking, and I can see their point.

However, I certainly won't be signing a petition against something which I still see as a good thing for motorists overall, and there are still laws to take rustbuckets off the road and punish those caught using them.

As mentioned by several others, most of the people raising objections don't seem to own (or have any hands-on experience of) pre-1960 cars or how the MoT test is applied to them in the real world.
There were three options.

I have already posted them but here we go again:

Option 1
Exempt all pre-1960 manufactured vehicles from the statutory MoT test as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC. The inclusion of all categories of vehicles will make the MoT test requirement match the unladen pre-1960 manufactured HGVs, which are already exempted from the roadworthiness test under The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988.

Option 2
Exempt all pre-1945 manufactured vehicles from the statutory MoT test as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC. Under this option, vehicles manufactured between 1945 and 1959 will still be subject to statutory MoT test.

Option 3
Exempt all pre-1920 manufactured vehicles from the MoT test as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC. Under this option, Vehicles manufactured between 1920 and 1959 will still be subject to statutory MoT test.



Options 2 & 3 I do agree with.



benjfrst

700 posts

189 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all

carinaman

21,209 posts

171 months

Thursday 24th May 2012
quotequote all
My MP sent me a link to the consultation that closed in Jan:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-27...


Oooops, seems I am late. Sorry.



Edited by carinaman on Thursday 24th May 16:50

boma

174 posts

206 months

Friday 25th May 2012
quotequote all
I live in Tortola, BVI.

Our MOT is:

Lights working, not cracked?
Windscreen not cracked?
Wipers working?
Horn Working?

That's it - no mechanical, rust or brake checks etc.

Despite the incredible range of barely running machinery on the road (Suzuki 410 with clearly snapped chassis, crabbing down the road towing a 40ft boat anyone?), no one really dies or gets hurt, even with 45 deg hills and 2 foot pot holes all over the place.

People do in general have an inherent will to live, and if their cars really are that dangerous, tend to drive them accordingly slowly...

carinaman

21,209 posts

171 months

Friday 25th May 2012
quotequote all
boma said:
People do in general have an inherent will to live, and if their cars really are that dangerous, tend to drive them accordingly slowly...
BVI sounds very different from the UK, I don't think that's taught as part of the national curriculum and it's possibly deemed an App not worth having or has yet to be written.

I think we have more people in the UK that believe that everyone else will do that for them.

'It's not my fault they made my car MoT exempt........

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Friday 25th May 2012
quotequote all
benjfrst said:
I don't understand why people think its a good idea.

A car can look very good from the outside and drive great but could have an mot fail 3-4 pages long.

No one here has mentioned the consumer protection an MOT provides.

Not everyone knows to look at chassis rot or brake lines etc you can get what looks to be a good condition car but will need a total restoration, hiding its rust issues under the body.

Dealers will love this. This is not clearing red tape for us motorists. It's stupid.
There's little to no consumer protection from having an MOT.
Roadworthiness is only certified by an MOT on the day of test. Anytime after that it is the driver's/keeper's responsibility.

Ian350

316 posts

177 months

Friday 25th May 2012
quotequote all
The problem in the UK is that people think our laws should be pitched at the lowest common denominator. I don't want to have to MOT my classic every year, but I do keep it well maintained. Why should I have to go through this expensive, inconvenient and "over the top" rigmarole every year just because a handful of halfwits will knowingly choose to drive death traps?

What's next - mandatory 10 MPH speed limits on corners - because some people might choose to go around them at 30 MPH?

carinaman

21,209 posts

171 months

Friday 25th May 2012
quotequote all
Ian350 said:
The problem in the UK is that people think our laws should be pitched at the lowest common denominator. I don't want to have to MOT my classic every year, but I do keep it well maintained. Why should I have to go through this expensive, inconvenient and "over the top" rigmarole every year just because a handful of halfwits will knowingly choose to drive death traps?

What's next - mandatory 10 MPH speed limits on corners - because some people might choose to go around them at 30 MPH?
That's a bit of an assumption. It's like assuming that all old cars are well maintained.

I think there's enough variance between MoT tests on the same car already without making one group of them exempt.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the lowest common denominator but then I am one of those that pays their RoSPA fees and gets their driving tested every three years. Your lowest common denominator point seems like a generalisation.