Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3 4 ... 8 9
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

BigTom85

1,026 posts

58 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
BigTom85 said:
What are the current problems with the MOT and pre-60s vehicles anyway?
Just to add - by that I mean could we have some examples of what problems the MOT presents specifically to pre-60s vehicles? I really am struggling to think of anything.

kambites

41,274 posts

108 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
BigTom85 said:
BigTom85 said:
What are the current problems with the MOT and pre-60s vehicles anyway?
Just to add - by that I mean could we have some examples of what problems the MOT presents specifically to pre-60s vehicles? I really am struggling to think of anything.
The main problem in my experience, is that testing stations tend not to know the rules, so they fail cars for things that they shouldn't. Then you have to faff about prooving that they're wrong.

davepen

1,289 posts

157 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Er... isn't this 6 months too late?


Why didn't you run a campaign during the consultation period?

On the main thread...
LongQ said:
jamesatcandsc said:
Clearly a lot of people strongly disagree with the Government's plans so I have started one of those epetition thingies to oppose it.

The petition reads:

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 it http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34242 and please circulate the link to any of your friends who feel similarly.
Have you read the link I posted earlier?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-2011...

This announced that they wanted to bring things in line with the EU directive and the DfT would undertake a period of public consultancy (which ended last January). After that they would decide whether to change anything. Presumably the public in general (or those who had an opinion at the time) decided that getting rid of the test requirement was, on balance, beneficial. So they have.

Vehicles still have to be roadworthy. That still leaves the challenge of finding people who understand old vehicles to perform the checks but that's a different sort of problem. There is still an option to undertake a voluntary MOT test it one so wishes.

So far as I can tell all of the points raised on here seem to have been raised by the responses to the original proposal according to the final response analysis from the DfT.

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


So one has to point out that your petition is a bit late and unlikely to be considered since the questions have already been raised, commented upon and the observation of all 447 respondees have been analysed. All within the last 6 months.

Wetsuit

15 posts

73 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
I'm worried about this. The problem is that without an MOT there isn't a second opinion of the roadworthy-ness of your pre-1960's car. Often, MOT testers are very helpful and like testing interesting cars and are willing to share advice. They have the equipment, such as a brake dyno and hoist which we don't have at home. It will be interesting how the insurers respond, an increased premium? £50 more a year? Same as an MOT?

PaulMoor

1,650 posts

50 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Zajda said:
Then it is worth only when this inspection is cheaper then the inspection in commercial car service.
A service is £100 minimum, normaly £200+. An MoT is £30-£50 depending on where you are, but allot of places do service and free MoT. The MoT dose include things like brake and suspension testing along with a range of other things. As an examle brake testing can show when you have a lack of braking force or imbalance which may not be known about without either testing or carefull inspection of the brakeing system, not something most people can do or will know about until the brakes fail.

Advertisement

braddo

4,501 posts

75 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
BigTom85 said:
BigTom85 said:
What are the current problems with the MOT and pre-60s vehicles anyway?
Just to add - by that I mean could we have some examples of what problems the MOT presents specifically to pre-60s vehicles? I really am struggling to think of anything.
An example already mentioned is wheel bearing play. Not that my car is pre-60 but a common issue on Giulia Alfas is that MOT testers who are unfamiliar with the cars sometimes fail or give advisories on rear wheel bearing play when there is in fact designed to be some.

The rarer/older a car gets, the fewer testers there will be who are sympathetic and/or experienced enough to know about the particular car. This means owners may have to travel considerable distance for their MOT tests (not an insurmountable problem).


Andy ap

1,094 posts

59 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Are the powers that be that supposedly run this country fking insane????

Galileo

2,899 posts

105 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
john2443 said:
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.
My point is that MOTs will be getting a lot more stringent and no longer left to the discretion of the tester. It's not about the current tests, its about the tests that will be introduced in the future. If you could think further than your next meal you'd see that there is a potential problem for older cars in the future.
So when your old car fails its MOT, which it will as the tests get harder, how are you going to drive it on the road? What would be the point of keeping it? How much would it be worth if it couldn't be driven on the road? I understand your point, but I'm am not exactly talking "twaddle" in all instances.

Birdthom

Original Poster:

715 posts

112 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Wetsuit said:
I'm worried about this. The problem is that without an MOT there isn't a second opinion of the roadworthy-ness of your pre-1960's car. Often, MOT testers are very helpful and like testing interesting cars and are willing to share advice. They have the equipment, such as a brake dyno and hoist which we don't have at home. It will be interesting how the insurers respond, an increased premium? £50 more a year? Same as an MOT?
I'm guessing that the world will continue much as it is now, with no drama and no insurance hikes, just less hassle. If you are worried about your car or think it prudent to have an annual test then you can take it for an MoT, you still have the option.

One of the papers will come up with some sensationalist article about a Morris Minor with dodgy brakes mounting a pavement and narrowly missing a queue of nuns waiting for a bus, then after a while it will all get forgotten and this will seem like a perfectly normal and sensible way of doing things.

BigTom85

1,026 posts

58 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
braddo said:
An example already mentioned is wheel bearing play. Not that my car is pre-60 but a common issue on Giulia Alfas is that MOT testers who are unfamiliar with the cars sometimes fail or give advisories on rear wheel bearing play when there is in fact designed to be some.

The rarer/older a car gets, the fewer testers there will be who are sympathetic and/or experienced enough to know about the particular car. This means owners may have to travel considerable distance for their MOT tests (not an insurmountable problem).
Hmmm, the first issue can be resolved. There are many cases of modern cars that by virtue of design can't meet MOT standards, and these are documented and accounted for at test. I understand these issues are flagged to the tester when the vehicle is logged onto the system. An example I can think of is V70/S60 with big wheels hitting the arch liners of full lock, but there are other similar issues with many vehicles.

The second point shouldn't be an issue - a basic understanding of suspension/braking systems etc is all thats required to test these cars properly.

zeduffman

803 posts

38 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
It's a stupid idea. The MOT system is great, it gives a clear benchmark restored classics have to meet before they're allowed on the roads. I can't think of a worse idea than allowing tinny old cars on the roads without thorough safety checks.

300bhp/ton

29,629 posts

77 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
James Elliott you are a total idiot!

300bhp/ton

29,629 posts

77 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
kambites said:
Um, well obviously we haven't because they currently have to have anual MoTs. confused

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.
So why is it any safer to use ex army trucks and tanks on the road without an MoT then? Nobody has yet answered this.

kambites

41,274 posts

108 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
300bhp/ton said:
So why is it any safer to use ex army trucks and tanks on the road without an MoT then? Nobody has yet answered this.
Maybe it's not and they should have to go through an MoT too?

Trommel

12,331 posts

146 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
zeduffman said:
it gives a clear benchmark restored classics have to meet before they're allowed on the roads. I can't think of a worse idea than allowing tinny old cars on the roads without thorough safety checks.
That's potentially an issue, 1960 is hopefully long enough ago for most cars which are already on the road to be run by people who have an interest in their condition.

If I had something old and modified like a rod I think I'd get it tested in any case in an attempt to pre-empt any busybody police/VOSA issues. £30 on an MOT could potentially save a lot of hassle.

Are the "cherished" plate people already scouring the farmyards and scrapyards?

srob

9,486 posts

125 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Birdthom said:
I'm guessing that the world will continue much as it is now, with no drama and no insurance hikes, just less hassle. If you are worried about your car or think it prudent to have an annual test then you can take it for an MoT, you still have the option.

One of the papers will come up with some sensationalist article about a Morris Minor with dodgy brakes mounting a pavement and narrowly missing a queue of nuns waiting for a bus, then after a while it will all get forgotten and this will seem like a perfectly normal and sensible way of doing things.
Exactly!

I thought I'd stumbled onto the Daily Mail website, reading some of the nonsense on here. I ride old, in fact very old motorbikes on the road regularly, and I can tell you now that I wouldn't ride one that isn't safe. And I've been involved in the old bike community for all of the 31 years I've been on this earth - I was carted about in the sidecar of a 1920s bike as a baby. I've never once met anyone that would willingly risk their (or others') wellbeing by riding a dodgy bike.

Seems that I've been really, really lucky though as loads of people on here seem to know someone who's going to be tearing around the countryside in an old heap. These same people will no mechanical knowledge, yet somehow seem to be able to keep an old and fragile motor running rolleyes

If you want a second opinion on your car/bike, book it in for an MOT as you do now. I really can't see what this epetition is trying to achieve, it's so vague in its wording anyway. I asked on the other thread what these 'safety checks' would be, but haven't heard anything back. Would they be age specific?

kambites

41,274 posts

108 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
I think they should abandon the MoT test for green cars with yellow stripes - it'd make just as much sense. silly

300bhp/ton

29,629 posts

77 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Crow555 said:
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.
But how much of an MoT actually applies?

Seablets, tyres, lights, wipers, seats, ABS, airbags, emissions, horn - none of this applies to all pre 60's cars.

The only thing you could check for is structural condition, but only visually. However in many old cars, even a 100% perfect one, it'll still be weaker than a rusty 1991 Nissan. So it's all rather pointless.

Checking for play in bushes and joints is just as pointless too as some will have massive play and movement even with new parts. So you'd have to be a specialist on that exact vehicle to know.

So what is really the point in paying to take a car to be tested where only 3-5% of the test 'might' be applicable. It will be plainly obvious what cars aren't road worthy and they are likely to be stopped and pulled over.

And again as said, all of these do NOT need an MoT to be used on the roads, yet many are:







300bhp/ton

29,629 posts

77 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
kambites said:
300bhp/ton said:
So why is it any safer to use ex army trucks and tanks on the road without an MoT then? Nobody has yet answered this.
Maybe it's not and they should have to go through an MoT too?
That'd be pretty pointless when nothing about a military vehicle of this nature could even be tested by an MoT. You'd drive it in (if it fitted), the MoT bloke would either say "fail" or "na" on every check and then say "yep its road legal". Really what would be the point?

AndyDRZ

1,108 posts

123 months

[news] 
Wednesday 23rd May 2012 quote quote all
Have any of you that are complaining about scapping the MOT actually seen how much pre-1960 cars cost?

No one is going to go down this route to get a "banger that never requires testing" as it would be way way cheaper to just run old mondeos into the ground getting a replacement each time the mot was due.

This just helps out a few enthusiasts.

It is still their responsibility to keep the car road worthy, if it is not they can still get points on their license etc.




1
3 4 ... 8 9
Reply to Topic