RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Discussion
I don't suppose you'd need anything as unusual as a boiler to confuse the average MOT tester (although, yes, you're right on the regular checks) I think, say, cable brakes on an Austin Seven would be more than enough.
That's assuming you even have four-wheel brakes. Can you imagine rolling up to Kwik Fit in one of these?
.jpg)
That's assuming you even have four-wheel brakes. Can you imagine rolling up to Kwik Fit in one of these?
I would sign the petition if it allowed me to :-(
Apparently I don't see their captcha images correctly. These are those squiggly letters and numbers they ask you to copy to prove you are not a spam robot. After trying to fill it in twice I have given up on it.
Just to emphasise to organisations who use captcha
1. Much of the population will not correctly see these images
2. Many of those (like myself) will not be able to take an alternative audible captcha
3. Many will not bother
4. Get some training in web usability and accessibility
Apparently I don't see their captcha images correctly. These are those squiggly letters and numbers they ask you to copy to prove you are not a spam robot. After trying to fill it in twice I have given up on it.
Just to emphasise to organisations who use captcha
1. Much of the population will not correctly see these images
2. Many of those (like myself) will not be able to take an alternative audible captcha
3. Many will not bother
4. Get some training in web usability and accessibility
Why on earth are people getting on their high horse about this ? The Government is actually given something back to the motoring enthusiast that we never thought of asking for, and yet we complain about it.
I bet it's jealousy. The old bike & car fraternity are getting something that the modern car & bike fraternaty don't have.
I bet it's jealousy. The old bike & car fraternity are getting something that the modern car & bike fraternaty don't have.
AndyDRZ said:
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.
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.
If someone is seriously running a 1950s car to save themselves road tax and an MOT test fee, they might want to double check their calculations. The savings would be eaten up by poor fuel economy and repairs required just to keep the thing running. Plus National Express tickets if they ever want to go somewhere on the motorway.
Anyone would think I'd stumbled into the daily mail website.
Little task for the nimby's.....
Try to find a pre 60 car for less than a modern snotter with MOT, if you can find loads it's probably a bad idea but my guess is you wont find many at all.
The vehicles are still required to be roadworthy so what's the problem, when was the last time you saw a pre 60 car on the road anyway?
Little task for the nimby's.....
Try to find a pre 60 car for less than a modern snotter with MOT, if you can find loads it's probably a bad idea but my guess is you wont find many at all.
The vehicles are still required to be roadworthy so what's the problem, when was the last time you saw a pre 60 car on the road anyway?
Monkey boy 1 said:
I bet it's jealousy. The old bike & car fraternity are getting something that the modern car & bike fraternaty don't have.
In some cases it probably is, but the petition was actually set up by the editor of Classic & Sports Car, who it's fair to assume has more than a passing interest in pre-1960 cars.I do agree with the sentiment, though. It's nice to see the government doing something for car enthusiasts for a change. Plus I think some of the earlier comments about this being a work around for tougher MOT requirements may well be true (although God knows where that leaves a 1961 car...)
From what I've read, the petition isn't demanding that the MOT in it's current form is applied for older cars, it's asking for a specific test designed to assess road-worthiness on cars 25+ years old.
I'd envision that it'd be something like an annual service with the mechanic signing off a statement of road-worthiness, in-essence declaring that the wheels wont fall off and the brakes work as intended.
This must be worth implementing, Shirley?
I'd envision that it'd be something like an annual service with the mechanic signing off a statement of road-worthiness, in-essence declaring that the wheels wont fall off and the brakes work as intended.
This must be worth implementing, Shirley?
Chris71 said:
I do agree with the sentiment, though. It's nice to see the government doing something for car enthusiasts for a change.
The moment you do something in favour for enthusiasts, we all start whinging naturally. I on the otherhand think scrapping the MOT makes a lot sense. 
300bhp/ton said:
You'd drive it in, 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?
This is how it usually goes from personal experience:1. seatbelts - n/a
2. emissions - n/a
3. indicators - n/a
4. brake lights - n/a
5. head lights - can't be tested
6. brakes - can't be tested on rollers
7. significant play in suspension components - standard
8. significant play in steering linkage - standard
9. condition of hydraulic pipes etc - n/a
10 condition of CV boots etc - n/a
11. windscreen wipers - n/a
Most testers don't want cars like this in their workshops. They don't see them as interesting, they just see them as an awkward job which could lose them their job if they don't comply with the correct procedure. I have been refused a test on many occasions. This means you have to find a sympathetic tester, and drive your 85-year-old car somewhere miles away on a week day in rush hour traffic in the pouring rain on salted roads. The tester then looks at it, decides that it looks shiny enough, issues a pass, you hand some money over and after ten minutes talking about how 'they don't make them how they used to' you get back in the car, drive home and put it away while you wait for a sunny day to take it out again. That sunny day never arrives, and before you know it your MoT has expired so you have to repeat the process. If you don't get your MoT done due to weather etc and your tax disc is due then you have to declare SORN to avoid it being crushed for not paying road tax (which is free anyway). Then you have to take it back off SORN afterwards and apply for a tax disc (to demonstrate compliance with a tax which you don't have to pay anyway). If you have two or three cars like this then you can multiply the fun accordingly.
If anyone can demonstrate that this process improves road safety then I'm all ears.
wickenss 13:56  Â
From what I've read, the petition isn't demanding that the MOT in it's current form is applied for older cars, it's asking for a specific test designed to assess road-worthiness on cars 25+ years old.
I'd envision that it'd be something like an annual service with the mechanic signing off a statement of road-worthiness, in-essence declaring that the wheels wont fall off and the brakes work as intended.
This must be worth implementing, Shirley?
So how much of the tax payers money would you propose is spent on this new test? Any idea how many millions to devise, debate, revise, implement and govern?
And if taxes don't go up to pay for this, what is it that should be dropped to free up those millions?
From what I've read, the petition isn't demanding that the MOT in it's current form is applied for older cars, it's asking for a specific test designed to assess road-worthiness on cars 25+ years old.
I'd envision that it'd be something like an annual service with the mechanic signing off a statement of road-worthiness, in-essence declaring that the wheels wont fall off and the brakes work as intended.
This must be worth implementing, Shirley?
So how much of the tax payers money would you propose is spent on this new test? Any idea how many millions to devise, debate, revise, implement and govern?
And if taxes don't go up to pay for this, what is it that should be dropped to free up those millions?
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.
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.
My daily drive is a 1970 Beetle and despite owning this and previously owning a 1959 VW splitscreen van and knowing what a pain it is getting either through an MOT i am still against scrapping it.
Just take a look at all the 'rat look' vw's that are all the trend at the moment most of them are death traps with an MOT i'd dread to think what condition they would get in without one. There is also a potential to have a 1950's car that has been sat in a shed rotting away, the owner can now drag it out, pump the tyres up and off they go !
My Beetle got through a modern MOT with a load of welding but at least i know its safe (ish) for me and the kid i almost ran over the other week playing chicken in the road, who would have been dead if the brakes were in the condition they where when i first got the car.
Just take a look at all the 'rat look' vw's that are all the trend at the moment most of them are death traps with an MOT i'd dread to think what condition they would get in without one. There is also a potential to have a 1950's car that has been sat in a shed rotting away, the owner can now drag it out, pump the tyres up and off they go !
My Beetle got through a modern MOT with a load of welding but at least i know its safe (ish) for me and the kid i almost ran over the other week playing chicken in the road, who would have been dead if the brakes were in the condition they where when i first got the car.
Monkey boy 1 said:
Why on earth are people getting on their high horse about this ? The Government is actually given something back to the motoring enthusiast that we never thought of asking for, and yet we complain about it.
I bet it's jealousy. The old bike & car fraternity are getting something that the modern car & bike fraternaty don't have.
I dont understand, jealous of what?I bet it's jealousy. The old bike & car fraternity are getting something that the modern car & bike fraternaty don't have.
Jealous of saving £50 a year?
If your car is roadworthy why would you shy from proving it for 1 hour in 365 days?
How long before pre 1960 cars have other restrictions based on the fact they have no MOT?
Banned from motorways, banned from winter, banned in rain?
I want to continue to see classic and vintage cars on the road, making seperate easily passed restrictions on them will lesson there use.
Have a good think about it.
Birdthom said:
This is how it usually goes from personal experience:
1. seatbelts - n/a
2. emissions - n/a
3. indicators - n/a
4. brake lights - n/a
5. head lights - can't be tested
6. brakes - can't be tested on rollers
7. significant play in suspension components - standard
8. significant play in steering linkage - standard
9. condition of hydraulic pipes etc - n/a
10 condition of CV boots etc - n/a
11. windscreen wipers - n/a
Most testers don't want cars like this in their workshops. They don't see them as interesting, they just see them as an awkward job which could lose them their job if they don't comply with the correct procedure. I have been refused a test on many occasions. This means you have to find a sympathetic tester, and drive your 85-year-old car somewhere miles away on a week day in rush hour traffic in the pouring rain on salted roads. The tester then looks at it, decides that it looks shiny enough, issues a pass, you hand some money over and after ten minutes talking about how 'they don't make them how they used to' you get back in the car, drive home and put it away while you wait for a sunny day to take it out again. That sunny day never arrives, and before you know it your MoT has expired so you have to repeat the process. If you don't get your MoT done due to weather etc and your tax disc is due then you have to declare SORN to avoid it being crushed for not paying road tax (which is free anyway). Then you have to take it back off SORN afterwards and apply for a tax disc (to demonstrate compliance with a tax which you don't have to pay anyway). If you have two or three cars like this then you can multiply the fun accordingly.
If anyone can demonstrate that this process improves road safety then I'm all ears.
What he said!1. seatbelts - n/a
2. emissions - n/a
3. indicators - n/a
4. brake lights - n/a
5. head lights - can't be tested
6. brakes - can't be tested on rollers
7. significant play in suspension components - standard
8. significant play in steering linkage - standard
9. condition of hydraulic pipes etc - n/a
10 condition of CV boots etc - n/a
11. windscreen wipers - n/a
Most testers don't want cars like this in their workshops. They don't see them as interesting, they just see them as an awkward job which could lose them their job if they don't comply with the correct procedure. I have been refused a test on many occasions. This means you have to find a sympathetic tester, and drive your 85-year-old car somewhere miles away on a week day in rush hour traffic in the pouring rain on salted roads. The tester then looks at it, decides that it looks shiny enough, issues a pass, you hand some money over and after ten minutes talking about how 'they don't make them how they used to' you get back in the car, drive home and put it away while you wait for a sunny day to take it out again. That sunny day never arrives, and before you know it your MoT has expired so you have to repeat the process. If you don't get your MoT done due to weather etc and your tax disc is due then you have to declare SORN to avoid it being crushed for not paying road tax (which is free anyway). Then you have to take it back off SORN afterwards and apply for a tax disc (to demonstrate compliance with a tax which you don't have to pay anyway). If you have two or three cars like this then you can multiply the fun accordingly.
If anyone can demonstrate that this process improves road safety then I'm all ears.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff