RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Discussion
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.
Yep. If we scrap the MoT then Watchdog will be full of reports on rogue MG TC dealers, or stories about cut 'n' shut Armstrong Siddeleys.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.
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.
Sounds like an interesting jallopy, but no images in your profile. Can I have a peek,please?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.
I'm a bit tied up atm, but when I get home, I'll do an analysis of the MOT failure spreadsheet at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/mot...
A cursory glance shows those pre-1960s cars have a pretty poor pass rate. So, what, if we don't test them they'll be more roadworthy?
A cursory glance shows those pre-1960s cars have a pretty poor pass rate. So, what, if we don't test them they'll be more roadworthy?
davepen said:
Er... isn't this 6 months too late?
Why didn't you run a campaign during the consultation period?
On the main thread...
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.
The point is that the polarised reaction to the news that the MoT is being scrapped for pre-1960s cars (and most of it that I have seen is wary about the change or dead against it) suggests that the consultation was not thorough enough (400-odd people wasn't it?) and many people did not take part or even know it was happening.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?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.
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.
It is definitely not too late to start a petition asking for a rethink on that basis, the whole point of petitions is that it is never too late. The fact that rolling road tax exemption has been suspended for a decade doesn't stop people asking for it to be reinstated.
If people are against this they still have the right to have their say, that's what democracy is all about.
What non-Govermental consultation there was, is in my view also being slightly misrepresented. The figure from the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs' survey which is being widely quoted as 75% of the 4000 respondents supporting the law-change was actually answering a different question (whether they were in favour of some relaxation) and the true figure was under 60%.
For total transparency, here are the actual results from the FBHVC:
74% of respondents believe that the MoT testing regime for historic vehicles should be relaxed in some way while 26% believe the test should continue as it is.
71% respondents believe that pre-1960 historic vehicles in commercial use should remain subject to testing even if other pre-1960 vehicles are exempted. 14% said commercial use should make no difference to testing requirements; 15% did not answer the question.
53% of respondents said they would take their vehicles for test if this could be done on a voluntary basis; 33% said they would not seek a voluntary test; 14% did not answer.
The 74% of those who support some relaxation is made up as follows: 59% agree with the proposal that all pre-1960 vehicles should be exempt; 8% believe the exemption should be limited to pre-1945 vehicles; 3% think only pre-1920 vehicles should be exempt and 4% think there should be some relaxation, but do not agree with the three options above.
Message to everyone: if you don't like it, don't sign it, but it is simply there for those who don't agree with the legislation or don't feel that they have been heard so far. And judging by the responses, there are clearly plenty of enthusiasts who are opposed to the legislation.
Removal of red tape in any form is a good idea, most people care enough about their own well being without government enforcement.
As some have previously stated existing legislation will still prevent people from driving round in cars completely held together with Pritt Stick/Duct Tape/Cling Film/Blu Tac and the like.
I'm guessing the government is testing the water with ideas like this and the 80mph limit. If sucessful more will be introduced if not then we will remain in the great age of speed cameras, driving at 50mph on major A roads and speed humps on main roads through major cities
As some have previously stated existing legislation will still prevent people from driving round in cars completely held together with Pritt Stick/Duct Tape/Cling Film/Blu Tac and the like.
I'm guessing the government is testing the water with ideas like this and the 80mph limit. If sucessful more will be introduced if not then we will remain in the great age of speed cameras, driving at 50mph on major A roads and speed humps on main roads through major cities
thejpster said:
I'm a bit tied up atm, but when I get home, I'll do an analysis of the MOT failure spreadsheet at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/mot...
A cursory glance shows those pre-1960s cars have a pretty poor pass rate. So, what, if we don't test them they'll be more roadworthy?
No they will be restricted to 5mph for 5 minutes on Feb the 29th.A cursory glance shows those pre-1960s cars have a pretty poor pass rate. So, what, if we don't test them they'll be more roadworthy?
But birdthom and 300bhp will be happy because now they have gained an hour and £50.
Froomee said:
As some have previously stated existing legislation will still prevent people from driving round in cars completely held together with Pritt Stick/Duct Tape/Cling Film/Blu Tac and the like.
The whole point is that it won't. The law will make owners responsible for not driving around in cars held together with bales and twine, but, apart from random checks, there will be absolutely no method of enforcing that, as there is (for at least one day a year) at the moment. And no one can convince me that every single owner of a pre-1960 vehicle is sufficiently good with the spanners and sufficiently diligent to ensure that every pre-1960 vehicle is roadworthy year in year old.I hate the MoT and the wealth of pain it brings every year, but I can appreciate why it is there. I am lucky in that I have a classic-sympathetic tester, but, rather than just scrap the test for pre-1960 stuff, why not introduce a basic safety test (structural integrity, brakes, lights, bearings, fuel leaks and the like) for all older vehicles.
jamesatcandsc said:
The whole point is that it won't. The law will make owners responsible for not driving around in cars held together with bales and twine, but, apart from random checks, there will be absolutely no method of enforcing that, as there is (for at least one day a year) at the moment. And no one can convince me that every single owner of a pre-1960 vehicle is sufficiently good with the spanners and sufficiently diligent to ensure that every pre-1960 vehicle is roadworthy year in year old.
I hate the MoT and the wealth of pain it brings every year, but I can appreciate why it is there. I am lucky in that I have a classic-sympathetic tester, but, rather than just scrap the test for pre-1960 stuff, why not introduce a basic safety test (structural integrity, brakes, lights, bearings, fuel leaks and the like) for all older vehicles.
I'd vote for that, especially if "older" is defined as pre-1980!I hate the MoT and the wealth of pain it brings every year, but I can appreciate why it is there. I am lucky in that I have a classic-sympathetic tester, but, rather than just scrap the test for pre-1960 stuff, why not introduce a basic safety test (structural integrity, brakes, lights, bearings, fuel leaks and the like) for all older vehicles.
Only skimmed the thread but wondered if there are any MOT testers present who have a view? I'd imagine if you aren't regularly doing older vehicles then checking what you do have to cover for a specific year is a real pain?
Out of interest, I've stuck a poll up to see what the consensus of opinion on here is: http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...
jamesatcandsc said:
The whole point is that it won't. The law will make owners responsible for not driving around in cars held together with bales and twine, but, apart from random checks, there will be absolutely no method of enforcing that, as there is (for at least one day a year) at the moment. And no one can convince me that every single owner of a pre-1960 vehicle is sufficiently good with the spanners and sufficiently diligent to ensure that every pre-1960 vehicle is roadworthy year in year old.
I hate the MoT and the wealth of pain it brings every year, but I can appreciate why it is there. I am lucky in that I have a classic-sympathetic tester, but, rather than just scrap the test for pre-1960 stuff, why not introduce a basic safety test (structural integrity, brakes, lights, bearings, fuel leaks and the like) for all older vehicles.
I agree that the modern MoT test is irrelevant to older cars and that a new more appropriate test would be better, but implementing a new test regime for older cars is going to be more trouble than it's worth. That being so, we can either insist that owners of older cars continue to go through an irrelevant test, or remove the requirement for testing. The owners themselves don't have to be good with the spanners, they just have to get their car serviced and keep it roadworthy, which is what people do anyway and will continue to be a legal obligation.I hate the MoT and the wealth of pain it brings every year, but I can appreciate why it is there. I am lucky in that I have a classic-sympathetic tester, but, rather than just scrap the test for pre-1960 stuff, why not introduce a basic safety test (structural integrity, brakes, lights, bearings, fuel leaks and the like) for all older vehicles.
Objecting to the removal of the MoT test could just put us back to where we started, which is no use to anyone. I really can't believe that you of all people are objecting in this way.
As per the Govt website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-pres...
“Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money.”
“Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money.”
ZeroT said:
As per the Govt website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-pres...
“Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money.”
Surely one could argue the same about all cars. The question is how much you trust the general public. “Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money.”
GadgeS3C said:
I'd vote for that, especially if "older" is defined as pre-1980!
I think 1980 ('85 at latest) is a sensible date for C&SC's proposal; it should not be on a rolling basis - once you get to the late 80s when stuff like ABS, airbags and increased electronic complexity etc are becoming common, I think a more substantial test remains justified. Move forward to 2020 and with C&SC's current proposal you would have stuff like W140 S-class' and GTR Skylines only needing a 'basic check'. What happens when cars >25 years old have drive-by-wire throttles, active suspension, brake assist, ESP/stability/traction control, direct injection, leaky hybrid batteries etc etc..... I can see how the basic safety issues which the MOT test will need to cover in the future is going to have to change quite a bit.
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 ?
There is no such thing as standard configuration on many pre-war cars. They were built to the buyer's order and specification, with no 'standard' specification. It would be possible to take a 1959 mini or land rover and fit a dirty great engine in it, use it every day and be exempt from tax, MoT and seatbelt requirements. It is pretty unlikely though, and it doesn't seem worth legislating against. As mentioned several times, it would still be illegal and cars like this could still be taken off the road.
braddo said:
GadgeS3C said:
I'd vote for that, especially if "older" is defined as pre-1980!
I think 1980 ('85 at latest) is a sensible date for C&SC's proposal; it should not be on a rolling basis - once you get to the late 80s when stuff like ABS, airbags and increased electronic complexity etc are becoming common, I think a more substantial test remains justified. Move forward to 2020 and with C&SC's current proposal you would have stuff like W140 S-class' and GTR Skylines only needing a 'basic check'. What happens when cars >25 years old have drive-by-wire throttles, active suspension, brake assist, ESP/stability/traction control, direct injection, leaky hybrid batteries etc etc..... I can see how the basic safety issues which the MOT test will need to cover in the future is going to have to change quite a bit.
Maybe I should start another one...
jrampton said:
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.
Pretty much my thoughts on it. I've got a 1961 Beetle, and even if it was pre '60 I'd be opposed to no MOT's. I've seen some real death traps at shows and I'd hate to be anywhere near them. I've had a lucky escape myself, car booked in for an MOT, and on the pre MOT check my mechanic found I had a cracked rear wheel, it's not visible from the outside and hadn't let any air out. Without an MOT check it was a massive accident waiting to happen. And this is on a car maintained without questioning what needs to be done.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.
On another note, I think the MOT should be every year and not when the car reaches 3 years old, there are people driving round with shagged tyres and brakes way before then...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff