RE: MoTs scrapped for pre-1960 cars
Discussion
I own a pre 1960 car and use a 1969 car as my daily driver.
This is a bad idea, its the first move towards stopping us using our old cars freely.
I met a chap from Australia recently and he has his 1966 Austin on a show plates, which means he can only go back forth to old car events in it and is not able to use it as transport. At the moment in Australia that is his choice, he can pay more and get the normal plates, but its a portent of things to come.
Any right thinking old car enthusiast should oppose this. The first time anyone is injured in an incident involving an old car the media will rip our hobby to bits, whether the injury is anything to do with the old car's road-worthiness or not.
John
This is a bad idea, its the first move towards stopping us using our old cars freely.
I met a chap from Australia recently and he has his 1966 Austin on a show plates, which means he can only go back forth to old car events in it and is not able to use it as transport. At the moment in Australia that is his choice, he can pay more and get the normal plates, but its a portent of things to come.
Any right thinking old car enthusiast should oppose this. The first time anyone is injured in an incident involving an old car the media will rip our hobby to bits, whether the injury is anything to do with the old car's road-worthiness or not.
John
jamespink said:
I can see the insurance report now. MOT present... No... Fine tooth comb inspection of the post prang pre '60 car in question to ascertain on how many counts the insurance company can justify not paying out! "We regret to inform you we will not cover your or the third parties claim as (insert any MOT fail point here) was defective. The current MOT test sets a standard of road-worthiness that is not questioned currently. Just watch the insurers revoke £5000 claims on a £100 per year policy "because they can". Good plan!
You do realise that this is the case already? In a big enough prang, if the car is deemed not road worthy for some reason (bald tyres, defective brakes etc?) then the insurance company can (and does) wriggle! An MOT means nothing other than that the car was roadworthy on the day of inspection! It is not a guarantee that the car will remain roadworthy for the next 12 months.
You could still get done if the car is not roadworthy by the Police if they ever see you so it's not completely pointless. Those who go and get a shed and use this as a loophole are probably those that would not bother to MOT their car anyway. There are probably as many pre 1960 cars owned by idiots as there are tractors and other vehicles that are MOT exempt anyway so I doubt there will be a wave of accidents from this.
I think this article presents an interesting take on the situation - not least about the way to voting happened (or rather, didn't) : http://www.classicsmonthly.com/2012/05/21/mot-exem...
Seams an odd move! This could be where insurance company's now come into their own tho, they would be perfectly within their right to refuse to insure someones pre 60 car that doesn't carry a valid mot. So no mot = uninsured and if your uninsured then I'm sure Robbie the bobbie would happily send you an invite to the 6 points and a fine party!
Can anyone honestly see Classic Car Insurance policies (or regular ones for that matter) still being available to those cars that don't have a valid MOT? I think it's unlikely isn't it.
It's the 'Owners of pre 1960s vehicles will still have to prove they're in a road worthy condition...." that is the worrying part. How? By whom? Will that be a sanctioned body of testers? If so why not just keep the current MOT arrangement going?
In the case of you being involved in an an accident will that mean policeman plod decides if you're car as road worthy? Thats a worrying prospect isn't it, as quite frankly I wouldn't trust your average copper to make toast without fking it up.
Strange move IMO.
It's the 'Owners of pre 1960s vehicles will still have to prove they're in a road worthy condition...." that is the worrying part. How? By whom? Will that be a sanctioned body of testers? If so why not just keep the current MOT arrangement going?
In the case of you being involved in an an accident will that mean policeman plod decides if you're car as road worthy? Thats a worrying prospect isn't it, as quite frankly I wouldn't trust your average copper to make toast without fking it up.
Strange move IMO.
FWDRacer said:
This thread proves that PH is a healthy barometer of oppinion.
You can't argue with the logic tho' in many older cars being "very" roadworthy - witness the beards checking the washer bottle levels on their MG's on a Sunday morning.
We dont all have beards i struggle to grow one haha!You can't argue with the logic tho' in many older cars being "very" roadworthy - witness the beards checking the washer bottle levels on their MG's on a Sunday morning.
Then again i wouldnt describe my mg as 'very roadworthy' it dosent go backwards hmmm really should look at that!!
AG
You still have to comply with the C&U regs if using on the road (legal tyres, working lights etc)
Owners of these types of cars need to know how they work to operate them, so having a mechanical understanding of their vehicles from a maintenance perspective is a necessity.
I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Owners of these types of cars need to know how they work to operate them, so having a mechanical understanding of their vehicles from a maintenance perspective is a necessity.
I can't see what all the fuss is about.
marshalla said:
<cynic>
Could it be that this move has been introduced because there just aren't enough MOT testers around with sufficient knowledge of older vehicles to be able to test them properly ?
</cynic>
An MOT test is an MOT test, age is immeterial as there's different regs for different ages of cars. As someone who has a reasonable knowledge of older cars I tend to be more lenient with classics with some items so I can see where this idea is coming from. Things like tyre condition etc. will still be picked up by VOSA and BIB on roadside checks.Could it be that this move has been introduced because there just aren't enough MOT testers around with sufficient knowledge of older vehicles to be able to test them properly ?
</cynic>
andymadmak said:
KM666 said:
I'm off down the scrappy later see if I cant find something pre 1960. Shove a V8 in it, remove the brakes and fit racing slicks... When I plough into a bus queue of schoolchildren it'll be fine because the car was legal afterall.
FFS NO IT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!You still have a legal responsibility to ensure the car is fit for the road. Just like, if your brake lamps failed the day after your MOT on a 5 year old car you would be legally responsible for getting them working again!
Jeez!
Re-windy1 I thought there was room for allowence for period details, i.e. period tyres, brakes, etc. I wouldnt classify 1960s tyre technology as roadworthy myself.
Edited by KM666 on Monday 21st May 17:57
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff