Wednesday 23rd May 2012

E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT

Don't like the plans to scrap a compulsory MoT for older cars? Voice your opinions here!

---

Judging by your responses to the news on Monday that compulsory MoTs are to be scrapped for cars built before 1960, there are plenty of PHers out there of the opinion that this is a mad, bad and potentially dangerous move on the part of the Government.

Well, it seems like Classic & Sports Car's James Elliott quite agrees; he's set up an online e-petition opposing the Government's plans

"Clearly a lot of people strongly disagree with the Government's plans, so I have started one of those e-petition thingies to oppose it," he says.

The petition reads as follows:

"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 James's petition here.

 

[Birdthom]

Am I missing something? Are we really going to complain that we think the government is being too relaxed about this?

When was the last time you saw a pre-1960 car cause any form of accident due to a failure which would have been prevented by an annual MoT, or which isn't captured by the obligation to maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition?

Yes, the MoT is irrelevant to older cars and in an ideal world it should should be replaced by some other more relevant form of test, but is it really worth the time and effort to come up with this new system and train all the MoT testers to deal with it? There are many more important things going on at the moment...

Come on, people, get a grip.

[Birdthom]

kambites said:

Um, well obviously we haven't because they currently have to have anual MoTs.

Seems like an utterly absurd plan to me.

Most pre-60 cars now fall into two categories:

1. Rusty old snotters which require total restoration
2. Restored or preserved cars which are kept shiny in garages

The first category would be very obvious if anyone tries to use them on the road, and are covered by existing legislation without any reference to MoT testing. The second category aren't a danger to anyone.

I have two pre-war cars tucked away in pristine condition. I don't get to use them very often, but they are maintained perfectly and nothing ever goes wrong on them - there is nothing to break or wear out. Quite often I find that I can't use them when I want because the MoT has lapsed and I haven't had it renewed. It's not easy to take two old cars over to the other side of the county to find a sensible MoT tester who is able to look at a car like that, and it is a completely pointless exercise.

My everyday car is more modern, gets used all the time, suffers more wear and tear and has more consumable and perishable parts so an MoT is absolutely necessary. It's a massive waste of time and effort on the older cars though.

[Birdthom]

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.

[Birdthom]

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.

[Birdthom]

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.

[Birdthom]

pingu393 said:

Sounds like an interesting jallopy, but no images in your profile. Can I have a peek,please?

I don't have any pics online, but it's a 1926 Riley sidevalve. Really good fun. I took it for its MoT last night, as it happens.

[Birdthom]

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.

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.

[Birdthom]

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.

[Birdthom]

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.