EU directive to exempt pre-1984 cars from MOT
Discussion
http://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/news/general/8...
Reading this weeks ccw, looks very much as if this will be the case in a few years.
Slightly surprised tbh. There are a lot of cars in that category which are in everyday use and not owned by an enthusiast, therefore the potential for some death traps on the road. While most classics are well maintained, not all are, and most classics need their fair share!
On the other hand, it will save money and hassle, MOT's can be a pain for older cars. Jobsworths or garages not used to older cars for example. Also the MOT can be a waste of time, my MG had 26 year old tyres with 2mm of tread when I bought it, 12 months mot and not something i would consider safe!
Thoughts?
Reading this weeks ccw, looks very much as if this will be the case in a few years.
Slightly surprised tbh. There are a lot of cars in that category which are in everyday use and not owned by an enthusiast, therefore the potential for some death traps on the road. While most classics are well maintained, not all are, and most classics need their fair share!
On the other hand, it will save money and hassle, MOT's can be a pain for older cars. Jobsworths or garages not used to older cars for example. Also the MOT can be a waste of time, my MG had 26 year old tyres with 2mm of tread when I bought it, 12 months mot and not something i would consider safe!
Thoughts?
mgtony said:
I don't understand the no MOT plans, even for pre 60's cars. I'm all for saving money and less hassle on old cars, but why not a basic MOT which covers brakes, tyres, steering and any major rusting etc.
+1I don’t understand this at all, if anything old vehicles should be more frequently inspected than the average new car.
Liquid Tuna said:
OllieC said:
this will follow with hugely restricted use of said vehicles.
no thanks.
How will that work then? I thought an MOT is one of the biggest hurdles for an old car to get past? What else do they do to make it difficult to use one?no thanks.
I think that at the core, there is a certain amount of sense to not being able to expect an older car to meet the same standards as a newer car, and trying to add an ever-increasing number of layers of requirements for "generational" MOTs to avoid this being a complete pain, but also that removing the MOT requirement entirely is a mistake.
I'd settle for saying that the annual inspection for anything over a given age is basic stuff like no structural rust, no cracked/bulging tyres, no exhaust smoke, and it's got to brake in a straight line (or equivalent of maximum permitted variance side-to-side on rollers), plus any safety equipment fitted like belts etc must be in working condition.
I'd settle for saying that the annual inspection for anything over a given age is basic stuff like no structural rust, no cracked/bulging tyres, no exhaust smoke, and it's got to brake in a straight line (or equivalent of maximum permitted variance side-to-side on rollers), plus any safety equipment fitted like belts etc must be in working condition.
I've not heard anything about the 1984 date - and I rather doubt it too as the FBHVC would be getting all excited. I know they have had input on the consultation stages, but most of it hinged on the definition of a Historic Vehicle and the fact as first written, you might lose the historic name by improving the brakes.
As for the 1960 date, the problem with MOT testers is that quite a lot of them have no idea how an old car works. One chap I talk to had his Morgan 3 wheeler failed, had to tighten the steering joints dangerously to pass, and then correctly adjusted them in the street outside the test garage.
As for the 1960 date, the problem with MOT testers is that quite a lot of them have no idea how an old car works. One chap I talk to had his Morgan 3 wheeler failed, had to tighten the steering joints dangerously to pass, and then correctly adjusted them in the street outside the test garage.
As Slidingpillar has said there ar very few MOT tester left who know and understand pre 60s cars and what was considered acceptable at that time, the MOT Testers guide is just that a guide, you still have to use some discretion and cant test a vehicle to a standard that didnt exist when it was built. Anyway thats beside the point, doesnt everyone think this is just another way to get old vehicles of the road, they may not require an MOT legally but are Insurance companies going to be happy with that. Ussually on these sort of threads someone allways says well just get an MOT but you cant as the VOSA computer system doesnt let you log on a test for an exempt vehicle. Purpose built from new heavy wreckers and spectacle lift vehicles are MOT exempt but industry standard PAS43 which you must have to work for any of the big motoring organisations say that if MOT exempt you must have a VOSA roadworthiness certificate. Printed on these certificates in bold print is THIS CERTIFICATE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING or some words to that effect.
Ok so not this year, but when the no MOT thing for pre 60s was introduced I did ask a broker if they knew of any insurance companies insisting on a voluntary MOT. They didn't.
I responded to the survey on exemption when DVLC were asking and I thought pre WW2 was a better break point. There were some pretty fast cars made in 1959. XK150, Ford Galaxy etc.
I will admit to some bias as I have a 1930 car.
I responded to the survey on exemption when DVLC were asking and I thought pre WW2 was a better break point. There were some pretty fast cars made in 1959. XK150, Ford Galaxy etc.
I will admit to some bias as I have a 1930 car.
I see more modern cars that are death traps than older cars, old cars tend to be owned by enthusiasts, not all but a large percentage of them, modern cars tend to be owned by younge women who are more concerned about buying new seat covers than curing the lack of brake pad, mums who cant even fill the washer bottle let aloan check the tyre is inflated, younge men who think the metal reinforcement coming through the edge of tyre is normal, older men who think the MOT is the only requirement need to make a car safe.
I'd say over the last year the worst death traps i've had in the garage were 04 330 convertable, 07 Micra and a truely terrable T reg corsa, amongst the best kept was a Mk5 cortina and an S (78) reg Jag and a very well kept Mk1 mondeo.
Having said that i still dont think MOT exemption is a good thing for ANY vehical.
I'd say over the last year the worst death traps i've had in the garage were 04 330 convertable, 07 Micra and a truely terrable T reg corsa, amongst the best kept was a Mk5 cortina and an S (78) reg Jag and a very well kept Mk1 mondeo.
Having said that i still dont think MOT exemption is a good thing for ANY vehical.
k right off.We have this already in Belgium. Any car over 25 years can be registered as "oldtimer" and has a number plate beginning with "O". They are exempted from MOT and pay a lower road tax.
Until last year, O-plated cars were only allowed to be used within 25km of the address on the registration document, and not after dark. These restrictions didn't apply to cars taking part in organised rallies/club meet etc.
The rules have recently been relaxed and they can be used pretty much like any other car. I believe that they are not allowed to be used for work or commercial purposes.
Most people who have an O-plated car have another car anyway.
Until last year, O-plated cars were only allowed to be used within 25km of the address on the registration document, and not after dark. These restrictions didn't apply to cars taking part in organised rallies/club meet etc.
The rules have recently been relaxed and they can be used pretty much like any other car. I believe that they are not allowed to be used for work or commercial purposes.
Most people who have an O-plated car have another car anyway.
sunbeam alpine said:
We have this already in Belgium. Any car over 25 years can be registered as "oldtimer" and has a number plate beginning with "O". They are exempted from MOT and pay a lower road tax.
Until last year, O-plated cars were only allowed to be used within 25km of the address on the registration document, and not after dark. These restrictions didn't apply to cars taking part in organised rallies/club meet etc.
The rules have recently been relaxed and they can be used pretty much like any other car. I believe that they are not allowed to be used for work or commercial purposes.
Most people who have an O-plated car have another car anyway.
This is exactly the sort of thing I don't want.Until last year, O-plated cars were only allowed to be used within 25km of the address on the registration document, and not after dark. These restrictions didn't apply to cars taking part in organised rallies/club meet etc.
The rules have recently been relaxed and they can be used pretty much like any other car. I believe that they are not allowed to be used for work or commercial purposes.
Most people who have an O-plated car have another car anyway.
I regularly (well until the engine needed attention !) used my crapi for work and longer trips out etc, funnily enough it was useable at night as well... and definitely better maintained than some people who I know with under 10 year old cars.
Fair enough if the scheme in Belgium is optional, but I suspect this wont be the case with new legislation.
Latest very recent statement from the FBHVC :-
"EU Roadworthiness Directive
Well, the Directive on Roadworthiness Testing is now in place. From now on its implementation is in the hands of the Member States so FBHVC will be looking to encourage the Department for Transport to apply it sensibly. Following the furore about this legislation it is probably worth us bearing in mind a couple of things.
Firstly, the underlying purpose of the Directive is to improve road safety across Europe. There are of course those who would wish that the UK was not affected by anything across Europe, but that is not a debate into which the FBHVC can enter. It is necessary for us to engage fully with the system in order to achieve the best outcome for our members.
And the Directive is not solely, or even mainly, about historic vehicles. In fact its drafters have tried hard for it not to be about historic vehicles at all. So the Directive permits Member States to exempt historic vehicles from the new testing regime. It does appear that the UK Department for Transport (DfT) will exempt them.
Everyone has laboured mightily over the terms of the definition of what a historic vehicle is, but there are genuinely different views across the EU Member States as to what makes a vehicle authentic and how important actual authenticity is to a historic vehicle.
Of course the FBHVC’s position was, to simplify, that if it is old and cherished it is historic, but that does not make the people wrong who think that a vehicle should be fairly unchanged to qualify. And there is a valid question as to whether our fairly liberal regime in the UK permitting wide change to engines, brakes, gearboxes and bodies might not of itself be a safety risk. There, the devil will be in the detail and every example will be unique.
On the definition, part of it really helps us. DVLA already has its ‘Historic’ tax status, which they will wish to stick with as already being the national recognition of a vehicle as historic that the Directive requires. Their approach is already quite sophisticated in the way, for instance, it assumes buses and HGVs will be classified by what they do, not what they are.
The issue which will face us will be to make sure the DfT finds a practical way to interpret ‘substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components’.
DfT have already indicated that they will start by looking at safety, and if safety is not compromised they will wish to be as flexible as they can. I cannot guarantee we will satisfy everyone but we really will be making an effort to see that we have thought of as many of the problems as we can, and get them to the DfT.
Then we will be looking at testing. The test requirements set out in the Directive are the minimum standards. The UK may exceed some of them already. We simply don’t know how DfT will wish to adapt the existing MoT to be compliant (which is how I am sure they will see it), but we will be concentrating on maintaining the most flexible approach to testing to make it no more difficult to test an old vehicle which has somehow not met the criterion for being ‘historic’, than it is now.
So this job is just starting. Depending on how DfT deal with their obligation and with their stakeholders, of whom we are just one, it might be massive, purely formal, or something in between. It could last for up to four years which is the maximum time allowed to member states for compliance. We will be taking it seriously.
If anyone thinks they have spotted a possible issue, do let me know. Many already have and I am starting to keep a list to use in support of the task. Don’t necessarily expect a rapid reply as it will be a better use of my time to work up a brief for DfT than report back individually.
And one piece of advice; the less you assume that everyone in Brussels, London or wherever, concerned with the Directive is an idiot out to get us, the more seriously your points will be taken. It may interest you to know that a key official in the commission with specific responsibilities for this Directive is a Land Rover Series l enthusiast. Hardly a faceless bureaucrat then."
"EU Roadworthiness Directive
Well, the Directive on Roadworthiness Testing is now in place. From now on its implementation is in the hands of the Member States so FBHVC will be looking to encourage the Department for Transport to apply it sensibly. Following the furore about this legislation it is probably worth us bearing in mind a couple of things.
Firstly, the underlying purpose of the Directive is to improve road safety across Europe. There are of course those who would wish that the UK was not affected by anything across Europe, but that is not a debate into which the FBHVC can enter. It is necessary for us to engage fully with the system in order to achieve the best outcome for our members.
And the Directive is not solely, or even mainly, about historic vehicles. In fact its drafters have tried hard for it not to be about historic vehicles at all. So the Directive permits Member States to exempt historic vehicles from the new testing regime. It does appear that the UK Department for Transport (DfT) will exempt them.
Everyone has laboured mightily over the terms of the definition of what a historic vehicle is, but there are genuinely different views across the EU Member States as to what makes a vehicle authentic and how important actual authenticity is to a historic vehicle.
Of course the FBHVC’s position was, to simplify, that if it is old and cherished it is historic, but that does not make the people wrong who think that a vehicle should be fairly unchanged to qualify. And there is a valid question as to whether our fairly liberal regime in the UK permitting wide change to engines, brakes, gearboxes and bodies might not of itself be a safety risk. There, the devil will be in the detail and every example will be unique.
On the definition, part of it really helps us. DVLA already has its ‘Historic’ tax status, which they will wish to stick with as already being the national recognition of a vehicle as historic that the Directive requires. Their approach is already quite sophisticated in the way, for instance, it assumes buses and HGVs will be classified by what they do, not what they are.
The issue which will face us will be to make sure the DfT finds a practical way to interpret ‘substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components’.
DfT have already indicated that they will start by looking at safety, and if safety is not compromised they will wish to be as flexible as they can. I cannot guarantee we will satisfy everyone but we really will be making an effort to see that we have thought of as many of the problems as we can, and get them to the DfT.
Then we will be looking at testing. The test requirements set out in the Directive are the minimum standards. The UK may exceed some of them already. We simply don’t know how DfT will wish to adapt the existing MoT to be compliant (which is how I am sure they will see it), but we will be concentrating on maintaining the most flexible approach to testing to make it no more difficult to test an old vehicle which has somehow not met the criterion for being ‘historic’, than it is now.
So this job is just starting. Depending on how DfT deal with their obligation and with their stakeholders, of whom we are just one, it might be massive, purely formal, or something in between. It could last for up to four years which is the maximum time allowed to member states for compliance. We will be taking it seriously.
If anyone thinks they have spotted a possible issue, do let me know. Many already have and I am starting to keep a list to use in support of the task. Don’t necessarily expect a rapid reply as it will be a better use of my time to work up a brief for DfT than report back individually.
And one piece of advice; the less you assume that everyone in Brussels, London or wherever, concerned with the Directive is an idiot out to get us, the more seriously your points will be taken. It may interest you to know that a key official in the commission with specific responsibilities for this Directive is a Land Rover Series l enthusiast. Hardly a faceless bureaucrat then."
imagineifyeswill said:
Ussually on these sort of threads someone allways says well just get an MOT but you cant as the VOSA computer system doesnt let you log on a test for an exempt vehicle.
I didn't know that, and I would have been one of those who suggested having an MOT done anyway. But that doesn't stop a garage that does MOT tests doing an MOT-like assessment of the vehicle, even if it's not a proper MOT test. Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff