MOT Exemption - Thoughts
Discussion
My car is (almost) 50 years old. It was 'substantially changed' (heavily modified) just over 30 years ago.
I believe that it qualifies as being exempt from needing an MOT. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/histori...
I 'could' have elected not to have an MOT this year, but I like the thought of an independent expert running an eye over the car - some safety issues can arise progressively so that as the only driver I might not notice (say) slowly deteriorating stopping distances etc.
Now my car, for the Tester, must be one of the quickest MOT tests.
There are lights, indicators, brake lights, horn etc and steering / brakes / handbrakes obviously
But conversely, no bodywork to rust (alloy/grp), no doors, no boot, no windscreen (no wipers/ washers demister etc) and it's far too old for any emissions test etc
'Coz it's an old car, I get it up on ramps and give everything underneath a quick once over when greasing nipples (oooh-er, missus!) as part of it's service schedule.
The only thing it (has occasionally) fails on is the parking brake - old cars (often) get stretched cables and so, as a consequence I always park in gear (it's a habit - I always park in gear, no matter what car I'm driving.)
So I pay £45 to stand around and watch someone test all the simple things that I check at home before the test....... And then put the car on the brake test machine.
Or, should I just go to an MOT station and ask them to test the brakes - give the operator a couple of £ for their time. A 'printed' break test result would 'prove' that I made at least some effort to test basic safety issues (other than the obvious ones; that every motorist should test at home, irrespective of a formal MOT)
Obviously, as my car is MOT exempt I could just save the money.... but there is always that nagging doubt that a slowly arising issue has been missed.
What would PH'ers do in my situation?
I believe that it qualifies as being exempt from needing an MOT. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/histori...
I 'could' have elected not to have an MOT this year, but I like the thought of an independent expert running an eye over the car - some safety issues can arise progressively so that as the only driver I might not notice (say) slowly deteriorating stopping distances etc.
Now my car, for the Tester, must be one of the quickest MOT tests.
There are lights, indicators, brake lights, horn etc and steering / brakes / handbrakes obviously
But conversely, no bodywork to rust (alloy/grp), no doors, no boot, no windscreen (no wipers/ washers demister etc) and it's far too old for any emissions test etc
'Coz it's an old car, I get it up on ramps and give everything underneath a quick once over when greasing nipples (oooh-er, missus!) as part of it's service schedule.
The only thing it (has occasionally) fails on is the parking brake - old cars (often) get stretched cables and so, as a consequence I always park in gear (it's a habit - I always park in gear, no matter what car I'm driving.)
So I pay £45 to stand around and watch someone test all the simple things that I check at home before the test....... And then put the car on the brake test machine.
Or, should I just go to an MOT station and ask them to test the brakes - give the operator a couple of £ for their time. A 'printed' break test result would 'prove' that I made at least some effort to test basic safety issues (other than the obvious ones; that every motorist should test at home, irrespective of a formal MOT)
Obviously, as my car is MOT exempt I could just save the money.... but there is always that nagging doubt that a slowly arising issue has been missed.
What would PH'ers do in my situation?
I'm intending to have mine tested, purely because of the brake tester. I can send it anywhere for someone to run a second pair of eyes over everything to make sure there's nothing I have missed, but they can't check the brakes and, as you say, they can go gradually and you might not notice, especially if you don't drive the car a lot.
I say "intending" because they're both out of MOT by about 12 months now, but I think maybe once every couple of years isn't unreasonable. I've checked with my insurance company, they don't require an MOT if the vehicle is exempt.
You can get brake testing machines - either second hand or new - the kind that sit on the floor and record the braking effort. But they won't show you an imbalance like the MOT machines do. You won't know about that until it's so bad as to be noticeable, and on rear brakes that might be quite some time.
I say "intending" because they're both out of MOT by about 12 months now, but I think maybe once every couple of years isn't unreasonable. I've checked with my insurance company, they don't require an MOT if the vehicle is exempt.
You can get brake testing machines - either second hand or new - the kind that sit on the floor and record the braking effort. But they won't show you an imbalance like the MOT machines do. You won't know about that until it's so bad as to be noticeable, and on rear brakes that might be quite some time.
I always get my classic MoTed, for the reason you quote, to have another trained eye run over it.
The guy who does mine has raised small queries, not even 'notifications', that have stimulated me to do things to it for reliability and absolute safety.
But my paranoid keeps popping up its head, and saying, this is a plot to get rid of old cars. If enough old cars have or cause accidents, and The Management can point to their lack of an MoT, then this would become a PR weapon to ban them. For the safety of the public, of course!
John
The guy who does mine has raised small queries, not even 'notifications', that have stimulated me to do things to it for reliability and absolute safety.
But my paranoid keeps popping up its head, and saying, this is a plot to get rid of old cars. If enough old cars have or cause accidents, and The Management can point to their lack of an MoT, then this would become a PR weapon to ban them. For the safety of the public, of course!
John
I understand your thought, but part of the justification for exempting older classics from MOT was that statistics show that they're not generally involved in disproportionately high numbers of accidents / collisions / call them what you will. Only time and statistics will tell whether those numbers increase after the exemption. You'd like to think that if they do, the sensible reaction would be to remove the exemption and insist on an MOT, rather than just ban the vehicles.
For me its another pair of eyes and its an additional condition check for the insurance company should it be needed - although i know its only valid on the day etc etc.
It just seems to be the sensible thing to do, I am amazed that insurance companies don't insist on it in their terms and conditions.
It just seems to be the sensible thing to do, I am amazed that insurance companies don't insist on it in their terms and conditions.
droopsnoot said:
I understand your thought, but part of the justification for exempting older classics from MOT was that statistics show that they're not generally involved in disproportionately high numbers of accidents / collisions / call them what you will.
As I recall it was also linked to a very low MoT failure rate for old cars. Again superficially attractive, but not really logical as most of us would try to check the thing over before submitting it for test.Anyhow the "second pair of eyes" logic is sound and particularly so for those of us who maintain our own old cars and work alone. Cheap at the price.
I drive and work on the Alfa regularly enough to spot most issues as they develop - failed electrics, worn tyres/brakes/wheel bearings, leaky exhausts and so on. The car is almost entirely rust free (no really!), but obviously I keep a weather eye on that too.
However, if the car needs professional attention for any reason, then I'll request that all steering/suspension components are given the once over for play or any other signs of distress etc - stuff which is not always obvious visually or from a driving perspective (short-term), as the rate of deterioration might be quite slow. Case in point, the steering box was developing some play earlier this year, which I confess I had just got used to until someone flagged it up.
So yes, the principle of 'fresh eyes' as others have alluded to.
However, if the car needs professional attention for any reason, then I'll request that all steering/suspension components are given the once over for play or any other signs of distress etc - stuff which is not always obvious visually or from a driving perspective (short-term), as the rate of deterioration might be quite slow. Case in point, the steering box was developing some play earlier this year, which I confess I had just got used to until someone flagged it up.
So yes, the principle of 'fresh eyes' as others have alluded to.
I take the view that a pair of fresh, independent eyes are always worthwhile - familiarity breeding contempt or something like that. The pass might also be useful in the event of arguments after an accident.
My policy is that if the car's in a condition such that you might use it, then it's better to test it.
My policy is that if the car's in a condition such that you might use it, then it's better to test it.
Not many garages less than £50/hour these days, more like £60+ with VAT. I think if you can get an MoT for £40 or so and use the brake tester, get it up on a lift and check steering/suspension for play, get properly underneath to look for leaks, etc. once a year, then it's good actually quite good value. Not to mention peace of mind.
Allan L said:
As I recall it was also linked to a very low MoT failure rate for old cars. Again superficially attractive, but not really logical as most of us would try to check the thing over before submitting it for test.
Anyhow the "second pair of eyes" logic is sound and particularly so for those of us who maintain our own old cars and work alone. Cheap at the price.
As I recall the failure rate for "old cars" was in the region of 30%Anyhow the "second pair of eyes" logic is sound and particularly so for those of us who maintain our own old cars and work alone. Cheap at the price.
Had I been 'in charge' of changes to the MOT system, I'd would have suggested a two tier MOT.
Standard Vehicle MOT for non historic cars (ie new, less than 40 years old)
Historic Vehicle MOT - basic tests - structure, lights, brakes steering etc but no emissions / ABS etc at a reduced rate.
HV MOTs could be carried out by 'basic' garages, rather than specialised MOT stations as part of a service package
Standard Vehicle MOT for non historic cars (ie new, less than 40 years old)
Historic Vehicle MOT - basic tests - structure, lights, brakes steering etc but no emissions / ABS etc at a reduced rate.
HV MOTs could be carried out by 'basic' garages, rather than specialised MOT stations as part of a service package
alfaspecial said:
Had I been 'in charge' of changes to the MOT system, I'd would have suggested a two tier MOT.
Standard Vehicle MOT for non historic cars (ie new, less than 40 years old)
Historic Vehicle MOT - basic tests - structure, lights, brakes steering etc but no emissions / ABS etc at a reduced rate.
That's more or less how it worked, in my experience. Standard Vehicle MOT for non historic cars (ie new, less than 40 years old)
Historic Vehicle MOT - basic tests - structure, lights, brakes steering etc but no emissions / ABS etc at a reduced rate.
The manual had a number of dates of manufacture after which standards of (e.g.) brake performance changed so pre-1925 cars did not need front-wheel brakes and the brake performance did not have a specific numerical value.
I had to make DVLA recognise that my 1912 car was not "first used" in 1921 which was when the introduction of the buff logbook took place. As it happened the brakes met the 1921 requirement, but shouldn't have had to.
Edited by Allan L on Saturday 16th November 09:09
droopsnoot said:
I understand your thought, but part of the justification for exempting older classics from MOT was that statistics show that they're not generally involved in disproportionately high numbers of accidents / collisions / call them what you will. Only time and statistics will tell whether those numbers increase after the exemption. You'd like to think that if they do, the sensible reaction would be to remove the exemption and insist on an MOT, rather than just ban the vehicles.
Why even bring up banning vehicles????? alfaspecial said:
My car is (almost) 50 years old. It was 'substantially changed' (heavily modified) just over 30 years ago.
I believe that it qualifies as being exempt from needing an MOT. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/histori...
I 'could' have elected not to have an MOT this year, but I like the thought of an independent expert running an eye over the car - some safety issues can arise progressively so that as the only driver I might not notice (say) slowly deteriorating stopping distances etc.
Now my car, for the Tester, must be one of the quickest MOT tests.
There are lights, indicators, brake lights, horn etc and steering / brakes / handbrakes obviously
But conversely, no bodywork to rust (alloy/grp), no doors, no boot, no windscreen (no wipers/ washers demister etc) and it's far too old for any emissions test etc
'Coz it's an old car, I get it up on ramps and give everything underneath a quick once over when greasing nipples (oooh-er, missus!) as part of it's service schedule.
The only thing it (has occasionally) fails on is the parking brake - old cars (often) get stretched cables and so, as a consequence I always park in gear (it's a habit - I always park in gear, no matter what car I'm driving.)
So I pay £45 to stand around and watch someone test all the simple things that I check at home before the test....... And then put the car on the brake test machine.
Or, should I just go to an MOT station and ask them to test the brakes - give the operator a couple of £ for their time. A 'printed' break test result would 'prove' that I made at least some effort to test basic safety issues (other than the obvious ones; that every motorist should test at home, irrespective of a formal MOT)
Obviously, as my car is MOT exempt I could just save the money.... but there is always that nagging doubt that a slowly arising issue has been missed.
What would PH'ers do in my situation?
Do what you want really. I believe that it qualifies as being exempt from needing an MOT. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/histori...
I 'could' have elected not to have an MOT this year, but I like the thought of an independent expert running an eye over the car - some safety issues can arise progressively so that as the only driver I might not notice (say) slowly deteriorating stopping distances etc.
Now my car, for the Tester, must be one of the quickest MOT tests.
There are lights, indicators, brake lights, horn etc and steering / brakes / handbrakes obviously
But conversely, no bodywork to rust (alloy/grp), no doors, no boot, no windscreen (no wipers/ washers demister etc) and it's far too old for any emissions test etc
'Coz it's an old car, I get it up on ramps and give everything underneath a quick once over when greasing nipples (oooh-er, missus!) as part of it's service schedule.
The only thing it (has occasionally) fails on is the parking brake - old cars (often) get stretched cables and so, as a consequence I always park in gear (it's a habit - I always park in gear, no matter what car I'm driving.)
So I pay £45 to stand around and watch someone test all the simple things that I check at home before the test....... And then put the car on the brake test machine.
Or, should I just go to an MOT station and ask them to test the brakes - give the operator a couple of £ for their time. A 'printed' break test result would 'prove' that I made at least some effort to test basic safety issues (other than the obvious ones; that every motorist should test at home, irrespective of a formal MOT)
Obviously, as my car is MOT exempt I could just save the money.... but there is always that nagging doubt that a slowly arising issue has been missed.
What would PH'ers do in my situation?
At the end of the day, the vehicle needs to be just as road worthy whether you get an MoT or not. The only legal change is you aren’t forced into a check once a year. Nothing has changed legally about the condition the vehicle needs to be in.
If you don’t feel confident to keep it in order without someone looking at it. Then get a garage to inspect it or go for the formal MoT. Although I’m not 100% sure what the situation would be if it failed and you didn’t get it retested.
Ultimately if you were involved in an RTI I very much doubt an MoT would offer you any protection at all.
Allan L said:
droopsnoot said:
I understand your thought, but part of the justification for exempting older classics from MOT was that statistics show that they're not generally involved in disproportionately high numbers of accidents / collisions / call them what you will.
As I recall it was also linked to a very low MoT failure rate for old cars. Again superficially attractive, but not really logical as most of us would try to check the thing over before submitting it for test.Anyhow the "second pair of eyes" logic is sound and particularly so for those of us who maintain our own old cars and work alone. Cheap at the price.
It is more about the number of vehicles in total and Historic vehicles making up something like 0.01% of the vehicles on the road.
Then take this further that the majority of Historic vehicles cover very short annual mileages (suspect a great number are under 3000 miles a year and a lot even under 1000 miles a year). Meaning the amount of hours spent on the road in a year is very very low.
Then consider the majority of the miles and time these vehicles spend on the roads is not likely to be during peak commuting hours.
So the chances of these cars being involved in RTI’s is statistically very very low. And then also consider should these vehicles be in an RTI what are the chances it would be due to something that an MoT would have detected.
300bhp/ton said:
Why even bring up banning vehicles?????
I didn't, I was replying to the previous post:tapkaJohnD said:
But my paranoid keeps popping up its head, and saying, this is a plot to get rid of old cars. If enough old cars have or cause accidents, and The Management can point to their lack of an MoT, then this would become a PR weapon to ban them. For the safety of the public, of course!
John
John
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff