RE: MoTs scrapped for pre-1960 cars
Discussion
As one of the "beards" with a lot of pre 1973 stuff in the garage I can tell you this was a shock to the classic car community. Various polls in the classic car press show the vast majority oppose this and voted as such in the Government review. Reason of course is responsible owners who value their and others safety are happy to pay £50 a year for a safety check, and it helps keep insurance costs down.
(For those not aware most owners of classics only pay about £100 a year for agreed value fully comp insurance).
First time there is an incident with an "old banger without an MOT" then you can imagine what the car hating national press will do and it might well be used to justify restrictions on use. That'll be the thin end of the wedge that could extend rapidly to restricting the use of anything without a catalyst (TVR owners sit up at this point !)
The real threat of this is less the bloke with the ancient Morris Minor (even if, without an MOT nudge, he decides the remould tyres he bought in 1976 will be fine for a few more years yet) no, it'll be someone with say a SWB V8 Land Rover Defender from the late 1980s that happens to be built around a 1959 Landrover chassis, (well the chassis and number plates are from 1959). Most MOT blokes would spot that sort of vehicle of offer words of "advice" but an ANPR camera or even roadside police check ? No chance.
The classic car community thought this proposal was dead, expect them to now fight it as much as they can to try and get it reversed before November which is the start date proposed in the press release today.
(For those not aware most owners of classics only pay about £100 a year for agreed value fully comp insurance).
First time there is an incident with an "old banger without an MOT" then you can imagine what the car hating national press will do and it might well be used to justify restrictions on use. That'll be the thin end of the wedge that could extend rapidly to restricting the use of anything without a catalyst (TVR owners sit up at this point !)
The real threat of this is less the bloke with the ancient Morris Minor (even if, without an MOT nudge, he decides the remould tyres he bought in 1976 will be fine for a few more years yet) no, it'll be someone with say a SWB V8 Land Rover Defender from the late 1980s that happens to be built around a 1959 Landrover chassis, (well the chassis and number plates are from 1959). Most MOT blokes would spot that sort of vehicle of offer words of "advice" but an ANPR camera or even roadside police check ? No chance.
The classic car community thought this proposal was dead, expect them to now fight it as much as they can to try and get it reversed before November which is the start date proposed in the press release today.
roadwolf said:
DaveL485 said:
Complete madness, combined with idiocy.
What about light alignment, brake balance, tyre issues, rotten brake pipes.....*shudder*.
What about it? Go back ten years when you could give the MOT tester a tenner to turn a blind eye, or phone mr Singh whose brother has a garage, with your details, and call around his house later the same evening with £40 and pick up your MOT certificateWhat about light alignment, brake balance, tyre issues, rotten brake pipes.....*shudder*.
If it runs, we can drive it!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAND-ROVER-1957-Series-1...
Have to say I don't see the reasoning behind this and suspect it has more to due with the automated bureaucracy than any good will, but I am concerned that this is blatantly open to abuse by people outside the classic car culture and has a huge potential to harm the reputation of the responsible enthusiasts should any unfortunate incident be brought to light.
Regardless of a vehicle's age, an MOT just means that that a vehicle passed the required test on a certain day. It doesn't mean it's safe a day/week/month later. If you wanted to you could change the tyres immediately after the test for bald ones, fit old brake pads/disks and take the bulbs out of the headlights. The fact that you have an MOT doesn't make it legal, just as the lack of an MOT for pre-1960s cars doesn't mean that the vehicle shouldn't comply with the relevant rules.
I agree it seems to be a bit of a weird change of legislation though.
I agree it seems to be a bit of a weird change of legislation though.
I suspect the real reason for the exemption is because it will prove increasingly difficult to get an old classic through the latest MoT emissions and safety requirements.
I own a 1969 commercial vehicle, and that is only subject to an MoT test "commensurate with its age", i.e. it doesn't need to pass most of the tests. The only modern requirements it must meet is the "black smoke" test, and there has to be a low air-pressure warning light (there didn't in 1969).
Next Q - how much of a pre-1960 vehicle does it take to retain its identity? e.g. I know that several C-type Jaguar replicas are running on an original C-type identity based on some original component being used, when the bulk of the vehicle is actually a modern reproduction. Will they be exempt too? Maybe this will give a big boost to the kit-car market.
I own a 1969 commercial vehicle, and that is only subject to an MoT test "commensurate with its age", i.e. it doesn't need to pass most of the tests. The only modern requirements it must meet is the "black smoke" test, and there has to be a low air-pressure warning light (there didn't in 1969).
Next Q - how much of a pre-1960 vehicle does it take to retain its identity? e.g. I know that several C-type Jaguar replicas are running on an original C-type identity based on some original component being used, when the bulk of the vehicle is actually a modern reproduction. Will they be exempt too? Maybe this will give a big boost to the kit-car market.
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.
Wrong, on just about every level possible.BTW, slick tyres are the best choice for road use, except when its wet of course.
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!
Article Says said:
Under the new rules, the owners 160,000 or so pre-1960 cars on the road will still have to prove their cars are in a safe and roadworthy condition
Can you point out where you got this from, there is nothing about it in the DofT article and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.As I have some cars that are pre 1960 I would love to know how you go about proving the car is safe and roadworthy and how that is different to the MOT itself.
If this goes through then it will be the end of me SORNing cars when I know they will fail an MOT and the tax is about to run out, as long as they are insured I can get them taxed. My guess is that it will save a huge amont in DVLA admin costs alone.
As for having the MOT done, when I take the old cars in there isn't a huge amount for them to check! Brakes work, lights work, horn works, tyres aren't bald and nothing falls off or rattles. Job done, have a cup of tea while waiting for the computer and then take my £50 off me.
austin said:
As I have some cars that are pre 1960 I would love to know how you go about proving the car is safe and roadworthy and how that is different to the MOT itself.
I agree. Without the MOT guidelines, how do you define "roadworthy"? At whose discretion is it? Police? Motor insurer?chumleyuk said:
Cunning. 'Here's some rope to hang yourselves with.'
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!This is bizarre, I'm trying to work out how the government are going to make money out of it. They don't care about anything else, how to screw the most money out of the electorate without losing their vote completely.
I own a classic car (10 years too new for this new proposal) and I think this proposal is an appalling idea. It was a huge hassle to get my car to the MOT centre last week, and it meant that I had to pay to get the headlights working as I ran out of time to sort them myself (turned out to be a hidden blown fuse). But, after I got it back I felt safe in the knowledge that my car was in a generally safe and roadworthy condition. And it cost £35, big deal.
I would rather not have to share the road with cars that have under performing brakes, rotten bulkheads where the steering column can detach itself at any moment and myriad other potentially fatal problems. The annual MOT test forces owners of older cars to have to keep their vehicle in a roadworthy condition and on top of all the rust and other problems that a roadside check would never discover. Is a policeman going to road test every pre-1960 car, and check for corrosion around the steering and suspension components?
Stupid and pointless, as it will be exploited by the wrong sorts of people (I can see lots of s
t-can Corsas being traded in for rusty old chop-top Beetles), and the owners who really care about their classic cars will continue to have them MOT'd.
I own a classic car (10 years too new for this new proposal) and I think this proposal is an appalling idea. It was a huge hassle to get my car to the MOT centre last week, and it meant that I had to pay to get the headlights working as I ran out of time to sort them myself (turned out to be a hidden blown fuse). But, after I got it back I felt safe in the knowledge that my car was in a generally safe and roadworthy condition. And it cost £35, big deal.
I would rather not have to share the road with cars that have under performing brakes, rotten bulkheads where the steering column can detach itself at any moment and myriad other potentially fatal problems. The annual MOT test forces owners of older cars to have to keep their vehicle in a roadworthy condition and on top of all the rust and other problems that a roadside check would never discover. Is a policeman going to road test every pre-1960 car, and check for corrosion around the steering and suspension components?
Stupid and pointless, as it will be exploited by the wrong sorts of people (I can see lots of s
t-can Corsas being traded in for rusty old chop-top Beetles), and the owners who really care about their classic cars will continue to have them MOT'd.P-Jay said:
But as it's come from VOSA I have to assume the whole MOT network isn't self-funding and they've had their budget from central government cut.
These decisions don't come from VOSA, they come from the DOT, VOSA are the governments lackeys and don't make these kind of decisions, the same as they had no real say in the 4-4-2 debacle.Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff