RE: MoTs scrapped for pre-1960 cars
Discussion
You would think that but your car still has to be able to pass an MOT it is just not a requirement for it to take the test every year.
If your pulled over and found to be in an unroadworthy condition your going to be in trouble. Problem is how can you tell if the officer who has pulled you over can tell if the car is unroadworthy or not?
If your pulled over and found to be in an unroadworthy condition your going to be in trouble. Problem is how can you tell if the officer who has pulled you over can tell if the car is unroadworthy or not?
What is all the fuss about? The government regularise something and you moan - how many untested old commercial vehicles (e.g. untested 8-wheelers with trailer driven on normal car licence!)have been in accidents up to now? There are no wrecks left in scrapyards worth putting in roadworthy condition: anything useful is now a "valuable classic", and in any case you can still get your vehicle an MOT if you wish so stop bellyaching and see this as a small cost reduction if you wish.
However, all you enthusiasts, expend your energy on persuading the government to keep their promise from the previous election to bring back a rolling date for road tax concessions. All Europe and much of the world now accept 30 years as the rolling date, but don't think your supposed "representatives" FBHVC will publicise this - why? Ask them why they are so silent on this point. At worst - if the cost of a few minutes fighting a war which has nothing to do with us is the problem - everybody paying a small fee each year would make this cost neutral and satisfy Mr. Cameron's "fairness", i.e "we are all in this together".
SIGN THE CURRENT PETITION (RUNNING UNTIL EARLY JULY) ON THE GOVERNMENT'S TREASURY WEBSITE CALLING FOR THE CONCESSION TO BE REINSTATED.
However, all you enthusiasts, expend your energy on persuading the government to keep their promise from the previous election to bring back a rolling date for road tax concessions. All Europe and much of the world now accept 30 years as the rolling date, but don't think your supposed "representatives" FBHVC will publicise this - why? Ask them why they are so silent on this point. At worst - if the cost of a few minutes fighting a war which has nothing to do with us is the problem - everybody paying a small fee each year would make this cost neutral and satisfy Mr. Cameron's "fairness", i.e "we are all in this together".
SIGN THE CURRENT PETITION (RUNNING UNTIL EARLY JULY) ON THE GOVERNMENT'S TREASURY WEBSITE CALLING FOR THE CONCESSION TO BE REINSTATED.
Edited by gaz9185 on Monday 21st May 20:50
In our household we have a total of 8 cars and four motorbikes, all except one require an annual MOT.
My modified 1968 MGC does no more than 1,000 miles a year and to have to get an MOT every year is ridiculous.
In all we are visiting the MOT station once a month so we were hoping the D of T would go to bi-annual testing like most of Europe but sadly this idea has now been dropped.
That would have been far more useful to classic car and bike owners than a nonsensical blanket exemption for pre-1960 vehicles. Does anyone know whether it will be a rolling year arrangement ?
By the way, in France they have biannual Controle Technique ( MOT ) for cars but there is no testing at all for motorbikes of any age.
And the French pay no road tax at all : this was because their fuel was always more heavily taxed than in the UK but now they pay less for fuel than we do but we still pay road tax !
Their annual road tolls normally cost far less than our excise duty and can be avoided by sticking to the ordinary roads.
My modified 1968 MGC does no more than 1,000 miles a year and to have to get an MOT every year is ridiculous.
In all we are visiting the MOT station once a month so we were hoping the D of T would go to bi-annual testing like most of Europe but sadly this idea has now been dropped.
That would have been far more useful to classic car and bike owners than a nonsensical blanket exemption for pre-1960 vehicles. Does anyone know whether it will be a rolling year arrangement ?
By the way, in France they have biannual Controle Technique ( MOT ) for cars but there is no testing at all for motorbikes of any age.
And the French pay no road tax at all : this was because their fuel was always more heavily taxed than in the UK but now they pay less for fuel than we do but we still pay road tax !
Their annual road tolls normally cost far less than our excise duty and can be avoided by sticking to the ordinary roads.
Absolutey shocking law. Stupid.
My neighbour just got his modern car registered in the Isle Of Man, and was quite proud and smug he would not have to have an anual MOT any more. He seemd to think that the MOT was a Government conspiracy to steal £50 every year from him, not a safety issue at all. He is a knob generally, but the thought of many cars driven by lazy people with worn brakes and steering woriies me. 60 year old cars seems even more dangerous, I fear many owners who drive them only 500 miles per year will feel their brake systems will become immune to rust and perishing rubber.... The Police inquest might be the first inspection they get.
My neighbour just got his modern car registered in the Isle Of Man, and was quite proud and smug he would not have to have an anual MOT any more. He seemd to think that the MOT was a Government conspiracy to steal £50 every year from him, not a safety issue at all. He is a knob generally, but the thought of many cars driven by lazy people with worn brakes and steering woriies me. 60 year old cars seems even more dangerous, I fear many owners who drive them only 500 miles per year will feel their brake systems will become immune to rust and perishing rubber.... The Police inquest might be the first inspection they get.
Whatever your opinions of the MOT system there can be no doubt many defective cars have been removed because of the introduction of MOT testing.
Which must increase safety. Which has to be good.
The exemption of pre 1960 cars will really make very little difference. Few classics cover anywhere near a thousand miles a year and maintenance standards are positively outstanding in general on classic cars.
Seems reasonable to me.
Which must increase safety. Which has to be good.
The exemption of pre 1960 cars will really make very little difference. Few classics cover anywhere near a thousand miles a year and maintenance standards are positively outstanding in general on classic cars.
Seems reasonable to me.
2 Wycked said:
The Article said:
Owners of classic cars and motorbikes tend to be enthusiasts who maintain their vehicles well
People tend to buy their road tax, are they going to get rid of ANPR cameras?KM666 said:
I have never in my life come across a VOSA examiner nor a policeman who knows about a cars roadworthyness beyond tyre tread depth, Police dont tend to go around randomly inspecting cars, they only look if they have cause to pull you over and you're a young man with a car full of mates, so unless your pre 1960 motor is belching out clouds of thick smoke or you get a bit handy with you roundabout exit speed you stay under their radar.
Sure in theory there are systems in place to prevent this, in reality they do sfa.
Met one the other day, BIB called a VOSA examiner in to get him to check over a friends retro fiesta xr2, and he gave it a thorough going over, even got in and checked steering for play, brake pedal and handbrake for excessive movement and all sorts. Proper Vosa (not the ones that sit at junctions with ANPR doing spot checks) are very thorough, but you will only be on the receiving end of that if a BIB has called them in. That will probably be why you haven't met one. I even have a photo of the Vosa man trying the steering, he was moaning that it wasn't power assisted, the wimp Sure in theory there are systems in place to prevent this, in reality they do sfa.
Edited by scholesy on Tuesday 22 May 01:49
Well a lot of people getting hot under the collar about this.
It hasn't changed anything in reality except to put the onus of responsibility on the driver in full. It still has to be roadworthy, so it is now the drivers sole responsibility to ensure it is. Alternatively take it for a voluntary test.
Considering most of these cars are not tested on many parts of the modern regulations it has cut out the need for unnecessary paperwork. It is about time there was a move to reduce paperwork instead of increasing it. However I expect most owners will still get the MOT every year to ensure maximum resale value.
I expect this move is only because these vehicles spend most of their lives at shows or garaged and not exactly in the hands of the boy racer. Lets face it, 0-60 is hardly impressive in a Morris Eight now is it?
And as for rusty brake pipes in an earlier post, many new cars have these hidden from inspection by plastic under-trays that are not allowed to be removed for the MOT. When was the last time these were visually inspected then? The day of manufacture I reckon and will only be replaced when they fail. There are far more newer cars out there in a much worse state than most of the old classics. And 160,000 in 25,000,000 is a very low percentage. Personally I think they should introduce MOT's at every 2 yrs including 2 yrs from new. Awful lot of new cars doing high mileage and in a very bad state from believing it is almost new so needs no maintenance.
It hasn't changed anything in reality except to put the onus of responsibility on the driver in full. It still has to be roadworthy, so it is now the drivers sole responsibility to ensure it is. Alternatively take it for a voluntary test.
Considering most of these cars are not tested on many parts of the modern regulations it has cut out the need for unnecessary paperwork. It is about time there was a move to reduce paperwork instead of increasing it. However I expect most owners will still get the MOT every year to ensure maximum resale value.
I expect this move is only because these vehicles spend most of their lives at shows or garaged and not exactly in the hands of the boy racer. Lets face it, 0-60 is hardly impressive in a Morris Eight now is it?
And as for rusty brake pipes in an earlier post, many new cars have these hidden from inspection by plastic under-trays that are not allowed to be removed for the MOT. When was the last time these were visually inspected then? The day of manufacture I reckon and will only be replaced when they fail. There are far more newer cars out there in a much worse state than most of the old classics. And 160,000 in 25,000,000 is a very low percentage. Personally I think they should introduce MOT's at every 2 yrs including 2 yrs from new. Awful lot of new cars doing high mileage and in a very bad state from believing it is almost new so needs no maintenance.
Just goes to show how inmortant transparency is in government decision-making. You would think that in these times of austerity measures any apportunity to raise revenue from people who have little objection would be welcomed wih open arms.
The authorities have some explaining to do I would suggest
The authorities have some explaining to do I would suggest
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>
Agree, most have never seen rod or cable operated brakes, a dip switch not on the column stalk, semaphore indicators and my 1939 Morgan gets them all underneath it to see 'one of those cars with a wooden chassis'. 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>
Having run pre 70's and pre 60's cars i can half understand because the daytime running mot excludes a lot of things like lights, wipers, lap belt, visual smoke test and so on, today paying for mot doesn't check everything anyway.
The other part half of me is furios because from seeing around many classic car clubs large portion of people are not responsible at all. Many examples hiding structural rust behind waxoil and faulty brakes steering and suspension, scrapping MOT will benefit only those who don't care anyway....
Bring back rolling ved cut off instead!
The other part half of me is furios because from seeing around many classic car clubs large portion of people are not responsible at all. Many examples hiding structural rust behind waxoil and faulty brakes steering and suspension, scrapping MOT will benefit only those who don't care anyway....
Bring back rolling ved cut off instead!
Not sure if it has been said before, haven't looked through all the thread. But will insurance companies say, 'Ok well you may not need one but we will not insure your vehicle unless it has one.'
Just wondering thats all can insurance companies bring in a clause that it has to have one to be insured.
Just wondering thats all can insurance companies bring in a clause that it has to have one to be insured.
I am guessing that most of these comments are from people who do not have a pre 60 car. Which is why they are negative . 53% of pre 60 vehicle owners have said that they will still have an MOT - I won't be one of them AN MOT IS ONLY VALID ON THE DAY IT ISSUED ANYWAY.
How many pre 60 cars on the road have not been restored ? very few . If they are on the road now they will have already had 20 years worth of MOT test behind them.
Their brakes , clutches, exhausts, tyres etc will have already been replaced (several times ) with the latest components. The photo of the old mini in the PH report is very misleading , Thay car would not be allowed on the road at all . The police would be able impound it for several reasons like defective or missing headlights etc You don't need to have or not have an MOT for faults like that , or illegal tread depths of tyres (consider the mitsubushi owner whose tyres are just lehgal at the MOT then puts another 20,000 miles on them - compare that to a classic driver who may only do 3000 miles a year - he would be changing tyres due to age not tyre depth.
I would have thought a pre 72 cut off date would be better , synchronise with road tax exemption. Any vehicle involved in an accident severe enought to cause injury will have their vehicle foresically inspected to see if it was roadworthy . So stop b
hin poseurs.
How many pre 60 cars on the road have not been restored ? very few . If they are on the road now they will have already had 20 years worth of MOT test behind them.
Their brakes , clutches, exhausts, tyres etc will have already been replaced (several times ) with the latest components. The photo of the old mini in the PH report is very misleading , Thay car would not be allowed on the road at all . The police would be able impound it for several reasons like defective or missing headlights etc You don't need to have or not have an MOT for faults like that , or illegal tread depths of tyres (consider the mitsubushi owner whose tyres are just lehgal at the MOT then puts another 20,000 miles on them - compare that to a classic driver who may only do 3000 miles a year - he would be changing tyres due to age not tyre depth.
I would have thought a pre 72 cut off date would be better , synchronise with road tax exemption. Any vehicle involved in an accident severe enought to cause injury will have their vehicle foresically inspected to see if it was roadworthy . So stop b
hin poseurs.356Speedster said:
Genuine question..... does this now open the door to getting private plates off old cars then? You can't get a plate off a car if it hasn't got an MOT, but if pre-60's cars (with nice valuable dateless plates) no longer need an MOT to be road worthy, can we all go scrap yard hunting and get some nice regs? Mmmmmmm 
It's just been pointed out to me that you can't transfer the registration number away from an MOT exempt vehicle.I now predict a rush of very dodgy restorations getting iffy MOTs so that the numbers can be pillaged, I would be very wary of buying anything at auction with a "modern" old plate on it after the rules change.
Having recently owned a pre 1960 land rover that failed its MOT despite my fussy maintenance and care is a real eye opener that this is a very silly idea.
By all means make them bi-annual for older vehicles or better still subsidise the cost (make it £10!)
There is a real risk will see what many US states have...Rusting sheds chugging down the road with no brakes and inadequate steering/suspension.
Alarming!
By all means make them bi-annual for older vehicles or better still subsidise the cost (make it £10!)
There is a real risk will see what many US states have...Rusting sheds chugging down the road with no brakes and inadequate steering/suspension.
Alarming!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff