No MOT's for pre 1960 vehicles.
Discussion
I had a brief chat with my neighbour earlier today, he's into restoring classic motorbikes (he's got a nice collection; a couple of Nortons, AJS, BSA, classic Honda, etc.)
He tells me that classic vehicles registered prior to 1960 will no longer need an MOT w/e/f November this year. Obviously they will still need to be roadworthy and comply with construction and use regs, etc. He's not normally a bulls
tter (not his style).
Well, that's a new on on me. Anybody else heard about this ?
He tells me that classic vehicles registered prior to 1960 will no longer need an MOT w/e/f November this year. Obviously they will still need to be roadworthy and comply with construction and use regs, etc. He's not normally a bulls
tter (not his style).Well, that's a new on on me. Anybody else heard about this ?
Perd Hapley said:
Thanks for the link 
It's a shame I'm more into the 70's/ 80's stuff.
I might have to "borrow" one of his bikes. No MOT, no tax, just add fuel and (cheap) insurance.
Winner !!
I'm quietly confident there is at least one thread on PistonHeads about this (albeit Search is AWOL, but a google search might find summat) .
Phrases such as "is this the thin end of the wedge?" and "old timer restrictions on use such as are in force in France & Germany might later be imposed" were mentioned in passing .
As Mr Mackay said (approximately) in Porridge - "When a prisoner is friendly towards you, ask yourself what he wants!"
.Phrases such as "is this the thin end of the wedge?" and "old timer restrictions on use such as are in force in France & Germany might later be imposed" were mentioned in passing
.As Mr Mackay said (approximately) in Porridge - "When a prisoner is friendly towards you, ask yourself what he wants!"
Jordan Rich said:
yes, i heard this from a friend who also tends to be right, but it doesnt seem to make much sense, why change it when the car still needs to be in as good a condition as it would after an MOT? seems pointless.
Maybe because you don't think like politician.After a couple years when all the pre 1960 bike MOTs have expired, change the MOT requirements to exclude bikes over 1960 then introduce a new law stating *all* bikes on the road must have an MOT.
I hate this new rule. Chiefly because for every lovingly restored pre-1960 vehicle on the road, there will be a crapheap that is dangerous and is swiss cheesed.
The cynic in me also sees this as the Government slowly but surely clamping down on classics as everyday transport. Soon they might say 'Ah yes, you don't require an MOT, therefore you are restricted to 1000 miles per year." or something like that.
The cynic in me also sees this as the Government slowly but surely clamping down on classics as everyday transport. Soon they might say 'Ah yes, you don't require an MOT, therefore you are restricted to 1000 miles per year." or something like that.
Triumph Man said:
I hate this new rule. Chiefly because for every lovingly restored pre-1960 vehicle on the road, there will be a crapheap that is dangerous and is swiss cheesed.
On a 1:1 ratio? I doubt it. Lets look at this logically:-many pre-60's cars will not be 'normal' cars, but a huge variety of cars dating from the turn of the century. Some of these, even if brand spanking new would still be less safe than a swiss cheese scrapheap. So I think a degree of common sense needs to be applied.
-Being forced to have an MoT doesn't mean there aren't dangerous crapheaps on the road today already. Many people wrongly drive non MoT'd modern cars and without a licence or insurance. Therefore being forced to have an MoT doesn't fix all wrongs.
-The only real change here is you are no longer FORCED to have your car checked. But that doesn't mean you can't have it independently safety checked by a garage.
-To this affect - the car has to be just as legal and safe to use as it would by having an MoT, it's just you aren't being forced to have it checked.
-How many pre 60's cars do you actually think exist anyhow in relation to the total number of cars on the road? And to further this, how many miles and hours a year do these cars spend on the roads compared to the rest of the cars out there? This then becomes a matter of risk assessment based on probability.
-Not all road vehicles require an MoT anyhow and haven't done for years. Certain show vehicles, certain ex military vehicles, vintage tractors, traction engines and a host of other vehicles.
Triumph Man said:
I hate this new rule. Chiefly because for every lovingly restored pre-1960 vehicle on the road, there will be a crapheap that is dangerous and is swiss cheesed.
I'm thinking of some old ratty "scene" VW Beetles and Camper Vans... you know the ones with like -20 degrees of negative camber on the rear wheels and scabby paintwork.. surely they will be the deathtraps when they no longer need MOT'ing! Chicane-UK said:
I'm thinking of some old ratty "scene" VW Beetles and Camper Vans... you know the ones with like -20 degrees of negative camber on the rear wheels and scabby paintwork.. surely they will be the deathtraps when they no longer need MOT'ing!
Not many of them are pre-1960 though, are they?The scare-mongering rubbish that's being spouted on this topic (not just here on PH but in the motoring press) would be laughable if it didn't make us car enthusiasts look like such a bunch of wallies.
Edited by Gruber on Thursday 28th June 08:40
It's pointless doing an MOT on a pre 60s car. Most of the things on the MOT don't apply anyway because the car doesn't have them. If it's safety that's the worry, you would just outlaw old cars, because even in good condition thay are dangerous. The brakes are rubbish, the tyres give no grip, there's no seatbelts, no crumble zones etc.
Bottom line is MOT stations were reporting that only a tiny % of pre 60s cars ever failed the MOT, because those that are still going are cared for.
Bottom line is MOT stations were reporting that only a tiny % of pre 60s cars ever failed the MOT, because those that are still going are cared for.
I can understand and appreciate what are probably the two main arguements in favour of this.
Firstly that cars of these age probably have so many exemptions on an MOT that it does seem kind of pointless.
Next, the vast majority of people who own such a car look after them well and drive them sensibly.
The Tories think that every car pre 60s is a Bugati, Bentley or Roller etc.
However, personally I think it is flawed.
I think a basic annual check by an impartial pair of eyes is sensible. They do spot things that the owner might miss. Not everyone ha a ramp and not everyone ha the experience of a mechanic to recognise when something might be wearing out. I've always found the 'advisories' on an MOT very useful.
An MOT check can also pick up badly bodged work by a rip off classic car specialist or seller. These people will have free reign to dangerously screw people over.
I'm afraid I see it a a silly move and one that just isn't necessary. No one was demanding this.
Firstly that cars of these age probably have so many exemptions on an MOT that it does seem kind of pointless.
Next, the vast majority of people who own such a car look after them well and drive them sensibly.
The Tories think that every car pre 60s is a Bugati, Bentley or Roller etc.
However, personally I think it is flawed.
I think a basic annual check by an impartial pair of eyes is sensible. They do spot things that the owner might miss. Not everyone ha a ramp and not everyone ha the experience of a mechanic to recognise when something might be wearing out. I've always found the 'advisories' on an MOT very useful.
An MOT check can also pick up badly bodged work by a rip off classic car specialist or seller. These people will have free reign to dangerously screw people over.
I'm afraid I see it a a silly move and one that just isn't necessary. No one was demanding this.
DonkeyApple said:
I think a basic annual check by an impartial pair of eyes is sensible.
I agree 
However I don't understand... truly don't understand why so many seem to be of the opinion that they'd only do this if legally forced too, rather than doing it voluntary???
By removing the need for an MoT the Government aren't making it illegal for you to pay a garage £50 to check it over
And the trouble is, if they say it must be checked, then they need to say what and how and what passes and doesn't. And suddenly you're right back to the same MoT problem where so much won't be applicable and test centers just aren't experts on some vintage vehicles.
DonkeyApple said:
Not everyone ha a ramp and not everyone ha the experience of a mechanic to recognise when something might be wearing out.
Again I agree. Although if you run almost any classic and especially a pre 60's one you'll do one of two things (or both)-maintain it yourself - so you probably will be experienced to a degree and be able to diagnose problems
-send it to a specialist garage to be worked one - which means they'll likely look over it and drive it during the course of doing work on it
A car won't fix itself and most classics are fickle and will need a degree of regular work and maintenance doing to them each and every year.
Chicane-UK said:
I'm thinking of some old ratty "scene" VW Beetles and Camper Vans... you know the ones with like -20 degrees of negative camber on the rear wheels and scabby paintwork.. surely they will be the deathtraps when they no longer need MOT'ing!
Two points:1. Most/many of such vehicles are post 60's, so won't be included in this. Plus if anything truly looks like it shouldn't be on the road they are just as likely to get pulled for it and dealt with in the same manner as if it did have an MoT and was unsafe.
2. Do you honestly think, even a ratty Beetle is truly any less safe than a perfect new condition MoT'd one of these:
I'm not saying a Beetle can't be unsafe, but it really needs to be put into perspective against other historic vehicles.
300bhp/ton said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think a basic annual check by an impartial pair of eyes is sensible.
I agree However I don't understand... truly don't understand why so many seem to be of the opinion that they'd only do this if legally forced too, rather than doing it voluntary???
By removing the need for an MoT the Government aren't making it illegal for you to pay a garage £50 to check it over
And the trouble is, if they say it must be checked, then they need to say what and how and what passes and doesn't. And suddenly you're right back to the same MoT problem where so much won't be applicable and test centers just aren't experts on some vintage vehicles.
DonkeyApple said:
Not everyone ha a ramp and not everyone ha the experience of a mechanic to recognise when something might be wearing out.
Again I agree. Although if you run almost any classic and especially a pre 60's one you'll do one of two things (or both)-maintain it yourself - so you probably will be experienced to a degree and be able to diagnose problems
-send it to a specialist garage to be worked one - which means they'll likely look over it and drive it during the course of doing work on it
A car won't fix itself and most classics are fickle and will need a degree of regular work and maintenance doing to them each and every year.
At the end of the day my concern is more to do with being caught up in someone else's accident because their Bettle or whatever isn't road worthy.
It's important to never under estimate the power of the stupid, lazy or dishonest to ruin your day.
300bhp/ton said:
Triumph Man said:
I hate this new rule. Chiefly because for every lovingly restored pre-1960 vehicle on the road, there will be a crapheap that is dangerous and is swiss cheesed.
On a 1:1 ratio? I doubt it. Lets look at this logically:-many pre-60's cars will not be 'normal' cars, but a huge variety of cars dating from the turn of the century. Some of these, even if brand spanking new would still be less safe than a swiss cheese scrapheap. So I think a degree of common sense needs to be applied.
-Being forced to have an MoT doesn't mean there aren't dangerous crapheaps on the road today already. Many people wrongly drive non MoT'd modern cars and without a licence or insurance. Therefore being forced to have an MoT doesn't fix all wrongs.
-The only real change here is you are no longer FORCED to have your car checked. But that doesn't mean you can't have it independently safety checked by a garage.
-To this affect - the car has to be just as legal and safe to use as it would by having an MoT, it's just you aren't being forced to have it checked.
-How many pre 60's cars do you actually think exist anyhow in relation to the total number of cars on the road? And to further this, how many miles and hours a year do these cars spend on the roads compared to the rest of the cars out there? This then becomes a matter of risk assessment based on probability.
-Not all road vehicles require an MoT anyhow and haven't done for years. Certain show vehicles, certain ex military vehicles, vintage tractors, traction engines and a host of other vehicles.
I'm thinking along the lines of
1) Purchase Ford Pop (or similar)
2) Drop in V8.
3) Upgrade brakes/ suspension/ wheels/ tyres, etc.
4) Insure on a "classic" policy
5) Enjoy performance motoring relatively free from officialdom.
I'm assuming that the vehicle does not need to remain "original", merely be registered prior to 1960. (obviously I would inform DVLA of the increse in engine size )
1) Purchase Ford Pop (or similar)
2) Drop in V8.
3) Upgrade brakes/ suspension/ wheels/ tyres, etc.
4) Insure on a "classic" policy
5) Enjoy performance motoring relatively free from officialdom.
I'm assuming that the vehicle does not need to remain "original", merely be registered prior to 1960. (obviously I would inform DVLA of the increse in engine size )
Red 4 said:
I'm thinking along the lines of
1) Purchase Ford Pop (or similar)
2) Drop in V8.
3) Upgrade brakes/ suspension/ wheels/ tyres, etc.
4) Insure on a "classic" policy
5) Enjoy performance motoring relatively free from officialdom.
I'm assuming that the vehicle does not need to remain "original", merely be registered prior to 1960. (obviously I would inform DVLA of the increse in engine size )
To avoid the MoT so far nothing has been said about originality and I guess it would be a difficult thing to legislate.1) Purchase Ford Pop (or similar)
2) Drop in V8.
3) Upgrade brakes/ suspension/ wheels/ tyres, etc.
4) Insure on a "classic" policy
5) Enjoy performance motoring relatively free from officialdom.
I'm assuming that the vehicle does not need to remain "original", merely be registered prior to 1960. (obviously I would inform DVLA of the increse in engine size )
However there are already (and has been for donkeys years), regulations and guidelines on when a car is permitted to keep it's identity or if it needs to be re-registered. Fitting a V8 may well entail changing enough parts that you wouldn't be able to keep it registered as pre 60's car.
But tbh, an MoT is cheap enough that I can't see why it's an issue or an incentive really.
aw51 121565 said:
I'm quietly confident there is at least one thread on PistonHeads about this (albeit Search is AWOL, but a google search might find summat) .
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a... .http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff