Prior Convictions: MOT rule changes
From Sunday, any car over 40 years old will become MOT exempt. All 293,000 of them.
As of May 20, 293,000 more vehicles will become exempt from the annual MOT test. The Department for Transport has extended an exemption for the 197,000 cars built before 1960 to include those built more than 40 years ago. They rejected an idea to make it apply to cars built more than 30 years ago.
For why, Keats, for why? Because, according to the DfT, these cars are "usually maintained in good condition and used on few occasions". Alongside that comes the slightly contradictory suggestions that garages a) might not be adequately testing cars over this age because some modern MOT standards are less applicable, while b) acknowledging that cars of this age have a substantially lower rate of failure than average. Which I take to mean that garages must, at times, be using their nous to overlook minor foibles.
"We consider the element of risk arising from taking vehicles over 40 years old out of the testing regime is small," says the DfT.
Owners will still have the option of putting their cars through a voluntary MOT and "they will still, like all vehicle owners, need to ensure that they meet the legal requirement of keeping their vehicle in a roadworthy condition at all times."
Now, I'm slightly torn about this one. For a start, I can see the sense in freeing garages from having to use their discretion that comes with some classics: the amount of free play in the steering system of a 1965 car, for example, might be a bit different to a 2008 hatchback. And it will allow the DfT to tighten the new MOT tests to keep it appropriate for modern cars, without making life even harder for classic owners, or overwhelming garages with standards that vary depending on a car's age.
But I also see - because I own this precise kind of car - the possibility of vehicles that haven't been tested recently and are SORN'd, returning to the road without a thorough safety check first. Or the potential for an owner who can't quite remember when their cars was last looked over, find themselves out on a surprise sunny morning, and receiving a nastier surprise when something breaks.
I suppose, though, that most classic car owners are in some way mechanically minded. I suppose that, for the most part, seeing as it would be the classic car owner taking the risk - and who'd voluntarily want to? - that we'll still submit our cars for the kind of safety checks that the DfT envisages garages offering.
And I suppose, in an age where you're told what you cannot do rather often, it's quite refreshing for somebody to hand back trust over to us, because the risk is small, it sounds like common sense, and it'll be alright. But there's that nagging doubt about situations like these. We've all had one: ah, it'll be alright. Until it isn't.
The MOT has always had a big pile of "this only applies after <date>" exceptions and flexibilities.
Incidentally, why no mention of the single biggest factor in the change, and the reason it happened in the first place? The introduction of the originality test...
"slight play in wheel bearings" - they are old Ford bearings that are supposed to be wound back and left a little play in them - so they pass.
Then there are all the suspension rose joints, that don't have rubber boots - which can cause confusion. My brakes on one were from a very early Ford Capri so replacing contaminated (but perfectly working) brake pads was nearly impossible.
I have to explain with each car, how to start it, how to open (remove) the bonnet, how to bypass the hidden ignition cut off. Lots of little things.
I have a good garage that is helpful, but they do take longer on my cars than most others.
On a classic I'm not really sure you can miss a mechanical problem that is life threatening. There is no PAS, no active suspension, no comfort really! - So you notice loose steering, loose ball joints (and really, that rubber boot thing - that fails most cars, how many ball joints actually fail and fall apart?), you most definitely notice weak brakes, and pulling brakes. You also notice the expremely obvious - lights, wipers etc.
Saying that, it does seem odd this exemption. I wonder if it is simply because old cars can't pass the new tougher regulations, or that the amount of extra rules included to allow them to pass is too much of a headache for the MOT inspectors? One of my cars failed on emissions and I had to go to the tester and explain that due to it being a Q plate, it has to be treated as a "older than 1/8/1975" (even though it wase made in 96), then you look up that category and find it is a visual smoke test only. - It passed.
A few years of only seeing it in use later, it came back in one day. "That noise from the front's getting quite bad, so I thought it probably needed looking at."
As they lifted the car up, one front wheel stayed on the ground, with brake drum attached and hub still attached.
The mot is a single 45 minute period , on one day a year, it doesn't make the car safe for a year. An enthusiasts car is much more likely to be fixed and legal than a much younger car.
Life expectancy in the uk for a car is about 11 years, so getting to 40 means it has at some point had some reall tlc. Average failure rate is about 30% with many modern cars failing at that rate after just 3 years of age. This is the real risk as your average person doesn't maintain the car to the correct levels.
The obligation to be roadworthy with the £2500 fine remains , regardless of mot status so it won't mean barnfinds become road legal overnight.
That test could easily include the basics (brakes work, no excessive rust, nothing important has fallen off) but not go into things like emissions etc that make no difference on classics.
I'm not sure what people are moaning about. If there is a suggestion that people will use the rule change to save money on testing and vehicle upkeep costs, I'd imagine this would apply to a very very small minority of car owners. No classic car is anywhere near as cheap to run as a modern car.
The situation is clearly less than ideal, but I think it's hillarious that some people seem to think the government have done this out of the kindness of their hearts. Someone has presumably decided that the average MOT garage or MOT tester is not equipped to deal with old cars. And they're right. What happens when you take a 1904 Locomobile down to Kwik Fit?
I also can't see people 'skimping' on safety as a result of this. The whole modern classics thing means that even the most boring pre-1978 vehicle now commands a premium. People don't buy them to save money, so I can't see £45 for an MOT being here or there.
I'm still in favour of some sort of roadworthiness check, but I think it would have to be done by a classic specialist - preferably one familiar with that specific model. That means the right person might not be cheap or easy to find, though. And it would still be very difficult to quantifiably define things like an acceptable brake torque to cover 80 years of different models so it would be open to personal interpretation from the testers. All of that makes me think the rule changes might not be such a bad idea after all.
One other potential issues is that it's all self-regulated but I can imagine the insurances companies now refusing to pay out in the event of an accident if the car has been substantially changed and not MOT'd. The Government has published a useful (I know - who said the age of miracles had passed!) 5 page document on the whole vehicles of historic interest subject here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Oh, wait.
http://fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/historic-...
Oh, wait.
http://fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/historic-...
And if you've got a mainstream classic I'm sure any of them would be fine. But what if you've got something very old or very obscure that's beyond the experience of someone used to MOT'ing Midgets and Morris Minors? Or what if you live in a remote area and the local MOT garage is not one of the classic-friendly ones? All I'm saying is that it's very difficult to make these things compulsory.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff