Board logo

Oppose the new (stupid) MoT exemption
loggyboy - 20/6/12 at 09:29 AM

Definaltely worth a signature if you ask me:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34434

coyoteboy - 20/6/12 at 10:23 AM

I suspect they feel like they're doing classic owners a favour.

blakep82 - 20/6/12 at 10:38 AM

as much as its a silly idea (in principal) i won't be signing, as i feel its supposed to be done in good faith. and any 'help' to drivers is welcome in my book... its one of the few things thats done that doesn't actually penalise people (on the face of it, 'til a safety issue comes up. i suspect most pre 60's cars are VERY well looked after anyway

so do these cars still need to apply for some sort of mot certificate, or do they just not need anything?

loggyboy - 20/6/12 at 10:44 AM

quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
as much as its a silly idea (in principal) i won't be signing, as i feel its supposed to be done in good faith. and any 'help' to drivers is welcome in my book... its one of the few things thats done that doesn't actually penalise people (on the face of it, 'til a safety issue comes up. i suspect most pre 60's cars are VERY well looked after anyway


Say that when one of them (the ones thats not in the 'most' bracket) runs up the back of you beacuse its brakes havent been checked or tyres are bald!

blakep82 - 20/6/12 at 10:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
as much as its a silly idea (in principal) i won't be signing, as i feel its supposed to be done in good faith. and any 'help' to drivers is welcome in my book... its one of the few things thats done that doesn't actually penalise people (on the face of it, 'til a safety issue comes up. i suspect most pre 60's cars are VERY well looked after anyway


Say that when one of them (the ones thats not in the 'most' bracket) runs up the back of you beacuse its brakes havent been checked or tyres are bald!


can't remember the last time i saw one on the road, its at least 3000 times more likely a 10 year old car is going to hit me tbh, and even at that, in 12 years driving, no one ever has driven up the back of me. and before you say thats because cars are mot'd, do you really think a car passing an mot means its safe for the next 12 months? means its only safe when i left the mot station. any car that fails an mot could have failed for the 12 months before too.

loggyboy - 20/6/12 at 11:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
can't remember the last time i saw one on the road, its at least 3000 times more likely a 10 year old car is going to hit me tbh, and even at that, in 12 years driving, no one ever has driven up the back of me. and before you say thats because cars are mot'd, do you really think a car passing an mot means its safe for the next 12 months? means its only safe when i left the mot station. any car that fails an mot could have failed for the 12 months before too.


True, but if its such a small minority, why change it, I mean, £50 hardly breaks the bank on cars that must obviously be worth keeping in good condition, and if they ARE all being well kept by enthusiasts, then theres no reason not to MOT them.
I would expect there are fair amount of land rovers and the odd mini that would be owned by 'regular' owners.
At the bare minimum give them discount on the MoT!! I mean, they already get free road tax, what next free fuel for pre 60s cars too?!?

I know its contrived, but just check out Richard Hammonds Lanchester!

britishtrident - 20/6/12 at 11:08 AM

Signed the law should be the same for all I have no problem with reduced test requirements and decreasing the frequency of test to a 2 or 3 or even or 4 year schedule for these vehicles carried out by test centres that understand older cars but I have seen to many very old vehicles with ropey repairs.

A possible reason for this change in the law is that quite a few VSCC and one marque club members are also involved with the Conservative party.

Mr Whippy - 20/6/12 at 11:13 AM

but what is the point in not testing them?

I've bought cars from as back as 1954 and most were in need of lots of work and I've always looked at MOT's as a worthwhile second pair of eye's (usually from someone with much more experiance than me) on my cars, I know I tend to put off work on them till nearer the MOT time just cause I'm so busy or get use to hopeless brakes etc, I think if I didn't take my cars for an MOT they's be in a far worse state.

The last test I took my landy for he failed it for the front chassis having 3 small holes I hadn't noticed, after I took a closer look with a hammer, I rebooked the test and spent a week replacing about 3 foot of chassis rail and both front spring hangers! I'm glad of an MOT, if they stopped my car needing one I'd take it for an unofficial one anyway




[Edited on 20/6/12 by Mr Whippy]

Macbeast - 20/6/12 at 11:38 AM

I would check with the insurance companies. They might refuse to pay ( as they do now ) if there is no MOT, even if it's not required by law.

A1 - 20/6/12 at 12:27 PM

To be honest its such a small minority Im not fussed about it.
I recon its a kind of token gesture, so they can say 'we dont penalise drivers, look what we did'...

Oddified - 20/6/12 at 01:17 PM

I won't oppsoe it, cars of that age are far more likely to be looked after and driven accordingly than an old rusty banger from the 80's that's only worth 10p!.

Having an mot does not prove any car is fit to go on the road.

Ian

matt_claydon - 20/6/12 at 01:37 PM

The cars that are currently still used on the road may all be well-looked after, low mileage, and arguably not in need of MOT. But what about all the absolute rotten sheds with nearly rusted through rod-linkage brakes; bald, cracked and perished tyres; and steering boxes missing most of the bolts holding them to the chassis that are lying forgotten in people's garages and barns that can now be driven on the road simply by applying for a free tax disc?

Oddified - 20/6/12 at 02:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by matt_claydon
The cars that are currently still used on the road may all be well-looked after, low mileage, and arguably not in need of MOT. But what about all the absolute rotten sheds with nearly rusted through rod-linkage brakes; bald, cracked and perished tyres; and steering boxes missing most of the bolts holding them to the chassis that are lying forgotten in people's garages and barns that can now be driven on the road simply by applying for a free tax disc?


I feel that's exceedingly unlikely in reality when you taken into account the type of person who would even show any interest in an old car in a barn!. I think it's a million times more likely for an accident to be caused by a banger with no insurance or tax (which go hand in hand usualy), with the mot being totally unnecessary and pointless in that owners point of view!.

I just feel that the number of cars and type of person the exemption will apply to is so small it's irrelevant in the big scheme of things and the amount of vehicles on the road today.

Ian

loggyboy - 20/6/12 at 02:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Oddified
I just feel that the number of cars and type of person the exemption will apply to is so small it's irrelevant in the big scheme of things and the amount of vehicles on the road today.

Ian


If that small an irrelevent why introduce it in the first place?

owelly - 20/6/12 at 03:20 PM

I just can't see the point of changing the rules. I have a couple of cars that will 'benefit' from this new change and I'm capable of checking over my own vehicles, but I'll still be taking them to my usual MOT guy even if its just for my own peace of mind. Plus, even though I know the MOT is only relevant on the test day, should the vehicle be involved in an incident, the MOT is a good second opinion.

bigbravedave - 20/6/12 at 04:13 PM

From what I understand they need to make old stuff exempt because it won't be able to pass what they've got planned for the future mot legistlation

matt_claydon - 20/6/12 at 04:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigbravedave
From what I understand they need to make old stuff exempt because it won't be able to pass what they've got planned for the future mot legistlation


Sound like someone's been scaremongering; old vehicles rarely have to meet new requirements when rules are changed and the major changes have already been made iust recently. The real reason is that the government has been having what they call the 'red tape challenge' whereby by laws and regulations that are deemed unnecessary or outdated are reviewed and revoked if deemed appropriate. In the case of the MOT, it is required by European law that periodic technical inspections are carried out, but the Directive in question says that vehicles older that 1960 are not required to undergo an inspection. The UK requirement to test all vehicles is therefore seen as 'gold plating' of the European requirements and a fair target for revoking.

(Note that the EC Directive also says that the minimum frequency is 4 years then every 2 after that, but this has already been reviewed recently and the UK decided to stick to 3-1-1)

britishtrident - 20/6/12 at 05:07 PM

There is no problem framing special regs for old cars lots of classes of vehicles exist for MOT purposes.

My main road worthiness concern centre on poorly maintained brakes and steering. Single circuit hydraulic brakes with drum fronts need much more maintenance and old fashioned worm and nut or worm and quadrant steering can have colossal amounts of lost motion. King pins and trunnions can seize solid and it is not unkown for Triumph and Morris bottom trunnions to shear off completely.

SteveWalker - 20/6/12 at 05:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
There is no problem framing special regs for old cars lots of classes of vehicles exist for MOT purposes.

My main road worthiness concern centre on poorly maintained brakes and steering. Single circuit hydraulic brakes with drum fronts need much more maintenance and old fashioned worm and nut or worm and quadrant steering can have colossal amounts of lost motion. King pins and trunnions can seize solid and it is not unkown for Triumph and Morris bottom trunnions to shear off completely.


I remember reading some years ago of a guy with a Landrover 101FC; IIRC one of the steering joints seized and was flexing. After a while it snapped and the front wheels both turned outwards. It stopped so quick, the back end came up and the front tow hitch hit the road surface! It must have been pretty spectacular and I wouldn't have wanted to be a driver behind him at the time!

froggy - 20/6/12 at 05:24 PM

il miss the banter with my classic customers especially the vinteage ones but i suspect they will still come for the ramp access and pay a fee for the time as there are usually some fixing when the really old ones come in for test

i cant see that vosa will allow any way of still issuing a test cert for pre sixty stuff after removing all the guff from the manual about old stuff .

morcus - 20/6/12 at 06:00 PM

I oppose it because I do think there are alot of people who think they're checking everything who aren't. People who work on there own cars seem to have far more break downs and such than the kind of person who doesn't know one end of a spanner from the other because your probably more likely to miss things or even damage things by accident tinkering. I'll admit thats all based on my own observations but I'm sure you all know and old boy with a classic car who's done this, or had to do something really obvious to pass an MOT like change a tyre that might not have spotted on a car that gets used 5 times a year.

The other side of this is that it's a shot in the foot for the party as they're always trying to shake off the landed gentry/Playboy image and this plays right into that and will be used against them as classic cars are considered a great extravegance by normal people.

A quick look online shows you can easilly pick up a pre 1960 car for less than a grand, throw in some dodgy insurance and free road tax and you don't think this isn't going to appeal to the kind of pikey cheapskate who know's nothing of car maintanence?

mark chandler - 20/6/12 at 06:17 PM

I do not have a problem with it.

Cars that old are very basic, when tested loads of things get stamped N/A so why bother, MOT's are not required on recovery lorries, tractors pull trailers without brakes so it's not like you are setting a precedent.

daviep - 20/6/12 at 06:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by morcus
I do think there are alot of people who think they're checking everything who aren't. People who work on there own cars seem to have far more break downs and such than the kind of person who doesn't know one end of a spanner from the other because your probably more likely to miss things or even damage things by accident tinkering.



I've seen plenty botched repairs by main dealers, especially fiat for some reason, I've also been asked to have a listen to a noise for various people which is nearly always pads down to the metal, usually on newer dealer maintained cars, one of the problems with 10,000mile service intervals.

How long do you think your average 1960's car will be reliable for without regular maintenance? I guess it wil be measured in months rather than years.

It's not something which I will be worrying about.

Davie

britishtrident - 20/6/12 at 06:46 PM

I have never driven a Morris Minor 1000 that stopped properly unless the brakes had just been freshly overhauled, likewise Ford Anglias and drum front braked Escorts nearly always featured brakes that pulled to one side so badly the steering wheel would get pulled out your hand unless you held the wheel with a white knuckle grip.
A couple of years I was talking to a Hillman Imp owner telling him about the all conquering club racing Imps of the 60's, 70's and 80's he asked how we raced with such stiff manual steering and tiny steering wheels It turned out the king pins on hisown car were seized solid and the steering wheel almost impossible to turn and he thought this was normal for the model.

[Edited on 20/6/12 by britishtrident]

jollygreengiant - 20/6/12 at 06:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
as much as its a silly idea (in principal) i won't be signing, as i feel its supposed to be done in good faith. and any 'help' to drivers is welcome in my book... its one of the few things thats done that doesn't actually penalise people (on the face of it, 'til a safety issue comes up. i suspect most pre 60's cars are VERY well looked after anyway


Say that when one of them (the ones thats not in the 'most' bracket) runs up the back of you beacuse its brakes havent been checked or tyres are bald!


I've had a car run into the back end of one I was driving because he HAD just had brake work done. He forgot/didn't know that your brakes don't work quite as well UNTIL they have bedded in. He had only done about a mile and a half since picking up his car. (oh and he was also tooooooo close)

SteveWalker - 20/6/12 at 07:02 PM

The only things I've ever had that were specifically dangerous on a car were a ripped seatbelt, an exhaust leaking fumes into the car, faulty power steering and re-used split pins having fallen out of the front hub nuts - oh yes, that was all damage caused by a main dealer during one piece of work! I had everything put right and then got rid of the car, as I would never have felt safe driving it again!

morcus - 20/6/12 at 07:04 PM

I know garages mess things up aswell, even more reason why everyone should have an MOT test.