Just buy a 40+ year old car avoid the need for a test and hope you don't have an accident
A maintained 40+ year old car in regular use is no more dangerous than a newer car.
That is simply untrue.
Why is that then? You havent substantiated this questionable statement.
For once, I'm in agreement with DG
Having owned so called classics for the majority of my driving life, and the ones I currently own are now between 46 and 55 years old, I would argue that they ARE in a better state of mechanical and structural condition than a good number of modern cars on the road. The fact is that with extended service intervals on modern vehicles, owners only tend to attend to maintenance jobs when the car lets them down, or at the alloted service interval (if they adhere to it). Some of the safety issues with steering, suspension and structural components only come to light at MOT or service time, whereas with the majority of classics, the owners take a pride in their vehicle, they are driven accordingly recognising it is a 40 / 50 year vehicle, and they are serviced regularly to maintain optimum running (they have to be), whereas routine maintenance in modern cars is generally overlooked until the car itself tells the driver of an issue.
Owners who buy a classic without realising the implications of looking after it correctly, and with the regular servicing and maintenance required, soon end up selling them on. The dedicated owners certainly do maintain their classics to a high standard, and in my opinion as such they are just as safe on public roads as any modern car.
I'm not saying they don't break down - they do, but it usually is because on a non safety related issue.
If the Government thought that 40+ year old classics on the road DID impose a safety risk, why was the annual MOT exempted and left to the owners discretion for these vehicles? One actual reason for the change in this legislation quoted by the Government was the actual low numbers of MOT failures of vehicles in this catagory.......