Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mantahatch]

Good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326

[Kevin Wood]

I'm not so sure, TBH.

Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?

Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?

Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Bad news in my opinion.

I also dont see why the need for a reduced priced MOT either.....

[Kevin Wood]

I also dont see why the need for a reduced priced MOT either.....

Simply because the test requires less labour, and if you run one classic you might well run several more cars, each covering small mileages, so all the £50s contribute considerably to the cost of perhaps taking the car out to a couple of shows for others to enjoy rather than laying it up.

When my kit car gets MOT'd it effectively pays for a nice long fag break for the tester because logging off the job after the 20 minutes (max) it actually takes him to check the car would be "frowned upon", yet he's not allowed to work on another car while he's got my job open. I imagine most pre - 1960's classics are in the same boat, so why not allow a shorter MOT booking and pass the saving on to the customer?

[Del Boy]

So older cars, pre 1960, where things have a higher possibility of failing, are now exempt from MOT's. Well what a shit idea.

[mantahatch]

I think the basic idea is the average MOT tester has no idea how to test this type of car. They are applying modern rules to them and failing them resulting in to many (succesful) appeals.

I mean what will the new shaker rigs do to a 1930s Austin 7 ? probably pull the chassis apart. Personally I could view it as somewhat empowering to the owner, as it states the car still has to be roadworthy. So those who are not confident/able to give the car the necessary checks can still book it into a garage and ask them to check if it is roadworthy.

We ask for more freedoms, small though it is, it is a step in the right direction IMHO.

[OOMV6]

I'm not so sure, TBH.

Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?

Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?

Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.

Agreed. Every road going vehicle should be tested in some way. Maybe reduced, maybe not. But they should be tested.

[Kevin Wood]

If it's, therefore, an issue of tester training then the problem needs to be fixed.

Surely it's not too much to ask for a tester to be familiar with the construction of a car, both old and new, and be able to apply the appropriate standards? They are supposed to be experienced mechanics before they start, after all.

..and new test procedures and standards don't necessarily have to be applied retrospectively to older cars. Most haven't in the past, after all.

[jimac]

I'm not so sure, TBH.

Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?

Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?

Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.

Indeed.  But an MOT doesn't actually prove or certify that a vehicle is safe on the road.  This proposal doesn't remove the obligation for a driver to ensure the safety of their vehicle, it just removes the need to carry out an annual test that probably has little bearing on a 50+ year old car that does very few miles anyway.

[Kevin Wood]

I'm not so sure, TBH.

Yes, a as a kit car owner I'm aware that a £50 MOT seems a rip off on a vehicle that doesn't have half the testable items in the manual, but surely it's a prerequisite for any vehicle to be essentially safe before hitting the road?

Why not a £20 MOT that covers only the essentials on a classic car (structure, mandatory lights, suspension, braking, tyres, for example)?

Whilst most cars of that age are probably cherished, not every owner will have the experience or the inclination to examine every part of the car annually to ensure it's safe, IMHO.

Indeed.  But an MOT doesn't actually prove or certify that a vehicle is safe on the road.  This proposal doesn't remove the obligation for a driver to ensure the safety of their vehicle, it just removes the need to carry out an annual test that probably has little bearing on a 50+ year old car that does very few miles anyway.

True, but it limits the possible decay in a vehicle from a roadworthy state to one year's worth.

With a classic car, where components wear faster than modern equivalents, and where they are probably starting to get a little "crispy" through tin worm, that's no bad thing, IMHO.

[sassanach]

good news for me (i think?) thats two i do not need to mot anymore.last year they did 920 miles between them

[geoffr70]

Makes no difference to me. 3 fire engines are MOT exempt and free tax anyway hahahahaha

[Tetleysmooth]

I'm gonna buy a 1959 Omega 

[Ken T]

So who checks that "will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road" ?.

I have my old bike in the garage, not used for many many years, so I can now start her up and go for a spin without checking anything. Never mind the brakes are shot, and there's no headlamp, etc, etc.

I favour the reduced appropriate test, eg lights (yes they are on !), brakes, steering, tyres.

Ken

[Entwood]

So who checks that "will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road" ?.

I have my old bike in the garage, not used for many many years, so I can now start her up and go for a spin without checking anything. Never mind the brakes are shot, and there's no headlamp, etc, etc.

I favour the reduced appropriate test, eg lights (yes they are on !), brakes, steering, tyres.

Ken

You COULD .... but having at least half a functioning brain cell ... you WON'T .. because you value your life, and the bike.

That, I think is the point, the "enthusiast" who has one of these machines, are exactly that.. "enthusiasts" who value the vehicles too much to risk them, themselves, and the general public. The figures quoted show how few incidents these vehicles are involved in.