Own a pre-war classic? Well under new plans discussed in a meeting yesterday by Transport Minister, Mike Penning and members of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group, you may no longer need an annual MOT test.
After the meeting, Lord Montagu, who is Chairman of the group added: "This review is well overdue and I welcome it. I believe that any date of exemption should be a rolling one."
Conservative MP for East Yorkshire Greg Knight, who is the Parliamentary group chairman added: "Accidents involving historic vehicles are extremely rare and the majority of owners are meticulous in keeping their vehicles in good condition. Having to have an annual MOT test for a vehicle which may only travel 100 miles in a year is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle".
Minister Mike Penning said, "The MOT is important in helping to ensure that cars are safe for use on our roads. However, we need to be sure that the regulations we impose are having their intended effect. That is why I am going to look at whether there is a case for exempting older historic and classic vehicles from the MOT test. These vehicles are treasured by their owners who want to ensure they are well maintained, and in most cases they use them irregularly. I have asked my officials to look at the evidence on this issue and we will carry out a full consultation to allow interested groups to submit views".
If these older vehicles are exempted from the MOT test, it's obvious that owners will still be legally required to ensure that their cars are safe, roadworthy and in a proper condition to be on the road. Should this exception become law, the Minister has made it clear that it will not relate to historic vehicles that are used commercially.
uk.autoblog.com/2011/01/21/mot-tests-to-be-scrapped-for-pre-war-vehicles/
Last edited by: Tigger on Fri 21 Jan 11 at 15:07
|
This sounds far too sensible to get approved!
Perhaps they could re-introduce the rolling 25 year free tax threshold whilst they're at it - or there will be a big gap in the future classic car scene.
|
|
Yes please Tiger, if they did that my Volvo 360 would qualify. Nice.
|
Firstly, I'm not convinced it is a good idea, secondly how do you demonstrate to the satisfaction of your insurance company and to a judge if necessary thet "it's obvious that owners will still be legally required to ensure that their cars are safe, roadworthy and in a proper condition to be on the road"?
John
|
Perhaps a more sensible plan would be to allow pre war classics to submit to a 1960's style of MOT. By this, I mean a basic inspection, check of lights, wipers, steering, wheel bearings, and a basic brake function check, taking 15 minutes maximum, and costing £10 or £15.
|
|
The trouble is that some vehicles of yore simply don't have these things, and MOT testers might not have the knowledge to test things anyway. I was once almost refused an MOT for a machine with taper-roller wheel bearings - the chap took some convincing that they should not be rock-solid, and only relented when an old boy came around (his boss). All sorts of old things need understanding, and as time goes by (and new regs. are made) things will only get harder.
|
>>some vehicles of yore
The specific legal exclusions are well known and documented, that isn't a problem.
As for testers effectively over-testing some aspects of a particular vehicle type, that has been a problem since day one of the MOT. As my father had been in the trade since the war, we had a steady base of customers who valued a common sense approach, and his knowledge of what the cars were like when they were new.
Going back to the 70's and 80's, the MOT manual used to do a good line in common sense - there was a section about assessing corrosion which said would you be happy for you and your family to be travelling in this vehicle at speed?
That's the type of test which would be more appropriate for these vehicles - effectivley a second pair of eyes making sure nothing's dropping off, that there are split pins in castellated nuts and clevis pins, etc, etc. Nothing fancy.
|
>> how do you demonstrate to the satisfaction of your insurance company and to a
>> judge if necessary thet "it's obvious that owners will still be legally required to
>> ensure that their cars are safe, roadworthy and in a proper condition to be on
>> the road"?
If I understand you, it's easy. You make a statement that your vehicle is roadworthy. If it isn't, then (as now) you can be "done".
|
Speaking as an owner of a vintage car, a tentative ok, but some countries that exempt their old cars impose usage restrictions. Even the simple act of using it to go to the DIY shed on a Saturday is banned in some parts of the world.
|
Since the annual MOT, and the passing of it, is something of a cherished ritual amongst classic vehicle owners, I'm rather surprised at this proposal to pass up a guaranteed source of income. I suspect that more classic vehicles are regularly MOT'd than those which are simply old bangers.
Most of us who own classics are pretty meticulous about keeping our vehicles in good order, it's true; for one thing it maintains their value, and for another such vehicles normally have designed service and inspection intervals far shorter than would be acceptable today.
I'm tempted to agree with Slidingpillar; I suspect that this may be the thin end of a wedge which seeks to exclude us from day-to-day road use.
|
There are different degrees of classicness. The first post refers to pre-war cars, not to all historic vehicles covered by the 1972 cut-off point.
I have in the past often had a classic as my daily driver, including commuting, and I still do on the odd occasion. It would be nice to be exempt from the bother of MOTs, but I don't honestly think that would be in the spirit of this proposal's well-meaning intention.
There is or was a recent suggestion that all MOTs should switch to a 2-year basis. One compromise might be to apply a 2-year rule to all current, ie pre 1972, historic vehicles?
|
In the last edition of Practical Classics I think they were arguing to keep the annual MOT, they see it as a retrograde step to get rid or extend them on older cars...
I don't see why '72 should be the cut-off either... rolling 25 years if we are to go down that route...
Last edited by: hobby on Sat 22 Jan 11 at 13:36
|
Historic is pre 73 manufacture. Proposal was for MOT exemption pre-war, ie 1939 or older.
As it is not defined, 'classic' is a very broad church.
|
|
To describe something pre '73 as historic and something after that date not, is, to put it mildly silly... after all what is the difference between say a December '72 manufactured Maxi and a January '73 one? Absolutely nothing...
|
Did I say there was?
DVLC/Parliament define 'historic' thus, it's the vehicle class. Invented when the rolling 25 year exemption ceased rolling.
|
|
As initially conceived, the VED exemption was on a rolling 25-year basis. It finished in 1997. Any guesses as to whose idea that was? ;-)
|
>> Did I say there was?
Never said you did, just commenting that an arbitrary cut off date like that is silly, which it is...
|
I'm happy to have mine tested, but then my current tester is 60 and knows what he's looking at. I used to test it myself until the place I was reiief tester at closed.
Last year he actually put the old girl on the ramp but didn't bother with the brake rollers....I think he thought they'd be ripped out of the concrete !
I have another tester lined up for when he retires, the guy who does the bikes. Never had a fail or an advise there yet, even on the Velocette.
Not a lot to test on pre war, family saloons. Crazy to have to take an hour over it.
Ted
|
I'm sat on the fence with this.
There's some sensible comment above e.g. number cruncher and similar..and I do think the rolling 25 year exemption should be re-introduced for RFL...but...MOT as well, not so sure.
I am a pedant, I own a 42 year old car (1968 Triumph 2000 mk1 auto), I only do 300-500 miles a year in it. The last MOT gave me an advisory on the brake pipes, which surprised me, because I am fastidious with the thing (don't tell the wife). When my mechanic changed them, he admitted they were worse than he thought..(it's him that takes it to the MOT usually, after either a service/min service or check through).
At least the MOT is a fail safe for the basics and on my particular car, for example, there is no back up or dual system for failed brakes.
I think the reduced MOT is a good idea though.
I have though in the past had to step in to prevent the young lad assisting the MOT tester from breaking my indicator stalk off, trying to change the headlamps from dip to main beam...when I moved the carpet a bit and showed him the foot switch his face was a picture.
|
>>change the headlamps from dip to main beam...when I moved the carpet a bit and >>showed him the foot switch his face was a picture.
>>
Anyone know why this changed, I still think a floor switch for changing dipped to main beam headlights is a good idea.
|
>>Anyone know why this changed
Probably some EU regulation, like the reason we lost wing mirrors (they had to be adjustable from the driver's seat IIRC).
I had a MK3 Cortina with the windscreen washer and flick wipe switch down there. I thought that was sensible.
|
...Anyone know why this changed...
I'm not sure the switches were that reliable in use.
The floor by your left foot in an old car can be quite a hostile environment in turns of rust, damp, dirt - none of which are good news for electrical switches and connections.
|
>> ...Anyone know why this changed...
>>
>> >>
Possibly because cars became smaller inside and gearbox tunnels became larger. You need somewhere to rest your left foot that is not on the dip switch.
But more probably just fashion. Everything has to be re-invented every 10 years so that owners of older models feel uncomfortable and out of date and have to go out and buy new ones.
|
|
More likely convenience... trying to flash someone with a floor mounted switch is a nightmare... I suppose you'll all want windscreen wiper switches on the dash as well!
Last edited by: hobby on Sun 23 Jan 11 at 19:24
|
This is not a good idea.
As an MOT tester I can say, yes some classic cars are indeed very well looked after but some are not.
We test a lot of classics here and we see some very dangerous cars, for instance only the other day we had an Austin 7 in with very badly worn king pins which were ready to break. The owner had no mechanical skills and just enjoyed his vehicle but did not realise it was in such a sorry state.
What if an owner of a classic had not maintained the vehicle for 4 years and then sold the vehicle.
|
There were more deaths on the UKs roads in the 1930s than there are now.
Part of this was due to the comparative rubbishness of the cars.
Brakes as a minimum must be tested and found to be 'adequate' in my world.
|
As far as I know now, the government are looking into a non-MOT date of 1920 or earlier. It's in the latest newsletter from the FBHVC.
As for brakes - it's more the driver driving within what his/her car can do.
|
>> Own a pre-war classic? Well under new plans discussed in a meeting yesterday by Transport
>> Minister, Mike Penning and members of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group, you may
>> no longer need an annual MOT test.
>>
>> After the meeting, Lord Montagu, who is Chairman of the group added: "This review is
>> well overdue and I welcome it. I believe that any date of exemption should be
>> a rolling one."
>>
...
>> uk.autoblog.com/2011/01/21/mot-tests-to-be-scrapped-for-pre-war-vehicles/
>>
I get the impression this was a post lunch debate and Lord Montagu didn't have his ear trumpet turned up. Debating pre-war classic exemption from MOT's and he wants a rolling date of exemption. What part of pre-war is rolling ?
|
Free tax, and now no MOT requirement? - Tigger
