The end for the MOT for vehicles of historic interest

[Series1 Stu]

I've recently been talking to the DVLA about registering my car upon completion of the restoration.

The process was described to me in a very clear and concise way that you might not first appreciate from simply reading the form (E55, I think). However, the first step in the process is to obtain an MOT, which is understandable.

My question is, if the car is no longer required to have an MOT, then how does this affect the process? Presumably some sort of assessment will be required.

Regards

[AussieEtype]

I am surprised that you lot are not jumping for joy at the thought of of not having to do MOTs. Where I live we did away with them many years ago and it was the best thing that happened. If you are worried about the safety of your vehicle then you can still get them checked over by someone competent.

The argument about safety and roadworthyness of vehicles does come up from time to time. We have a Motor Safety Faculty in one of our major Universities and they have done a lot of research on this. Some states here still do annual MOTs and the University did some work on comparing accidents where vehicle safety or vehicle failures were identified as the cause of accidents. They found that statistically the rate of accidents were no different in jurisdictions that had MOTs and those that didn't.

This goes against a bit of logic as they expected the MOT areas to be safer, so they investigated further. What they found was that owners of vehicles in non MOT areas tended to take more interest in the maintenance of their vehicles and get repairs done when the defect was identified. Of course there were some that did nothing and drove unsafe vehicles.

They found that in MOT areas owners worried less about their vehicles and tended to rely on the MOT inspector to tell them what needed fixed so some defects would be carried for a long time before inspection but would ultimately get fixed.

So the slackos not looking after their vehicles in non MOT areas resulted in accidents going up but was countered by those being fixed straight away. In the MOT areas defects were being allowed to carry over to the next MOT and being repaired then resulting in accidents but this was being countered by faulty vehicles being picked up at MOT before the were so unsafe to cause an accident.

So overall the MOTs do not improve vehicle roadworthyness but for very different reasons.

Garry

[Hugo]

Hmmm. This sounds like the sort of theoretical claptrap that only a university study could come up with. I think the answer more likely is that mechanical failures virtually never cause accidents. The only mechanical problems I have ever experienced on the road relate to the running of the vehicle (or lack thereof) - I've never in my entire life had a mechanical issue that would or could cause an accident. An MoT test, on the other hand, gives no assurance that the vehicle is safe to drive - merely that certain items picked out by the government comply with the regulations.
I am not, however, arguing in favour of abolishing MoT's for classic cars - it can't hurt, can it.

[Series1 Stu]

I think we're all singing from the same hymn sheet here. We all want to ensure that our cars are roadworthy and whichever means we use to achieve it is secondary. This is because we are car enthusiasts but, unfortunately, not everyone is and that is why such things as MOT tests exist. I think the reason for classic car exemption is that the owner usually knows more about the car than a vehicle tester is likely to. Especially as technology progresses.

When I lived on the Isle of Man, I once had someone run into the back of me at a roundabout. The reason for this was a sudden brake pipe burst due to corrosion. Had there been any MOT requirement then this should have been picked up and corrected before an accident happened. Fortunately, no one was hurt and there was no real damage caused but it could have been a lot worse.

Regards

[AussieEtype]

This sounds like the sort of theoretical claptrap that only a university study could come up with. I think the answer more likely is that mechanical failures virtually never cause accidents.

Well I disagree http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/re ... ort-safety

If, as you say mechanical failures virtually never cause accidents then there is no point in having MOTs - there is no evidence that they do anything as evidenced by the myriad of other jurisdictions that do not do them and do not have issues with large numbers of unroadworthy vehicles on the road.

Garry

[Hugo]

I couldn't find anything on this site that relates to what we were discussing - can you help me out?

[Hugo]

I think we're all singing from the same hymn sheet here. We all want to ensure that our cars are roadworthy and whichever means we use to achieve it is secondary. This is because we are car enthusiasts but, unfortunately, not everyone is and that is why such things as MOT tests exist. I think the reason for classic car exemption is that the owner usually knows more about the car than a vehicle tester is likely to. Especially as technology progresses.

When I lived on the Isle of Man, I once had someone run into the back of me at a roundabout. The reason for this was a sudden brake pipe burst due to corrosion. Had there been any MOT requirement then this should have been picked up and corrected before an accident happened. Fortunately, no one was hurt and there was no real damage caused but it could have been a lot worse.

Regards

Metal brake pipes don't 'burst'. Any failure begins as a pin-hole, with a gradual loss of pedal pressure which should be apparent to any half-wit in the driving seat. And only the VISIBLE brake pipes are checked at the MoT. When I worked in a garage way back last century we had a Beetle in for MoT, which passed - next day the brakes failed - a hidden brake pipe had done exactly that.
You have to recognise also that the MoT test verifies that the vehicle complies with the regulations, not that it is safe. A friend of mine was being overseen by a V.I. (as it then was) inspector while he carried out an MoT test. This was just after the windscreen became part of the test. There was a small crack or a stone-chip in the windscreen, and my friend sought the inspector's advice as to whether he should pass it or fail it, since it was just inside the windscreen wiper swept area. The Man from the Ministry advised him to fit a smaller wiper blade so it would then lie outside the swept area.
Safety? When did that ever have anything to do with it?
I remember when the MoT test was introduced, in 1963 or thereabouts - it would be interesting to note whether the accident rate subsequently underwent an immediate reduction.

[cactusman]

As Hugo says, an MOT simply means that the vehicle complies with the road worthiness regs at the time it is tested. Nothing to stop a ball joint letting go ten mins down the road.

It is true that very few accidents are down to vehicle failure although it is not unknown. I do recall chatting briefly to a bloke in London standing looking forlorn next to his old mini that had argued with a bollard. He lost control approaching traffic lights when the front o/s suspension tore out due to rust combined with a pot hole! No damage to the chap but the car was knackered.

One thing the tester should be looking for is corrosion in critical places. For many of us getting under the car to look at suspension mounting points is going to be difficult. Corrosion can lead to sudden failure. While I cannot find any stats I have certainly read that the test was introduced to drive excessively rusty old heaps of the road....the original test applied after ten years by which time corrosion and poor maintenance could and did mean death traps were driving about.

Incidentally while metal brake pipes don't burst the same cannot be said of flexible rubber ones. Brothers MG had one fail when he stamped on the brake at the MOT test

[AussieEtype]

I couldn't find anything on this site that relates to what we were discussing - can you help me out?

You flippantly said that this sounds like the sort of theoretical claptrap that only a university study could come up with.

If you look at the link which describes the role of the organisation you will see that its work it is nothing like theoretical claptrap that only a university study could come up with.

[Hugo]

I wasn't talking about its work - rather the conclusions it has drawn. I frequently detect an inability to distinguish between cause and effect in such studies - because A happens then B happens, A must have caused B - that type of thing.

[chrisfell]

While I wouldn't have used the same language others have used, I share a scepticism of surveys that fail to prove an effect is due to a claimed cause.

How about some facts. In 1966 8,000 people died on British roads. In 1967 the first of many rules and regulations were introduced which were designed to reduce this appalling death toll. These included the MOT test for 3 year old cars, and front seat seat belts in all new cars. Despite a massive increase in the number of cars on the roads deaths in the roads started falling, to its current (and consistent) level of 1,700 - 1,800.

How much of this is due to the MOT? Now that is a potential subject for a much more detailed analysis than has been done to date. Will the loss of a compulsory MOT affect the roadworthiness of 40+ year old cars? Undoubtedly, yes, as there will be more than one owner of an older car who will continue to drive a car that should have been repaired or scrapped. It is, unfortunately, human nature.

Did the government survey justify the decision? No! In all questions the survey results preferred NOT to reduce the MOT requirement. It appears the decision was not based on the survey but for some other reason. As already mentioned, I'm a sceptic. I suspect an ulterior motive, one which we, as users of older, less efficient cars will one day learn about to our cost.

[Hugo]

I've always understood that about 2% of accidents are caused by mehcanical failure. No idea where I got that from. But then you have to know how you are defining 'accidents'.
You won't be surprised to hear that I am sceptical - nay, cycnical - about government statistics, and indeed about "research has shown" studies which support them. Blair was the master of the black art of making statistics prove what he wanted to prove. I distinctly remember him spouting about how 'safety' cameras had reduced the number of 'KSI' (killed and seriously injured) on the roads. Closer inspection revealed that they had achieved this commendable result by re-classifying a couple of injuries (consussion, and a dislocated thumb to be precise) so they no longer counted as 'serious injuries' and were therefore no included in the lates KSI figures, thereby proving that 'safety cameras' save lives.
Blair the miracle-worker also lifted millions of children out of 'child-poverty'. He did this by the simple expedient of re-defining 'poverty'.
So I think we are wise to be worried about the government's motives in all this.
By the way, did you hear about the statistician who drowned in a lake where the average depth was two feet?

[cactusman]

As any scientist will tell you it is extremely difficult (impossible) to prove a negative. My own view is that the MOT does have a positive effect on road safety and its demise for older cars is a retrograde step. As an aside watching the new last eve the article on the horrendous M5 crash on Saturday...the police spokesman said that an active line of enquiry related to mechanical failure, presumably of the lorry....at some point an mot exempt vehicle will suffer a catastrophic failure causing an accident and injury/death. At that point we can expect trouble and restrictions. Might be ten years away or might be next year.....

[christopher storey]

About 15 years ago, I was involved in a case where a 38 tonne Renault crossed the carriageway of the M1 causing fatal injuries. The proximate cause of the accident was the pulling out of the steering column from a joint which should have had an interference bolt ( like an E type ) but didn't. The tractor unit had been MOT tested two days before, but this steering connection had not been examined because to do so would have necessitated the tilting of the cab, and the DOT classes this as dismantling, which is prohibited for the purposes of the test. MOT certificates, particularly for that most lethal vehiclethe LGV, are not worth the paper they are written on

[Series1 Stu]

Metal brake pipes don't 'burst'. Any failure begins as a pin-hole, with a gradual loss of pedal pressure which should be apparent to any half-wit in the driving seat.

Sorry Hugo, this steel pipe split under the braking pressure due to reduced wall thickness caused by corrosion. The driver following me had done so for a couple of miles but it was only when he had to brake heavily that the pipe let go. The pipe had the classic, curled out, longitudinal split usually found in such instances. After the bump there was brake fluid running out of the pipe resulting in a fairly large pool under the car. The pipe was highly visible from underneath the car and, if MOT's had been required, should have been spotted.

I agree the driver was a half wit for not having his car properly maintained though.

Regards

[Hugo]

Ok, if you say so - but I don't think that's the normal pattern, which is that when the steel corrodes it leaves a pitted surface, and eventually one of the pits turns into a pin-hole. It's all academic, of course, except that a pin-hole will not normally lead to a sudden brake failure. I think steel brake pipes are a stupid idea, especially those horrible green-coated things - they can appear like new and give a false sense of security, but if there's an area where the coating has been scratched or rubbed through it can be disastrous.
I only use Kunifer pipes. Fit'n'forget.

[Bob Falfa]

There is nothing the Eurocrats would love more than to get all these classic cars off the road and have us all driving around in indentikit Euro-boxes.

What evidence do you have for this??

[Bob Falfa]

Indeed Andrew....one wonders if it is the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge. I guess only time and incompetent politicians will tell..Equally the classic car industry is apparently worth several billion pounds and they seem ever more popular at shows and charity fund raising events. It would seem folly to ban them...and some classic car owners have friends in high places so there is hope...

I for one will continue to have mine voluntarily tested....probably one per year....they only cover about 1000 miles annually. I'd like to think I look after and maintain mine in good road worthy condition. Both mine pass each year. Never the less I would always want an independent engineer to check and see if I have missed something. I would hope that others will do similar...

But it's getting harder and harder to find mechanics and engineers who are experienced enough to know that older wheel bearings aren't as tight as new ones, and bits of them are, yes, sharp.

I recently had a Morris Minor that failed the MOT, due to the leather strap that secured the rear seat squab not being safe. I explained that this was an original factory fitting, but the young(ish) tester didn't want to know, and still issued a fail!

In the same way we can't get nurses, doctors, and plumbers, we're short of classic car mechanics too!

[timhum]

There is nothing the Eurocrats would love more than to get all these classic cars off the road and have us all driving around in indentikit Euro-boxes.

What evidence do you have for this??

Bob,
See my question posted on the 14th and the reply from Hugo.
Tim

[mark10337]

and how will we track the number of vehicles of type X still on the road if there is no MOT (and perhaps as a consequence no SORN) requirement.