The 'E' Type Forum

Having added my two pence worth on the proposal to exempt vehicles over 40 years old from the annual road worthiness test here in the UK...the dreaded MOT.... I had an e-mail today announcing the government's decision. For what it is worth I was against the idea.

However they have decided not to take my view. Looks like legislation will be introduced as soon as possible and the requirement for an MOT for vehicles that are 40 or more years old will cease on 20th May 2018 or some time there after.

Full details are here..
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

Bad move in my opinion but doubtless others will take a different view...

I agree with you. I have never failed to get a car to pass an current mot because of the way it was built. The only issue has been with emissions but that can be overcome by the examiner. I would suggest that a 1973 XJ12 ( which I own ) which is capable of modern day speeds and is a large lump of a car should be inspected to ensure that it is safe to use. We all know this is the sensible and safe way to go. I have to conclude therefore, that the British Government have other longer term plans, which I can see developing along the lines, of "because the car is non compliant with UK testing it cannot be used on the road' Perhaps I am being cynical but I cannot see the need to exempt historic cars. When you don't pay road tax, and you don't have to MOT then why should the greenies feel you are a paid up member of the motoring public. It will follow that there is no place for historic cars on the road. Quite worrying in my view.

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...

cactusman wrote: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...

Indeed, 4 eyes are better than 2. I don't see the point of dropping the MOT. Perhaps increasing the interval - Switzerland is every 5 years, which is too long. Every 3rd year would be ok for most cases, but completely dropping the MOT just doesn't make sense to me.

Madness! I have seen Veteran cars that should not be on the road. An E Type that is badly maintained could be lethal. Not thought about but one does wonder what the end game is.

Am i missing something here....vehicles pre 1960 are already exempt from mot,s so moveing the date just brings it in line with the road tax rules.........yes there will be classics that will be un roadworthy.....but there are far more dangerous uninsured/untaxed vehicles out there...
Out of interest to show how good most mot tests are a friend took the S2 ots for mot last week.... the mot had an advisory that the steering was a bit stiff.....got it up on my ramp and both steering rack mounts had parted...only the safety bolts holding the rack on.
Last month the wife took here Mercedes SLK for mot all passed.....the next week took it to Mercedes for a service.....needed 2 new front tyres...both worn down to the canvas on the inside edge..he main surface had plenty of tread

Presumably a pretty useless MOT station... I am sure we all have a view on the merits or otherwise of the test and there are bounds to be incompetent or even fraudulent testers out there as there are rogues in all walks of life. In the round though an independent check seems a sensible idea....the mot was brought in to drive rusty and badly maintained cars off the road in the first place.

Worth noting that we are following an EU directive exempting vehicles over 30 years old from road worthiness testing as I understand. We have flexibility over the cut off date but we cannot ignore the directive...Ironic really as we are now leaving the EU....funny old world...

A friend of mine has a pre 1960 Minor which does not require an MOT.

He tells me that his insurance company are reluctant to insure him or will increase the premium if he does not have it MOT'd.

Paul

andrewh wrote:I agree with you. I have never failed to get a car to pass an current mot because of the way it was built. The only issue has been with emissions but that can be overcome by the examiner. ...

....... "because the car is non compliant with UK testing it cannot be used on the road' .......

1) I didn't think emissions regs applied to older cars? None of mine ever get tested.

2) You cynicism is fully justified in my view. 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. These people see classic cars as expressions of individuality, which of course is 'verboten' (they actually did say that - not the 'verboten' part - that was mine!). This move will lend weight to their argument - "don't pass saftey inspections; don't pay road tax...pollute the environment - should be banned" .
What legitimate reason could there possibly be for exempting classic cars from these requirements? Ok, given that mechanical faults only account for about two per-cent of accidents anyway, and given that the contribution of classic cars to that statistic is immeasurably small, you could argue that doing away with the annual test will have no measurable impact on road safety. But that is not an argument for abolishing it.
We live in dark times.
Incidentally, Florida has no annual inspection at all. Good old Dixie!

Well when I refer to emissions, it was at the margin of date when emissions checks are required. I had a 93 Range Rover that was required to have an emissions check. However, it had been imported from Saudi Arabia and had not been fitted with a Catalytic Converter so would never pass the required check. I was able, it took me 3 efforts and speaking with VOSA ( ?) to get him to override the requirement on his computer. And of course none of my other older cars ever go near the test ( emissions that is) . I think the emissions will be the item that brings our enjoyment to a stop. Mind you, did anyone see the Jaguar Heritage Future proof Electric E type? They may have a point, but then it will drip too much oil no doubt to be allowed.

All will be fine until the first fatality involving an un-road-worthy classic car.

If the government is banking on that, they could be in for a long wait! The government goes on perceptions and presentation, not hard facts like accidents. All they need to show is that old cars are 'dangerous' because they don't comply with modern safety standards. Whether or not there are any actual accidents is pretty much irrelevant.

I am far less pessimistic than most people. There are a number of reasons for this move, possibly the most important being that with more vehicles on the road than ever, and more particularly with the proportion of them over 3 years old being higher than ever because of greater longevity of vehicles, the pressure on vehicle testing stations has become intense. I regard this move as a step in trying to match the testing facilities to the vehicles in use

The other point is this : as is revealed by many of the posts on this thread, the aggregate mileage covered by these historic vehicles in most years is minimal . Thus the "exposure to danger" is commensurately limited . That is also influenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of these cars are not "old bangers" but are enthisiasts' cars which on the whole are well maintained. These facts are borne out by the statistics which the FHBVC compiled which showed, mercifully, a minimal accident rate involving vehicles over 40 years old . That having been said, I welcome a skilled eye periodically looking at the vehicle, but I welcome also the lack of formality which is proposed, so that I can take my cars to my chosen specialist a considerable distance away rather than being bound under present rules to driving without MOT only to the nearest vehicle testing station

Is there such a rule (nearest testing station only?)

I will watch with interest on the insurance companies action.
I would think a clause in the event of an accident the car should be in a roadworthy condition and that's some get out clause, I will continue to have mine mot,d

Hugo wrote:

andrewh wrote:I agree with you. I have never failed to get a car to pass an current mot because of the way it was built. The only issue has been with emissions but that can be overcome by the examiner. ...

....... "because the car is non compliant with UK testing it cannot be used on the road' .......

1) I didn't think emissions regs applied to older cars? None of mine ever get tested.

2) You cynicism is fully justified in my view. 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. These people see classic cars as expressions of individuality, which of course is 'verboten' (they actually did say that - not the 'verboten' part - that was mine!). This move will lend weight to their argument - "don't pass saftey inspections; don't pay road tax...pollute the environment - should be banned" .
What legitimate reason could there possibly be for exempting classic cars from these requirements? Ok, given that mechanical faults only account for about two per-cent of accidents anyway, and given that the contribution of classic cars to that statistic is immeasurably small, you could argue that doing away with the annual test will have no measurable impact on road safety. But that is not an argument for abolishing it.
We live in dark times.
Incidentally, Florida has no annual inspection at all. Good old Dixie!

I'm sorry Hugo butwWhat a load of negative hogwash. Your world may be dark , mine certainly isn't

Tim

jonhall88 wrote:I will watch with interest on the insurance companies action.
I would think a clause in the event of an accident the car should be in a roadworthy condition and that's some get out clause, I will continue to have mine mot,d

Insurers are obliged to pay out. If, however, you have an accident caused by, for example, faulty brakes, and if that fault would have caused the car to fail an MoT test, they may sue you to get their money back. I've never heard of it actually happening though. If, on the other hand, you have an accident caused purely by your bad driving, they cannot then sue you if they find a mechanical fault which did not contribute to the accident. Or rather, they can sue you but would be unlikely to succeed.

timhum wrote: I'm sorry Hugo butwWhat a load of negative hogwash. Your world may be dark , mine certainly isn't. Tim

On what do you base your optimism? You dismiss my opinion without stating why.

christopher storey wrote: ...with the proportion of them over 3 years old being higher than ever because of greater longevity of vehicles, the pressure on vehicle testing stations has become intense. I regard this move as a step in trying to match the testing facilities to the vehicles in use .....

I am not aware of any pressure on MoT testing stations. I can always get an appointment within a day or two.
With commercial vehicles, however, it is a very different story, because the regime is entirely operated by the government instead of the private sector; It is literally impossible to book an MoT test with the DVSA. They have no appointments available anywhere in the country for the next twelve months, and none after then either as their system won't accept them. There were couple of slots in Scotland last time I looked, but I'm damned if I'm doing a thousand mile round trip in a coach just to get an MoT. The testing stations, meanwhile, sit empty, so the government can say they are under-utilised and sell them off.
There is now a system of using 'out-stations' - private facilities visited by the government tester. Except there aren't enough testers. One station near me only carries out tests on a Tuesday - the remaining six days a week it sits empty. They are booked up till next year. I currently have one vehicle running without an MoT. If the government can't provide the service it's not my problem as far as I'm concerned.
And people wonder why I'm cynical about the government.

Hugo,
Exactly, you state a series of opinions with no facts, for example which Eurocrats have said they the want to get all classic cars off the road and have us driving around in identikit euro boxes?
My optimism is a characteristic that I enjoy, what could be better than owning and driving an E-type
Tim