Pre 1960 cars to be exempt from MOT's from November

[disco_al]

So, the powers that be have announce that as of November, pre 1960 cars will be exempt from the annual MOT - as they are so few and far between.

Good or bad idea?

Personally, I think it's a bit of a bad idea, as the number of Series vehicles out there (as well as other classics, MGB's etc) that require major welding to the chassis etc can now be used without a test. Surely a better idea would have been a new MOT class, so that structure, brakes and lights could be tested, and only charge half the normal fee.

[Maverik]

The BBC news article:

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

[Landy'd Gentry]

How many of us have pre 1960's Land Rovers?

I have one, which, whilst not being lavished upon, is looked after. My wife thinks me taking on a mistress would be cheaper and allow more of my time to be spent with her, rather than tinkering with my 1958 Series II!

The caveat that still remains is that the vehicle still must be roadworthy. The MOT test only specifies that the vehicle is compliant at the time of the test and thus no guarentee that the vehicle is roadworthy after that.

So saving the odd £50 per year, is good. I still have to live with fuel economy that is close to bankrupcy! (HM Gov thus still gets £££'s in duty and tax!)

The only down side is now I can see those of less moral standing will try to sell a chassis number and reg for £££'s and the value of pre '60's car going up!

[mickeyw]

Now that is just completely ridiculous!!!!!!

"Owners of classic cars and motorbikes tend to be enthusiasts who maintain their vehicles well - they don't need to be told to look after them, they're out there in all weathers checking the condition of the engine, tyres and bodywork," he said.

This may be true for some, but by no means all.

I am not anti classic cars, or their owners, but an MOT only costs £40 at most places (if you pay full wack then you should find another test centre) The article makes big issue of the facts it's saving the motorists money. Classic cars can be insured pretty cheaply, and get free road tax (pre '72). What is the big hardship of finding another £40?

"The vehicles make up about 0.6% of the total number of licensed vehicles in Britain but are involved in just 0.03% of road casualties and accidents."

Well I can see that changing when some rusty old classic has brake failure having not seen a test centre for a few years!

[Daan]

" Accidents involving historic vehicles are extremely rare and the majority of owners are meticulous in keeping their vehicles in good condition".

By that explanation, you may as well bother not insuring it, making it complete: no tax, no Mot, no insurance. Or do away with a driving license? What the hell are these people thinking?

Daan

[Bowie69]

My grandmother has a 1953 Morris split screen traveller, and has had it for 40 years, in no way shape or form is she able to maintain it.

Personally I don't think it a good idea, a little too soon if you ask me.

[Chicken Drumstick]

(as well as other classics, MGB's etc) that require major welding to the chassis etc can now be used without a test.

Unlikely as the MGB didn't come out until 1962.....

[disco_al]

Unlikely as the MGB didn't come out until 1962.....

fair point, but you get the idea. old vw beetles etc would have been a better example

[Landy'd Gentry]

My grandmother has a 1953 Morris split screen traveller, and has had it for 40 years, in no way shape or form is she able to maintain it.

Agreed, your grandmother may not be able to maintain her vehicle herself, but I would hazard a guess she pays a garage to do just that.

I refer to my earlier point that an MOT certificate only states the vehicle met the criteria of the test at the time of the test. How many of the vehicles then subsequently fail the following year, unless they are maintained?

"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road."

so rather than an annual check, those of use who own such vehicles pre 1960 wil have to make sure they are roadworthy.

Would you drive a vehicle knowing the brakes are dodgy, light(s) not working?

If, godforbid a pre 1960 vehicle is involved in a road traffic collision, then the onus to prove the colliision wasn't caued by an unsafe vehicle falls on the owner.

[Chicken Drumstick]

fair point, but you get the idea. old vw beetles etc would have been a better example

lol

Yeah I know what you were meaning. Although in a way I think it highlights just how few pre 60's cars there probably are on the road. And out of the ones that are, a large proportion will be highly polished show cars only rolled out during the summer.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Agreed, your grandmother may not be able to maintain her vehicle herself, but I would hazard a guess she pays a garage to do just that.

I refer to my earlier point that an MOT certificate only states the vehicle met the criteria of the test at the time of the test. How many of the vehicles then subsequently fail the following year, unless they are maintained?

"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road."

so rather than an annual check, those of use who own such vehicles pre 1960 wil have to make sure they are roadworthy.

Would you drive a vehicle knowing the brakes are dodgy, light(s) not working?

If, godforbid a pre 1960 vehicle is involved in a road traffic collision, then the onus to prove the colliision wasn't caued by an unsafe vehicle falls on the owner.

Exactly. The only difference is you won't any longer be legally required to pay for someone to tell you it's ok once a year. But it still needs to be kept in order.

And I suspect there are quite a few people who'd still pay for an annual safety inspection, regardless of if its legally required or not.

[Bowie69]

If my grandmother could remember to book her car into a garage I am sure it would get done, it's the remembering to do it that's the issue

I understand and do agree with your point entirely, vehicles should not be driven on the road in an unroadworthy state, and MOT or not the onus is of course on the driver of the vehicle

[nickwilliams]

I suspect that this has a lot more to do with trying to simplify the MOT test than it does with any real desire to reduce costs for historic car owners, no matter what spin the government might want to put on it.

One consequence will, I am sure, be to increase the pressure brought to bear on people who mix and match parts from different vehicles to make a working whole. Once the details are published I would not be at all surprised to find that the exemption only applies to a vehicle which matches the manufacturer's original specification.

Looking even further into my crystal ball, the next logical step is to align the exemption from MOT with the exemption from Road Fund License (a.k.a. road tax), at which point all those people who have coil spring 'series' vehicles (etc.) will suddenly find they are no longer exempt from road tax.

Nick.

[western]

might be wrong here, can't see that there is anything to prevent a pre 1960 vehicle owner putting their vehicle through a MOT test once a year,

unless the MOT computer system won't except the vehicles details, the reg & existing/last MOT certificate details info will still be on the system.

[Phil Hancock]

If the computor wont accept it whats to stop the tester if he knows his stuff from running a teast off line and issuing on garage/test center headed paper a 'certificate' to say its been examined and all is fine. If there was then an accident any court should be pleased that all reasonable effort had been taken.

[Guest]

My Series 1 (1952) Just sailed through it's test after four years off the road, however it really wasn't that difficult as there is really not that much on to test:

No seat belts

No Indicators

Fold down windscreen (one wiper)

emission except

So as long as the chassis is in solid order, it stops ( to a 1952 standard) and and does not appear to be leaking that much oil then bingo, as above most 'bangers' have now gone to the great scrap heap in the sky, clearly there is the odd one around but not many Valhalla Viva's left, and LR is probably amongst that exception where a S1 is still a daily driver Mini being the other. Saying that I can understand the low accident numbers also, driving the S1 makes you really concentrate and think about what you are doing!! no switching off and relaxing!!

Jason.

[CwazyWabbit]

......driving the S1 makes you really concentrate and think about what you are doing!! no switching off and relaxing!!

Jason.

Good arguement for banning all the creature comforts of modern cars! you know, new fangled things like synchros ....

[pat_pending]

Not sure if this is a good idea or not.

I certainly doubt the gov't are doing it to "save the motorist money" as even at full price an MOT is hardly anyones biggest motoring cost, and most places do cheap MOTs anyway (we're doing them for £30). A lot of the test doesn't apply to older cars, but it's still an independent inspection of basic safety.

I think Nick is probably right and it's part of a bigger plan.

[g&t]

I agree with those who are concerned about the lack of maintainence but would throw the following into the pot of opinion. Up until 2005 my hobby was the ownership & showing of WW2 military trucks & any goods vehicle that is (a) manufactured prior to 1st January 1960 (b) weighs in excess of 3500kg © is used unladen (d) is not used for hire/reward has been exempt from the MOT for many years. Statistics show that this group of vehicles have a very low incidence of accidents, which is reflected in very moderate insurance premiums.

[reads90]

I take it will be the same sort of thing as here in Queensland.

My 110 or 90 never need a MOT (roadworthy) unless I sell them

I have the 90 here for 7 years and only had a MOT when it got into the country

But if you are in an accident and the car was unsafe then they will throw the book at you. Also if they stop you on the road and the car is unsafe.

But there again we don't have the rust here in Qld and that is what causes most of the problem in the Mot

(null)

[Exmoor Beast]

Bloody stupid idea.

We all hate MOT time but its one legal requirement that is there for a good reason.

I can't think of a single reason to waste Government time in dreaming up the idea of scrapping it for pre '60 cars. Every civil servant that has gone along with this should be lined up and shot (Clarksons Rule). This sort of Government tinkering should be put to one side until the NHS, Forces and Police are sorted out properly*.

Humpf

Will

*(Gov time spent increasing the free vehicle excise duty cut-off to 1990 will be tolerated)

[sean f]

If the computor wont accept it whats to stop the tester if he knows his stuff from running a teast off line and issuing on garage/test center headed paper a 'certificate' to say its been examined and all is fine. If there was then an accident any court should be pleased that all reasonable effort had been taken.

I quite like this idea and I can easily see why the insurance companies would want something similar. It just proves a car HAS had basic maintenace at least, most "enthusisasts" cars would sale through. As mentioned it would be a good place to start from if you end up in court for an accident blamed on an unroadworthy vehicle.

True most cars this age are looked after and not driven much anyway but many are stood up for extended periods of time then driven. I used to go through several wheel cylinders a year on my S1 due to off road use then standing up the vehicle for a couple of months, often this was only picked up at the MOT or when I did pre MOT checks, it was difficult to tell on the road as the drums normally rusted up so it pulled all over the place on braking the first few times even when everything was good.

With out some form of basic test a vehicle that has been in a hedge for 10 years could be insured and driven straight on the road (it was fine when I drove it last time gov), true the driver might get hammered for an unroadworthy vehicle but that doesn't help the person they crash into.

Depending on how the statistics are done these vehicles are always going to have low accident rates. If it is accidents per registered or taxed vehicle then just about all of them are going to be doing far less than average miles. Most are only going to get used in good weather for Sunday drives, going to shows etc not used for commuting through heavy traffic, and the drivers are normally more than averagely cautious not to damage there shiny classic car, although possible less of the shiny for a S1!.

[pat_pending]

Thinking about this, what will happen to all the old hybrids, cut down Range Rover chassis and a series 1 body? On the face of it pre 1960.

I MOT'd a heavily modded challenge truck that wore a series 1 reg. I think it was on a 90 chassis, 300 tdi engine, pre 1960 on the reg.

Forget the rest of the legalities, from an MOT point of view, these things are now exempt.

As we know many vehicles get built and never get an IVA, but at least they get an MOT.

I think this change is aimed at classic cars and nobody understands what goes on in the world of Land Rover mods.

Expect the price of series 1 wrecks to go up

[Disco-Ron]

Crazy idea.......... i have a 1929 vintage car, i'm more than happy that someone else runs an eye over it once a yr..... and in reality thats all the happens..... no seatbelts.... no indicators, no wipers... (the windscreen folds)..... no brake lights..... the list of what i don;t have is endless....

BUT, i have a mate building an austin 7 hybrid, with a reliant robin engine, a dn god knows what other bits will find their way onto it........... to not have some sort of test is crazy..... people can basically get a car thats been in a barn for years out and drive it, if they reckon its road worthy..... at least the mot means that even if only on that day, at least the vehicel was fit for the road at that time!!!!

I'll still be taking my car for the test regardless..!

[Chicken Drumstick]

Crazy idea.......... i have a 1929 vintage car, i'm more than happy that someone else runs an eye over it once a yr..... and in reality thats all the happens..... no seatbelts.... no indicators, no wipers... (the windscreen folds)..... no brake lights..... the list of what i don;t have is endless....

So what you're saying is, unless legally forced to have your car inspected you wouldn't. Isn't that pretty crazy that you'd happily not care?

BUT, i have a mate building an austin 7 hybrid, with a reliant robin engine, a dn god knows what other bits will find their way onto it........... to not have some sort of test is crazy.....

To be legal it will still need to meet the criteria to retain it's original ID. If it does, then no it might not need an MoT either - it will still need to be legal though. If it shouldn't be retaining its ID then an MoT is neither here nor there.

people can basically get a car thats been in a barn for years out and drive it, if they reckon its road worthy.....

But no more than jumping into ANY car even a 6 month old one and driving it on the road. Does nobody in this day and age accept any responsibility for their own actions?