LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-rel...ess-20120521a/
So... you can go have an MOT if you fancy one.. but you don't have too.Originally Posted by Dept of Transport
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-rel...ess-20120521a/
So... you can go have an MOT if you fancy one.. but you don't have too.
Note they still have to be roadworthy if you take them on the road, but it's just assumed that people driving these cars will actually want them to be roadworthy
Makes a lot of sense for the car that's only driven once a year or so.
just wonder why you'd WANT to get it MOT'd if you didn't need too.
good for mileage validity but at that age... not that important!
*shrugs* can be a cheap second pair of eyes perhaps if you've got a trusty garage.
One reason is that when you're out in a car, you're putting your life and that of any passenger (not to mention other road users and pedestrians) on the line. So, if you're reasonably responsible, the modest cost of an MoT is actually blooming good value for a pretty comprehensive check-up on basic condition, such as structural weaknesses, state of the brakes, etc.
Besides, there is still a requirement for vehicles to be roadworthy, so presumably, you could still be stopped by police, and potentially prosecuted if your vehicle, classic or not, isn't in roadworthy condition. Again, an MoT is a good way to avoid potentially far more expensive problems, be it fines or insurance hikes. Or both.
My bet is that anyone with a vehicle that qualifies for this is very likely to be an enthusiast, and very likely to see it that way anyway. After all, the MoT fee isn't exactly exorbitant, and the major worry for most people is the potential for large and immediate bills, or major transportation problems, if your vehicle fails. It's not so much the cost of the MoT, or the minimal hassle of getting it done, as the fear of the financial impact if the car you rely on for day-to-day use fails. And classic cars typically aren't day-to-day vehicles.
Some people pay PC World for a "PC Health Check" and you don't need to. A car has a much higher chance of killing people one way or another, so I can see why.
When I first saw this I was beginning to rage about safety (brakes...)
but then realised I doubt there probably aren't any pre 1960 cars that aren't lovingly cared for and restored.
We're talking Morris Minors and earlier here.
don't forget guys, the day after an MOT is can be irrelevent as all your bulbs could blow... your wipers' could fail on a dry day and you not even realise... and that's illegal.
so having someone check over a car that's 50 years old and then use it 9 months later for the 10th time..... thinking it's all fine isn't how it works anyway.
I'd not give someone £50 to tell me what could be wrong half an hour later.
and the £25 MOT places only do it to find fault.... so they'd not want you there anyway.
All true enough, and nothing's perfect, but there are a lot of conditions that develop over time, and that deteriorate from visible, to marked, to serious, to dangerous, over time. An MoT will not only tell you of things that are illegal now, but give you warning of many things that are approaching needing attention .... including warning of things that, if dealt with promptly, are minor, but left unattended, can result in much more serious damage.
I think this is an absurd idea. Personally I think we need more MOTs more often rather than the other way around.
6 month quick check MOTs at £20 a time. and a big £100 fine tooth combe check up every 2 years.
Butuz
People assume that garage queens care about their cars. They dont, they care about how their car looks. Huge difference.
Butuz and Abaxas.. I agree with you both on this.
If you CAN afford to keep it proper mint,... an MOT is a drop in the ocean
And a big fine tooth comber every two or three years.
To make it voluntary is sheer lazyness
The updated MOT test has become less appropriate. 1960s car owners don't have to worry about airbag warning lights!
The should have brought in a simpler test rather than scrapping them all together. Even if it wasn't compulsory or only needed every 2 years it would certainly help keep things in check.
The impact on the second hand market is going to be an interesting one. How much of a premium will people pay for an MOT and how many death traps will be sold? It's not like everyone has access to a lift when buying a car!
TBH I think this is pretty sensible. I had a quick think to see if there are any pre-1960 cars that exist in sufficient numbers to potentially still be driven about with inadequate maintenance by careless owners and still be expected to actually function as a car, and only came up with the Morris Minor (and possibly Traveller, I suppose). And even then it's highly unlikely.
One potential problem is that a car's age is defined by its shell, not (highly modified cars excepting) by its running gear. There are plenty of Minors, Ford Pops ect. that are tooling around sporting tuned Crossflows, and even Zetecs and the like. The vast majority will have had upgraded brakes and suspension at the same time but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a car could pass from the ownership of the enthusiast who built it into the hands of someone who just wants a fast, raw, cool looking car. But at the end of the day I dislike the idea that the government should pass enough laws to protect everyone from every posible eventuality, and as a result I am prepared to accept the tiny risk that one day I'll be mown down on the pavement by someone driving a dangerous classic car.
But on the other hand, I thought the recent proposal to extend the MOT period for all other cars from one year to two was complete madness- and I base that on my own experience. My daily driver is a crappy old '96 Ford Mondeo Mk1 diesel. As a driving machine it has very little to recommend it- it's yawningly slow, and although as a result of fundamentally good suspension design and a low-ish CofG it'll corner better than the later generation of tall wobbly cars like (as a prime example) the Peugeot 307, that's still accompanied by a fair bit of roll, not much steering feel, and nothing but understeer at the limit. However, it's comfortable, and you can get five people and a load of luggage into it quite easily- or a big load of junk for a trip to the tip, or 20 cases of wine and a buttload of beer etc. etc., and it'll still do 50mpg+ on a run. So I'm keeping it, because it keeps going, and although I could buy (say) a Mk3 Mondeo which is in most respects a much better car for not much more than a grand, I'm then at risk of expensive problems like injector faults and dual mass flywheel failures which just aren't an issue on the old tractor engine.
And so, while as a tightwad I bristle at paying 50 quid for an MOT, I'm glad I've had to have them, because the year before last a knackered front wishbone bush was diagnosed, and this year a leaky rear shock and a loose front ARB drop link. In both cases I elected to pay the garage the £100-150 they wanted to get it sorted, which is about 70% of the value of the car, but it means that each time I end up with a safe functioning car with a year's ticket.
TBH none of those jobs are beyond my capabilities as a mechanic but I work full time and don't have easy access to a ramp so it wouldn't be easy for me to get under the car on a regular basis to check for such faults. And of those three faults only the knackered wishbone was detectable from behind the wheel- and even then only as a very slight vibration on a poorly surfaced French A-Road, I never noticed it otherwise (and thought that it was an unbalanced wheel at the time). But they're all potentially dangerous in an extreme situation, or if they had been allowed to deteriorate further, so I'm glad the MOT man found them and fixed them. And with the number of quite recent cars I see driving around on terrible Chinese tyres that are completely bald on (usually) the outside edge I'm really glad that other drivers who are even less conscientious than me have to have their cars made sort of safe at least once a year!
I know that that doesn't have much to do with classic cars, sorry. I'm just bored and felt like rattling on a bit.
Sputnik (24-05-2012)
rattle away bud.. rattle away
They can always use the car inspection services of the AA, RAC etc.
The MOT has never been a guarantee of safety and it is stated (or used to be). The MOT testers are not always that good. While they should all be singing from the same hymn sheet they often try to right their own rules, Especially on older vehicles where there are exceptions for things like not displaying a chassis number or rear fog lights.
My van had 3 advisories on the MOT certificate when I bought it, One was for slight play in the left inner track rod. They were wrong, The steering columns pinch bolt had come loose and the previous owner had been driving it like that for at least 2 months after the MOT.
Last edited by Sputnik; 24-05-2012 at 10:52 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
